Chapter 8

Chapter 8

Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?

The Author in Greco-Roman Letter Writing

E. Randolph Richards

Scholars today discuss whether the letters in the New Testament bearing Paul's name were in fact written by Paul. Actually, by the word "written" they mean "authored," not who actually penned the words onto paper.1 We are discussing whether Paul was really the author of all the letters bearing his name in the New Testament or if some of them were forgeries.2 The four so-called Hauptbriefe (chief letters),3 Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, and Galatians, are considered so "Pauline" that few have ever questioned them.4 Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians are widely viewed as from the pen of Paul.5 Second Thessalonians and often Colossians remain suspect for some but are accepted by many Pauline scholars as genuine.

Ephesians is commonly rejected as Pauline for at least three reasons.6 The letter is very general, addressing no issues seemingly specific to Ephesus,7 and lacks any words of greeting. Yet, according to Acts, Paul had his longest and perhaps most fruitful ministry in Ephesus. Second, the style of the letter has been called "un-Pauline." Last, Ephesians is strikingly similar to Colossians, even verbatim in one place. Clearly, it is argued, such reuse of material is the fingerprint of a forger. For nearly a hundred years, it has been argued that a "later disciple" of Paul wrote Ephesians as a general introduction to a collection of Paul's letters.8

While the authenticity of Ephesians is debated, the majority9 of scholars agree in pronouncing the so-called "Pastoral Letters," 1–2 Timothy and Titus, as inauthentic, or to use a more pejorative (but accurate) term, forgeries.10 These three letters are seriously doubted as Pauline, even by more conservative scholars such as Bruce Metzger and I. Howard Marshall. Again, three reasons commonly appear. These letters are perceived as having a more formal "tone." Second, the theology is accused of being "rather pedestrian."11 For example, these letters commend a seemingly more ecclesiastical rather than pneumatic form of leadership and appeal more to "traditions" than to apostolic authority. Last, the "writing style" of the Pastorals is considered non-Pauline.

As we examine the arguments, we quickly note that the issue of "writing style" was the initial as well as formative element. A "more formal" tone is scarcely a definitive argument. Any of us would allow for a change in tone in our own writings over a span of 15 years, a change in status from a free-ranging missionary (from enjoying the protections of Rome and expecting soon his new king, Christ, to appear) to a prisoner, expecting his own imminent demise. Such could also easily explain why Paul would think a shift was needed in how leadership/authority was handled. It could even explain a shift in theology.12 Ultimately, it is the issue of writing style that precipitated and still sustains the arguments against the authenticity of the Pastoral Letters.13

Unquestionably, the Pastoral Letters have a vocabulary not common to the other Pauline Letters. Here's the tricky step. In today's modern world where I actually pen (or type) my own books and articles, if you see unusual vocabulary and a shift in writing style from my other writings, you should be suspicious of plagiarism or forgery. This brings up the question of how "authorship" today differs from ancient authorship.

Modern Western Authorship

Initially we might wonder how authorship could differ. After all, writing is writing. Scholars of modern literature pointed out how we were reading our authorship model backward.14

The Birth of the Modern Author

In a movement cleverly called the Death of the Author,15 scholars in the field of literary theory argue writing was collaborative until the 1600s. What drove the need to distinguish one particular person as the "author" were practical matters, largely political and economic. For example, a king needed to know whom to arrest for the newly printed slanderous pamphlet against his reign.16 As is often the case, though, it wasn't politics but money that actually sealed the deal.

Publishing Houses: The primary drive likely came from the newly emerging publishing business, courtesy of Gutenberg.17 Publishers needed to designate this book or that pamphlet as belonging to them.18 Otherwise, anyone with a printing press could steal the fruit of their hard labor and investment.19

Western Individualism: At the same time, Western culture was shifting its emphasis from "us" to "me." Most of the world (including the ancient world) is "dyadic." The insightful works of Malherbe, Neyrey, Rohrbaugh, Malina, and other sociological exegetes provide multiple examples of how the first-century Mediterranean worldview differed from the modern, Western worldview.20 While we are an individualist culture, the New Testament reflects a collective (dyadic) culture21: "It is clear that the cultures of the Hebrew Bible and the NT were much closer to a dyadic culture (embedded and interrelated culture) than to the present-day dominant Western cultural view in both theory and practice."22

The Academy: Obviously the academy cannot be deemed a disinterested party in this discussion, since most members are authors who wish to protect their material from theft. Much of the modern concept of "author" is tied to the modern convention of copyright. What is mine is mine.

Modern Authorial "Sins"

Certain practices by authors have commonly been argued (in modern times) to be vices: plagiarism, ghost writing, and forgery. Some practices are very serious vices, some moderately serious, and some deemed merely in poor taste. In antiquity, these practices were viewed differently.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is condemned by modern Western society (and laws). Generally, plagiarism is policed by academic institutions and publishing houses. Ancients who had neither formal academies nor publishing houses23 had a different view of what moderns call plagiarism. Using someone else's material without documenting it was apparently acceptable practice, as for example we see Psalm 70 reusing Ps 40:13–17.24 Like most aristocrats, Pliny the Elder had a slave (a lector) to read aloud from works, but his nephew (Pliny the Younger) tells us the slave also had notebooks on which to write down any parts his uncle wished extracted.25 When an ancient reused material, he may or may not have indicated his source.26 There were no copyrights. There was no wrongdoing in this. It appears 1 Peter is reusing Jude, reducing the number of biblical examples, reorganizing them into canonical order and applying them to his context.27 In fact, some documents were clearly collections of material from multiple sources. In the case of Proverbs, some are from Solomon, others from Agur, and other proverbs from only God knows whom.

Unnamed Collaborators: Named coauthors were and still are honorable practitioners. The question here is where a book claims one author but someone in the background assisted in the composition—what today we call a "ghost writer." Do we really think a retired president wrote his own memoirs without assistance? As long as the named author is the source and has given her blessing on the content, we view the author as the author, recognizing "wink-wink" that there was a helper. While we may see this as undesirable or perhaps even a shadowy practice today, it was quite acceptable in antiquity. Josephus specifically refers to his "helpers." The improved Greek of those writings is commonly credited to his assistants.28

Forgery: While ancient authors were more gracious toward "borrowed" material and unnamed collaborators, they took a firm line against forgery. Then, as now, forgery was considered fraudulent.29 Bart Ehrman offers a good, standard definition: "My definition of a forgery, then, is a writing that claims to be written by someone (a known figure) who did not in fact write it." He accurately adds that "forgery was widely condemned."30 Against Paulinists who argue that writing under a false name was acceptable practice,31 Ehrman declares: "Some scholars have argued, strenuously, but without much evidence, that it was common and accepted practice in schools of philosophy to write a philosophical treatise and sign your master's name to it (Plato, Pythagoras, etc.), rather than your own, and that no one looked askance at the practice."32

As Ehrman notes, the evidence is scant. Why write under a false name if everyone knew? The purpose clearly was deceit.33 It was condemned then and it still is now.34 Ehrman is correct that if any New Testament documents were forgeries, then they should be condemned. (I don't believe any of them is.)

Postmodern Authorship

It is of course too early into postmodernity to make predictions, but early indicators suggest authorship is becoming (again) more collaborative. I coauthor books fairly often; my old professor never did. My students are very collaborative—often to my dismay. Authorship in the future is likely to move beyond named collaboration. Who's the author of a Wikipedia® article? The Logos Bible Software company is developing an online Bible encyclopedia. Potentially, it could be a Wikipedia®-style encyclopedia where evangelical scholars contribute. Who would be the author?35 This type of interactive, live (constantly morphing) collaboration may be the new model—I don't know how we'll footnote it! Such a new model would in many ways be a return to the ancient model.

Composing an Ancient Document

As a youngster, I remember handwriting letters. When I reached the end, I signed my name, folded the pages, and sealed the envelope. The first draft was the dispatched draft. Writing in antiquity took longer and involved more people—probably like everything else in antiquity.

Using Sources

Ancient writers did not feel compelled to begin from scratch, any more than we do. They used outside material. The most obvious such materials in the New Testament are passages from the Old Testament, many of which are not explicitly cited as such (Rom 9:20; Gal 3:6).36

Borrowed Material: Ancients commonly borrowed material from others, sometimes indicating the source and sometimes not. This material has come to be called "preformed." I am to blame for this awkward term, coined in a graduate paper in 1985 and then institutionalized by my old professor, E. Earle Ellis.37 We are referring to material that was composed sometime prior to the rest of the text, either by the author himself or by another.38 No one doubts the existence of such material in the New Testament, particularly in the letters of Paul.39 Several passages are universally recognized as such—as much as any topic can be in Pauline studies: Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:3b–5; and Phil 2:6–11. The very nature of preformed material, however, is that the author usually expects the recipients to recognize the material and therefore does little (or nothing) to explicitly distinguish it.40 Paul's purpose for quoting the material was often to bring the reader into the context of the citation, including the perception of the material as "generally received" or "well accepted" and not some quirky idea by Paul. As scholars were starting to note "traditional material" in Paul, three writers made preliminary attempts to establish ways to detect these.41 I subsequently suggested six criteria related to content and three related to form.42 Interest has not waned.43

Named Sources: Obviously, writers in the New Testament quoted material and indicated the source. First Corinthians 6–7 provides ample examples of Paul using the Old Testament (6:16) as well as Jesus tradition (7:10).

Unnamed Sources:44 We likewise find references and allusions from Second Temple literature (2 Tim 3:8; 1 Pet 3:6; Jude 9), hymn fragments, Christian formulae, as well as what appear to be quotations of "slogans" from opponents (1 Cor 6:12).45 Using material without citing the source was not viewed as plagiarism in antiquity.

Reused (Repurposed) Material: Cicero used the same clever piece of prose on the assassination of Caesar in two different letters.46 He also used the same preface in at least two different works.47 His nephew wrote an account to Cicero of some adventure and then reused the material in a letter to Atticus.48 Ignatius reused his commendation of Burrhus, the letter carrier, in two different letters.49 This reuse of material, even verbatim, was not viewed negatively, even when both recipients knew the material was recycled.50 In none of these examples do scholars argue that one of the letters was a forgery because the material was taken from another of the author's letters. When Paul reuses his commendation of Tychicus in Colossians and Ephesians, it should not be argued that this makes one or both a forgery.

Using a Secretary

The use of secretaries is not disputed.51 Letter senders usually hired secretaries because they were illiterate.

Illiteracy: How much of the ancient world could read is not easily determined. While a few have contended the world of Paul had a relatively high literacy rate, archaeological finds indicate otherwise.52 When ancient letters are discovered, we often see the letter written in "a practiced hand," not from the letter sender.53 If the "author" was able to write at all, he added something, even if merely a "goodbye," abbreviated err.54 In more official letters, there was a formula, such as "Written for him because he does not know letters."55 Although illiteracy was widespread, there were plenty of literate folks.

Literacy as Reading but Writing as Calligraphy: Literacy has traditionally been described as the ability to read and write. We moderns mistakenly presume reading and writing are two sides of the same coin.56 One should not assume that if someone can read, then she can write. It might surprise some that literate letter writers used secretaries; yet, just a few decades ago, those in business often used secretaries to prepare letters because most couldn't type. Literacy didn't include typing, even though we could read something that was typed. In the first-century world, literacy meant the ability to read, not the ability to write, which is a practiced skill. How well do you write with your opposite hand? As for me, it is slow and with large, clumsy letters, not because I am illiterate, but because I rarely write with my left hand. Most ancient people rarely practiced writing. Paul makes a similar comment: "See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!" (Gal 6:11 NIV). Paul was quite literate. Yet, writing down a letter was considered a specialized skill. A secretary needed to know how to cut and glue papyrus, cut and sharpen pens, mix ink, prick and line the sheets, write neatly, and most importantly how to use the correct forms and phrases for that specific letter situation.57

Secretarial Skills: They also knew the proper formatting and language (formulae and content) for various contexts. Greco-Roman letters were far more stereotyped than our letters, even the old "Dear Bob, How are you? We're fine. Sincerely, Sam" of a previous generation. Also, and perhaps more importantly, a secretary could produce a nice script on good paper for important occasions. Modern pens allow us to write quickly and smoothly; yet, even we have trouble writing as fast as a person talks—a complaint I often hear from my students! Papyrus was not as smooth; pens required redipping in the ink. Ancients just could not write as fast.58 However, this was not the larger problem. A letter to a church, to be read publicly as Paul intended (Col 4:16), could not be scratched messily across some sheet. Ancients had a sense of propriety. Important letters should be prepared neatly on good quality papyrus.59 Paul intended his letters for public (congregational) use (Col 4:16).60 The quickly scrawled first draft was not suitable for sending to a church. What would Corinth think of Paul who cared so little as to send such a rag?

Since ancient letter writers used secretaries, how did that work? In other places I have outlined how ancient secretaries (amanuenses) plied their trade.61 When secretaries took dictation, it meant slow dictation, often syllable by syllable. Seneca noted a stammerer was ridiculed for talking as if he were giving dictation.62 To dictate 1 Corinthians all the way through would have required about 10 hours of continuous slow dictation.63 Secretaries also commonly took notes, scribbling on wax tablets.64

From the secretary's transcription or notes,65 the secretary would prepare a rough draft, still on these reusable materials. The author would make changes and additions and send the secretary back to prepare another draft. Careful thought and composition were essential. Ancient writers thoughtfully pondered their drafts, weighing each phrase. Cicero was known to debate over which preposition was best to use (Cic., Att. 7.3.). Paul's letters were not hastily or carelessly written.66 They were also much longer than even long letters. Paul's letters were expensive67 and time-consuming efforts.

Having Assistance

Ancients did not aggrandize flying solo. I do not suggest that Paul thought to himself, For this letter I am going to work alone. Working alone would not have occurred to him or any other.68 Why would he exclude his own team members?

Co-authors: In at least six letters, including undisputed letters such as 1 Corinthians, Paul lists another person in the letter address where the sender/author is listed. I suggest these are co-authors—a rare but not unknown practice. Why is this so surprising? Paul's letters deviate from the norm in just about every other way.69 Nonetheless, most scholars say the inclusion of someone such as Timothy in the letter opening of 2 Cor 1:1 is "largely a matter of courtesy."70 As I have argued elsewhere, why is Timothy not then listed in the letter opening of Romans? He was there, as his greeting indicates in Rom 16:21. I suggest that there is something different about the role Timothy played in 2 Corinthians and Romans.71 Citing another in the letter opening was the exception to custom,72 and therefore we should not assume it was merely literary convention. It meant something, even if it doesn't mean coauthorship as I suggest.

Interpolations: As William Walker defines, "An interpolation is foreign material inserted deliberately and directly into the text of a document."73 Obviously, Old Testament quotations, Christian formulae and other preformed material qualify. What most scholars mean, though, is that someone has inserted material into a letter, such as 1 Corinthians, after Paul had sent it and therefore it was "unauthorized." When that happens, it should show in the manuscript evidence.74 As I have argued elsewhere,75 we should also allow for the other option: predispatch and authorized insertions in the text. Someone suggests a comment or material that Paul agrees should be inserted. This could be done at that moment as a verbal insertion76 or could be added in the next draft by giving the secretary the material in written form. In either case, three important effects are felt. First, the material would be non-Pauline; he didn't compose it. Second, the material would not be un-Pauline; he approves its insertion. Last, such material would dilute any style analysis. The existence of such predispatch, approved interpolations should not surprise us because writers used material from others and because their culture was dyadic.

Editing

Last, we must note that ancients did not carelessly compose significant writings. Ancient writing (of any significance) also went through a process of notes, drafts, edits, and final copies.77 Ancient writers carefully chose their words too.78 We would not argue New Testament writers were as persnickety as Cicero, but we should not assume they were careless. Unlike today, the paper (papyrus) was about twice the cost of the labor.79 A secretary employed reusable material until the author was satisfied, then a final draft was prepared for dispatch.

Modern Efforts to Identify an Ancient "Author"

Biblical scholars may be critiqued for overemphasizing singular authorship.80 The most common complaint I hear regarding my work on first-century letter writing revolves around my suggestion of coauthorship in some of Paul's letters. Readers want to know which sections were from Paul. Who is the "real" author?

Modern Presuppositions

It seems self-evident to us that plagiarism and "borrowing" material from other sources is wrong. Ancients, especially Christians, likely saw it otherwise in light of biblical admonitions to share with those in need and not to seek glory for oneself. Clearly, it was also not viewed as wrong, "sin," or deception to use other people's material.

The Need to Identify the Sole or Primary Author: We appear to superimpose negative values if we don't find a solitary author. We view co-authorship as a poor second option only used when unavoidable. The possibility that Paul's cosenders were coauthors is usually summarily dismissed rather than evaluated.

Modern Prejudice against Anonymous Works: A letter like Hebrews is clearly anonymous. Efforts are still made, however, to identify the author. It seems that we today would feel better if we could identify the author. Convincing ourselves that some disciple named John wrote the Fourth Gospel sounds more appealing than merely attributing it to a disciple of Jesus who saw those things (John 21:20–24). Perhaps we are reading from our European history, where certain authors chose anonymity because they were slandering or otherwise needing to hide their identity. Could there be a motive of merely not wanting to bring any attention to themselves?

A Presumed Lack of Plagiarism or Assistance: Probably the critiques are correct that we have applied the modern concept of "authorship" (filtered through publishers protecting their copyrights) to ancient composition, making a poor fit. One of the more glaring differences is the matter of "plagiarism." Modern academic standards label plagiarism a vice, sin, or even a crime. To make a biblical case against plagiarism, we must typically connect it to dishonesty (clearly a biblical vice), even if the perceived dishonesty is only in the eyes of an evaluator. Since plagiarism is now considered a "sin" (and many of us believe the Bible to be without such things), then logically there can be no plagiarism, even though we know there is, as noted by even a casual reader of Psalms 40 and 70. For example, a common reason for rejecting 2 Thessalonians as Pauline is the similarity with 1 Thessalonians; notably 2 Thess 3:8 is almost identical to 1 Thess 2:9—a mark of forgery, we are told.81

Peter is commonly rejected as the author of 1 Peter82 for the reasons Ehrman cites:

Whoever wrote 1 Peter, for example, was a highly educated Greek-speaking Christian who understood how to use Greek rhetorical devices and could cite the Greek Old Testament with flair and nuance. That does not apply to the uneducated, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking fisherman from rural Galilee. . . .83

These are the very same reasons I use to argue that Peter84 took someone else's material (Jeremiah 29) and with the help of a secretary and perhaps other assistants reworked it into a new letter to exiles.85 Ehrman dismisses any influence from a secretary (and presumably others):

And it does not seem possible that Peter gave the general gist of what he wanted to say and that a secretary then created the letter for him in his name, since, first, then the secretary rather than Peter would be the real author of the letter, and second, and even more important, we don't seem to have any analogy for a procedure like this from the ancient world.86

Ehrman is mistaken on both accounts. First, he is confusing singular authorship with authority. No one disputes that Josephus wrote both Antiquities and The Jewish Wars, even though the Greek in the latter was beyond his skills, as the Loeb editor, H. St. John Thackeray, noted.87 Josephus acquired collaborators (sunergoi) for exactly the purpose of turning a first-century, Aramaic-speaking Jew (Josephus) into the author of a finely written Greek document. Why is that not possible for Peter? Josephus remains the author; he was the one who inspired, directed, and then checked and signed off on the work. Cicero notes about a letter of Pompey: "I have never seen anything more Sestian in its style."88 Nonetheless Cicero still considers the letter to be from Pompey, not Sestius. Pompey was responsible for the content no matter how much assistance he was provided. Second, Ehrman claims there is no analogy for using a secretary this way, but there are, for instance, many, many examples of well-written Greek letters from common Egyptian soldiers and farmers.89 In fact, this assistance was a good reason for hiring a secretary.

Since we don't acknowledge repurposed material, we don't allow it to impact authorship discussions. Modern authors paraphrase—that is, we put the repurposed material into our own words—and we presume ancient authors did also. In our mind, borrowed material should reflect the new author's style.90 Thus, we feel justified in including all the material in a letter of Paul in any vocabulary or style analysis.91 It is far more likely, particularly when a secretary was pulling from a written source, that the reused material was not reworked into the author's idiosyncratic vocabulary and style (unless he felt it necessary).

Verifying Ancient Authorship Claims

This is not to say that ancients were unconcerned about authorship. It was—then and now—a question of authenticity and thus often authority. Ancients were on the lookout for forgery.

More Reliable Methods: There were several ways to detect a forgery. Some methods were more reliable than others.

(a)"Signatures" and Seals. Once the final draft was prepared and the writer had secured someone to carry it, the letter was ready to be signed and sealed for dispatch. A person's handwriting was known to his friends and family. We today in the West commonly write our name in cursive as a "signature"—an odd custom. In the East, writers often have a highly stylized and very distinctive way of writing their name; it is usually scarcely legible, but it is very identifiable. In antiquity, they did neither. They wrote a little something in their own handwriting, even as little as a few letters. Less commonly, the writer would add quite a bit in his own handwriting. In any case, if the sender had any ability to write at all, he would append something at the end in his own handwriting.92 In fact, a common phrase was used: "I am writing this in my own hand." Paul's comment is quite normal: "I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand" (Phlm 19 NIV).

Typical letters were folded (accordion-style), then folded in half. (Longer letters were merely rolled into a scroll.) A string, usually just pulled from the edge of the papyrus sheet, was tied around it. A blob of clay (or wax) was squeezed over the knot. The wealthier and/or official senders of letters had a seal to press. During a time of Roman intrigue, Cicero wished to hide his identity and so he did not write any part in his own hand and did not use his seal.93 So we see that for most people, handwritten signatures and seals were usually adequate protection.94 Unfortunately, this method works only for originals.

(b) Content and Argumentation: During this same time of Roman political upheaval, forgeries were a tool. Cicero received a copy of a letter of Caesar. He comments to a friend: "For it is grudgingly written, and raises great suspicion that it was not by Caesar; I expect you noticed that too."95 Cicero doesn't argue that the vocabulary or grammar is un-Caesar. Rather, it is out of character. Likewise, Tyrrell and Purser, the great scholars of Cicero, reject as a forgery a letter from Cicero to Octavian because of its content and argumentation: "the complete lack of dignity, the feeble impotent abuse, and the utter aimlessness."96 Similarly, Paul appeals to content as a means of distinguishing his genuine letters (2 Thess 2:2–3) as well as of course his signature (3:17).

Less Reliable Methods: Other methods can assist in determining authorship; they are less effective but can be part of a holistic argument.

(a) Authorship Claims: Obviously, forgers also did this. Nonetheless, one should begin with the claim of authorship and then see how ancients responded to it. They were very aware of the presence of forgeries. They rejected 3 Corinthians, as they did the supposed letters between Paul and Seneca. We should not uncritically accept all claims—ancients didn't—but we shouldn't hypercritically reject all claims. Like those of Paul's day, we should look for marks of authenticity.

(b) Stylometry: The statistical measure of writing style has been applied to Pauline letters first by P. N. Harrison (1921). The method was applied thoroughly by A. Q. Morton and James McLeman (1972), when better tools were available.97 These early methods relied primarily on the frequency of unusual words—what is now seen as a poor method. Newer techniques, such as Type-Token-Ratio analysis, use better measures, such as sentence length, distribution of "and" (kai), word position, and other factors not influenced by subject matter. The most recent thorough analysis was by Anthony Kenny (1986), using what appears to be the best methodology. Scholars on all sides of the debate were dissatisfied with his results. His data indicated a great deal of diversity among all 13 letters; yet they all contain about the same amount of commonality:

There is no support given by [the data] to the idea that a single group of Epistles (say the four major Tübingen Epistles) stand out as uniquely comfortable with one another; or that a single group (such as the Pastoral Epistles) stand out as uniquely diverse from the surrounding context.98

The quest for a useful stylometric analysis continues with equally frustrating results.99 Luke Timothy Johnson has argued well that grouping the so-called Pastoral Letters together has also skewed the data, obscuring similarities, among others, between 2 Timothy and Philippians (noted earlier by Kenny)100 and between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians.101 I suggest that the role of the secretary and other assistants (contributors, teammates, possibly coauthors) dilutes the Pauline style enough so that no statistical method works. While Paul is responsible for every word in his letters, when a draft returned with a different but acceptable phrase than he may have chosen, he did not bother to change it.102 Authority and (singular) authorship are closely related but are not synonymous; responsibility is the connector.

The Arrogance of the Modern Scholar

Can we better assess authorship 2,000 years later than could those scholars of the earlier day? While such may on occasion be true, we should require some sort of new evidence rather than merely reconsidering what has always been there. The task remains the same: Which historical reconstruction best explains the evidence? I suggest that the practices of ancient authorship explain better the letters we have than suggesting everyone has been duped by a forger. As Bauckham and others have noted, it would be a far more difficult challenge to forge New Testament documents than Bart Ehrman has implied. I find myself in agreement with Ben Witherington, in his online critique of Ehrman's book:

My view would be there are no forgeries in the NT at all, no pseudonymous documents, but that does not mean that all documents in the NT mean a modern way of looking at authorship, which is what Bart is applying to the NT documents . . . in addition to that, the varied practices of scribes writing or copying on behalf of others must be taken into account.103

Conclusion

Ancient authorship was not like modern authorship. Thus, we cannot apply the same standards.104 Ancient authors borrowed material, reused their own, accepted input, and collaborated in ways not commonly acceptable today. Furthermore, the writing process included a secretary who rarely took dictation. His own verbiage and style would inevitably find its way into the various drafts. During the editing process, I am confident Paul would have corrected any wording he did not like—he was responsible for the letter. Nonetheless, we cannot assume synonyms, stylistic preferences, and other minor differences—the kind that show up in style analyses—are indications of forgery. Such differences were inevitable in the ancient writing process. When analyzing the letters of Trajan to Pliny, Sherwin-White concludes: "The hand of Trajan cannot easily be detected by formal stylistic analysis";105 yet the letters are not forgeries. Likewise Tyrrell and Purser, the undisputed authorities on Cicero's letters, noted some of Cicero's letters are stylistically more like the letters of other writers than like his own.106 Yet, those letters are not pronounced forgeries. In ancient writing, minor stylistic differences abound. Yet, Trajan's, Cicero's, or Josephus's divergent works are not declared forgeries. Ancient authorship was different. We ask: Will the real author please stand up? When we ask the wrong question, we are unlikely to get the right answer. Trajan, Cicero, and Paul "wrote" letters but not like we do.

1 Most scholars acknowledged the use of secretaries (see Rom 16:22). Incidentally, the first draft of a letter was not on paper, likely not even on papyrus but rather a wax tablet or perhaps the newly fashionable (reusable) parchment notebooks or (wood) leaf notebooks.

2 So the book published by Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne, 2011).

3 A common term in scholarship, originally coined by Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings, repr. ed., 2 vols in 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003 [1845]).

4 It may be noted this is a circular argument. "Pauline" themes are the ones we find in these four letters. Hence, these four letters are the most Pauline. The prominence of "justification by faith" in the Reformation placed these letters on a pedestal, from which no one wishes to knock them. While the typical argumentation for these letters as "particularly Pauline" is questionable, nonetheless, the authenticity of the Hauptbriefe (the so-called Tübingen Four) remains undisputed.

5 Hilgenfeld (1875) and H. J. Holtzmann (1885) expanded Baur's four by adding these three to make a rarely disputed list of seven letters. So even Ehrman, Forged, 92–93.

6 Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 351–66, summarizes the arguments. The list below shows my (biased) arrangement of his arguments:

7 In fact, the words "in Ephesus" are missing from some early manuscripts.

8 See, e.g., E. J. Goodspeed, The Key to Ephesians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956). Perhaps as early as the seventeenth century, James Ussher used these same factors to suggest Paul composed Ephesians as a "circular letter" that he sent to several churches, including Ephesus and Laodicea, explaining the lack of personal greetings and specific details. Thus, Paul deliberately reused (repurposed) Colossians into a more general letter. The parallel commendations of the letter carrier (Eph 6:21 and Col 4:7–8) is the very type of material one recycled, as Ignatius did (Ign., Phld 11:2 and Smyrn 12:1).

9 Those who doubt the Pastoral Epistles are still the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars, although many of us believe the pendulum is swinging, perhaps as evidenced by the 1–2 Timothy volume in the Anchor Bible (by Luke Timothy Johnson), which argued for Pauline authorship, or even I. Howard Marshall's (untenable) argument for quasi-Pauline authorship. Ehrman himself notes the arguments against 2 Timothy being non-Pauline are weak: "For about a year or so before I started writing this book, I myself began to be increasingly inclined to take this view [2 Tim as authentically Pauline]" (97). Since 1 and 2 Timothy are so similar and since Ehrman is convinced 1 Timothy is a forgery, he ultimately throws 2 Timothy into the forged stack (rather than vice versa). See the stylometric conclusions of Anthony Kenny below. Ehrman is correct, however, in arguing that the so-called Pastoral Letters are the pivotal issue in any authenticity debate (Forged, 93–103).

10 Ehrman is correct that if these letters were not authored by Paul, then they are forgeries. Ellis has long argued against the concept of innocent apostolic pseudepigrapha: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (WUNT) 18 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1978), 3–22. I argue the Pastoral Letters are not forgeries; they were authored by Paul—in the ancient sense of authorship.

11 So summarized by Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 90–91.

12 For example, Ehrman notes (as have others) that Paul had argued for Christians to remain single (1 Corinthians 7), yet the Pastorals insist that elders be married (99–100). I suspect that such differences would not have resulted in rejecting the Pastorals were it not for the differences in writing style. Note the very distinctive (and dramatic) shift in Pauline eschatological language—from the very Jewish-sounding 1 Corinthians 15 (with its day of Yahweh and the archangel's trumpet sound) to the more Greek-sounding 2 Corinthians 5 (of the soul's disembodiment). No one chooses to reconcile the differences (which I think can be done) by arguing that either letter is a forgery.

13 See P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastorals (London: Oxford University Press, 1921), and W. Michaelis, "Pastoralbriefe und Wortstatistik," Zeitschrift für neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft 28 (1929): 69–76. Ehrman also notes this is the pivotal issue (Forged, 96–98). Ehrman summarizes well the vocabulary issue in 1–2 Timothy: "whoever wrote the one letter had his favorite terms and used them in the other letters as well. It's just that those terms were not terms used by Paul." Ehrman means "terms used in other letters of Paul."

14 How this applies to Pauline authorship is discussed more in depth in my Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

15 The expression is usually credited to Roland Barthes's 1977 essay. It has since been argued that it was premature to declare the author dead, as noted by Stephen Donovan, Danuta Fjellestad, and Rolf Lundén, "Introduction: Author, Authorship, Authority, and Other Matters," in Authority Matters: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Authorship, DQR Studies in Literature 43 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2008), 13: "In fact, the author continues to thrive with undiminished if not unchallenged power in many areas of literary studies. . . ."

16 British history provides rich examples. Publishing has always been risky business, but at times it was far more dangerous. Works were often anonymous in order to protect the person(s) involved.

17 So Donovan, Fjellestad, and Lundén, "Introduction," 13.

18 See Stephen Dobranski, "The Birth of the Author: the Origins of Early Modern Printed Authority," in Donovan, Fjellestad, and Lundén, Authority Matters, 37.

19 The advent of a new publishing technology (the Internet) is re-creating this same challenge for publishers.

20 See, for example, Glenn S. Sunshine, Why You Think the Way You Do: The Story of Western Worldviews from Rome to Home (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), especially the way he marks the historical shifts: "worldview of ancient Rome" to "Christianity" to "Medieval Worldview" on to "Enlightenment," concluding with the "decay of modernity." Worldview assumptions creep in even among scholars sensitized to it; see Zeba Crook, "Honor, Shame, and Social Status Revisited," Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): 591–611.

21 See, e.g., the table in K. C. Hanson, "Sin, Purification, and Group Process," in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 170–71.

22 Gerald Klingbeil, "Between 'I' and 'We': The Anthropology of the Hebrew Bible and Its Importance for a 21st-Century Ecclesiology," Bulletin for Biblical Research 19 (2009): 338.

23 There were "academies" in the Greco-Roman world, centered on one charismatic teacher. (Many academics trace the modern academy back to the Greeks.) Students, however, were encouraged to sound as much as possible like their teacher. Arrian seems to have recorded the lectures of his teacher, Epictetus, likely paying a shorthand writer to record them. There were also publishing houses, but only marginally similar to ours today.

24 The recent and excellent work by Karel van der Toorn (Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009]) documents well the practices of ancient Near Eastern scribes (esp. see 109–41).

25 Pliny, Ep. 3.5.15–16. "After a short repast at noon . . . he would frequently in the summer . . . repose himself in the sun; during which time some author was read to him from whence he made extracts and observations, as indeed this was his constant method whatever book he read." For other examples of using a notarius to record notes from reading, see also Pliny, Epp. 9.29.2; 36.2. For a fuller description, see also A. N. Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 224–25n.

26 On occasion, Pliny the Younger noted his source (6.20.5), but this seems more the exception.

27 I think 1 Peter is by Peter. Likewise, I think Peter repurposes Jeremiah 29 for his own letter to exiles (1 Peter); see E. Randolph Richards, "The General Epistles and Hebrews: In Exile but on the Brink of Restoration," in C. Marvin Pate, et al., The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 232–54.

28 Henry St. John Thackeray notes: "The immense debt which he [Josephus] owes to these admirable collaborators [the synergoi] is apparent on almost every page of the work." "Introduction," in The Life, Against Apion, and the Jewish War [Bellum Judaicum], 3 vols., Loeb Classical Library, Greek Series (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), 1: xv.

29 Ehrman uses stronger language:

Both of these terms [used to refer to this practice] are negative, not neutral, and they show what ancients thought about the practice of forgery. An author who produces a writing in the name of someone else has produced a "false writing," "a lie," "an illegitimate child," or "a bastard." Similar words are used by Latin writers for the act of forgery, for example, words that mean "to lie," "to falsify," "to fabricate," "to adulterate," "to counterfeit" (Forged, 38).

30 Ibid., 24–25. He correctly notes that writing under a "stage name" (my term) is not a forgery. Iamblichus wrote under the pseudonym Abammon. Likewise, Ehrman clarifies (correctly) that works wrongly ascribed to someone are not forgeries.

31 It is common to cite Iamblichus's comment about Pythagoras and his disciples: "If it be agreed that some writings now circulated are by Pythagoras, but others were composed on the basis of his lectures, and on this account the authors did not give their own names, but attributed them to Pythagoras as his work" (Vit. Pyth. 158). This seems to me to be a case of giving credit where credit is due and not a case of forgery. Iamblichus also seemed to believe Pythagoras deserved the credit: "It was a fine custom of theirs [his disciples] also to ascribe and assign everything to Pythagoras . . ." (Vit. Pyth. 198). I do not believe the situation with Pythagoras is analogous to Paul at all for at least these reasons:

For more on the subject, see the Aberdeen dissertation: Terry Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004).

32 Ehrman, Forged, 37. Pace Klauck, Ancient Letters, 120–25, who discusses both authentic and inauthentic letters casually together. He even suggests at least one double deception: "Probably the pseudepigraphy that is certainly present in all the Pythagorean letters was taken a step further in these letters between women; the real authors or "authoresses" could actually have been men who used these letters to propagate their own ideal of women devoted to modesty and domesticity . . . " (123). It is unclear if Klauck would agree with Ehrman's view that pseudepigraphy was universally negative.

33 Christians can play word games with "lying," but the lines are not as fuzzy as some imply. See, e.g., E. Randolph Richards, "Stop Lying," Biblical Illustrator (Spring 1999): 77–80. Ehrman is correct in his critique of Kurt Aland's (unconvincing) argument that the Holy Spirit inspired these pseudepigrapha (Forged, 123–25). Likewise, some argue the forger of an apocalypse felt justified because God was the author. For a strong rebuttal of this argument, see Armin Baum, "Revelatory Experience and Pseudepigraphal Attribution in Early Jewish Apocalypses," Bulletin of Biblical Research 22 (2011): 65–92.

34 Ehrman cites Norbert Brox and Wolfgang Speyer in building his consensus that scholars on forgery conclude it was in order to deceive (Forged, 123).

35 Thus the author is not "dead" but "s/he" may be turning into a "we."

36 Hays makes a compelling argument for the rich tapestry of images and allusions as well as quotations from the Old Testament in Paul's letters; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).

37 E. E. Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill, 2002), esp. 116.

38 E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, WUNT 2/42 (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991), 158.

39 W. D. Davies first brought these to my attention in a graduate class. He had been calling these "fragments of kerygma." Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 4th ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 136–41.

40 I am still convinced Rom 14:7–9 is preformed, although perhaps Pauline; see Richards, Letter Writing, 111, esp. n5.

41 Markus Barth, "Traditions in Ephesians," New Testament Studies (NTS) 30 (1984): 10; Robert Jewett, "The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Romans 1:3–4," in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders, ed. Dennis E. Groh and Robert Jewett (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 100–102; and in an unpublished work: Clark Lyndon Palmer, "The Use of Traditional Materials in Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter" (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1985), 6–8.

42 Richards, Letter Writing, 97–99.

43 Note, for example, recently Mark M. Yarbrough, Paul's Utilization of Preformed Traditions in 1 Timothy: An Evaluation of the Apostle's Literary, Rhetorical, and Theological Tactics, LNTS 417 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), who creates a modified list of criteria (esp. 17–57). Yarbrough argues 12 passages from 1 Timothy are preformed: 1:8–10,15,17; 2:5–6a; 3:1,16; 4:8,9–10b; 5:24–25; 6:7,10a,11–16 (following Ellis but rejecting seven others that Ellis had selected).

44 Obviously, we had to recognize it as somehow borrowed from another.

45 It is not always clear. Some excellent work on identifying these slogans has been done by Jay Smith; see, e.g., "The Roots of a 'Libertine' Slogan in 1 Corinthians 6:18," Journal of Theological Studies 59 (2008): 63–95.

46 Cic., Fam. 12.4.1 and Fam. 10.28.1.

47 Cic., Att. 16.6.

48 Cic., Att. 13.29.

49 Ign., Phld 11:2; Smyrn 12:1. The parallels to Ephesians and Colossians here are striking.

50 Richards, Letter Writing, 160.

51 Francis X. J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study of Greek Epistolography (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1922), noted:

It is remarkable, also, how well most letters are written . . . . One of the reasons . . . [is] the employment of professional scribes. Not a few papyri have been found which were written in the same hand yet addressed by and to entirely different persons. In purely personal letters the scribe or whoever wrote the letter did not need to declare that he, and not the person whose name was found on the document, was the writer [meaning the one writing it down] (126).

52 Coinage was a common means of Roman propaganda for the illiterate and thus the common image of the three goddesses, Peace, Security, and Prosperity together.

53 This point is not disputed. The lack of an illiteracy formula in a private letter is not evidence the sender wrote the letter himself; see John White, "Greek Documentary Letter Tradition," Semeia 22 (1981):95. See Exler, Form of the Ancient Greek Letter.

54 One author wanted to write in his own hand but feared his skills inadequate and so he merely copied again the last line written by the secretary. So the phrase "I wish you farewell, sister" is repeated twice; the second one is in a different handwriting; POxy 1491.

55 See Deissmann for this example of an illiteracy formula: "Written for him hath Eumelus the son of Herma . . . being desired so to do for that he writeth somewhat slowly" (Light, 166–67).

56 Historian Harvey Graff noted that Swedish church law in 1686 required literacy of all people, and by the end of the eighteenth century, literacy (meaning the ability to read) was close to 100 percent. Yet, as marriage licenses demonstrated, many Swedes, especially women, could not write. Graff demonstrates that one can be literate without being able to write. Harvey J. Graff, The Literacy Myth: Cultural Integration and Social Structure in the Nineteenth Century (Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991), xxii-xxvi. Nicholas Ostler suggested the ability to write was a professional trade secret of scribes, but he is referring to the retention of a language once it has fallen out of use. Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World (New York: Harper Perennial, 2006), e.g., 61.

57 See Ben Witherington, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 99.

58 Greek shorthand writers existed in the time of Paul, but they were not common. It is unlikely Paul had access to one. Romans is the only letter where I think it is possible Paul had the services of a more talented scribe, perhaps a shorthand writer. See the discussion in Richards, Secretary, 26–43; and Letter Writing, 67–74.

59 For an important letter, Cicero had the final copy prepared on fine, large sheets of papyrus (macrocolla) in careful script (see Cic., Att. 13.25; 13.21a). He jests with his brother, "For this letter I shall use a good pen, well-mixed ink, and ivory-polished paper too" (Cic., QFr 2.15b.1). See the discussion in Richards, Secretary, 99–100.

60 Luke Timothy Johnson is likely correct that 1 Timothy was intended to be read in the presence of Timothy and the Ephesian congregation as an "installment" of Timothy as Paul's delegate; certainly this would merit a more formal letter in both content and appearance. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Anchor Bible, 2001).

61 Initially in Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (1991), and then I refined the matter further in a section of Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing (2004).

62 Sen., Ep. 40.10.

63 See Richards, Letter Writing, 92.

64 Or washable notebooks of parchment or on notebooks made of very thinly cut wood (leaf notebooks). For good first-century examples of these leaf notebooks, see the materials from Roman Vindolanda in Britain.

65 Previously, I mentioned that secretaries were on occasion used to compose a letter freely on behalf of the letter sender. For this, I have been severely criticized, most recently by Ehrman (Forged, 138–39). He quotes me when I said: "Nowhere was there any indication that an ordinary secretary was asked, much less presumed, to compose a letter for the author" (Secretary, 110). He argues I then maintain it was a secretarial role. This is misleading. In an exhaustive, scholarly work on secretaries, I listed all options, including what I deemed unlikely (this role). I later concluded (Letter Writing, 92) concerning a secretary freely composing in the sender's name:

66 See Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 442; and Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1979), 312.

67 I conservatively estimated a letter such as Romans or 1 Corinthians to cost, in today's dollars, well over $2,000 each, plus the expense of sending someone to deliver it (Richards, Letter Writing, 165–70).

68 One could suggest the very aristocratic elite, who considered themselves above all others, preferred to work alone. While their written remarks suggest this, an examination of their letters demonstrates they also used secretaries (Cic., Att. 5.20, where he mentions both his and Atticus's secretaries by name), had language assistance (Cic., Fam. 16.4.3), allowed editing (Cic., Fam. 16.4.3), reused material (Cic., Att. 13.29), and were otherwise collaborative.

69 In the most stereotyped aspect of Paul's letters, the letter prescript, I recently argued that Paul deviates in every single element from the norm; see Richards, "Pauline Prescripts and Greco-Roman Epistolary Convention," in Christian Origins and Classical Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts, Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

70 To use Leon Morris's words; The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 47.

71 I suppose one could suggest that Timothy was falling out of favor in Romans and was "demoted" from the letter opening to the letter closing. This scarcely seems plausible, and we have no evidence for such a practice.

72 Luther Stirewalt suggests the practice reflects official correspondence. He is correct that those letters did list multiple individuals (those who shared the grievance or claim) in the letter to the official. I do not think Paul's letters are as analogous to these as Stirewalt argues in Paul the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

73 WilliamWalker, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, JSNTS 213 (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 23.

74 Such insertions did happen, as was done in Rom 8:1.

75 Richards, Letter Writing, 99–108.

76 In Cicero's case, it was a juicy bit of political gossip: "What's this? Curio is defending Caesar." Cic. Fam. 2.13.3.

77 In addition to my work on letter writing, see the comment by Betz, Galatians, 312. Comments like 1 Cor 1:16 are likely rhetorical to emphasize how little it matters who baptized whom.

78 Cic., Att. 7.3. Robert Yerlverton Tyrrell and Louis Claude Purser, The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero, 7 vols., 3rd rev. ed. (London: Longmans, Green, 1901–33), 1:76 note: "Every adjective is set down with as careful a pen as was ever plied by a masterhand." When Seneca calls a letter "carelessly written," Richard Bummere, the LCL editor, cautions us not to take Seneca literally (LCL 1:x).

79 Richards, Letter Writing, 165–69.

80 See the discussion of how authorship was more coauthorship until post-seventeenth century; Dobranski, "The Birth of the Author," esp. 37. Witherington, Paul Quest, 114, notes: "We cannot assume that Paul was much like a modern individualist."

81 Ironically, others argue 2 Thessalonians is a forgery because of dissimilarity. Udo Schnelle, for example, argued the narrow and tame theology of 2 Thessalonians was too different from the lively, constantly shifting style of Paul: Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005). The argument that these letters are too similar and too different was done quite recently; see the blog: accessed on April 30, 2011, http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/06/anchor-bible-dictionary-on-authorship.html.

82 Peter is commonly rejected as the author of 2 Peter but for different reasons. The Greek of 2 Peter was not beyond his skill set. Usually, two reasons are cited. First, 2 Peter refers to a seeming collection of Paul's letters (3:16). Second, 2 Peter is an example of a "Testament." I have responded to the first elsewhere; E. Randolph Richards, "The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul's Letters," BBR 8 (1998): 151–66. Second, if 2 Peter is an example of the Testament genre, it was a lousy one. See most recently, Mark Matthews, "The Genre of 2 Peter: a Comparison with Jewish and Early Christian Testaments," BBR 21 (2011): 51–64, who argues 2 Peter lacks "significant elements" of the genre.

83 Ehrman, Forged, 138–39.

84 If Peter were so untrained in writing, why would he write at all? Perhaps there was some peer pressure: Paul and James were writing letters. There are actually many possible explanations. What is clear is that many ancients did, despite being uneducated, illiterate commoners.

85 Richards, in Pate et al., The Story of Israel, 232–54.

86 Ehrman, Forged, 139 (italics mine).

87 H. St. John Thackeray, "Introduction," LCL, xv, notes the lack of skill in Ant. and then the admirable Greek in the B.J. (Bella judaica = Jewish Wars). Josephus elsewhere admits to having "assistants for the sake of the Greek" (Jos. Ap. 1.50.).

88 Cic., Att. 15.3.

89 See Exler's comments, n51 above, and the many examples in the Michigan Papyri, esp. book 8. I also cite many examples of secretaries having an editorial and/or contributing role in Richards, Letter Writing, 74–77.

90 And in the case of students, it is improper if it does not.

91 Obviously, this method is vulnerable to accusation of being a circular argument: one omits non-Pauline material and voilà!—the rest is Pauline. If however the material isn't from Paul, then it shouldn't be included in a style analysis.

92 These subscriptions or postscripts were used for multiple other purposes in addition to adding a personal or validating touch. A writer would summarize the salient points, add some new detail learned since the final draft was written, or append some secretive or sensitive information. See Richards, Letter Writing, 171–87.

93 Cic., Att. 2.20.

94 One might think these methods would be completely reliable, but we must not underestimate the ingenuity of thieves especially when significant money was involved. After the death of Caesar, his secretary, Dolabella, was paid (or forced) to alter documents to benefit Faberius (Cic., Att. 14.18). There were also individuals adept at forging handwriting; see Suet., Tit. 3.2; Vesp. 6.4; Jos. B.J. 1.26.3.

95 Cic., Att. 11.16.

96 Tyrrell and Purser, Cicero, 5:338–39.

97 Best seen in Sidney Michaelson and Andrew Q. Morton, "Last Words: A Test of Authorship for Greek Writers," NTS 18 (1972): 192–208. Although objections have been raised previously (e.g., Yule in 1944), see P. F. Johnson, "The Use of Statistics in the Analysis of the Characteristics of Pauline Writing," NTS 20 (1973): 92–100.

98 Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 99–100.

99 More recently, Armin Baum, "Semantic Variation within the Corpus Paulinum: Linguistic Considerations Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles," Tyndale Bulletin 59 (2008): 271–92. Baum concludes the Pastorals have a more diverse vocabulary—these letters are shorter than Paul's other letters but have more vocabulary (different words). Baum then concludes Paul was more careful in writing the Pastorals, since he wrote them down rather than dictated them—a point Ehrman rightly critiques as "special pleading" and then (oddly to me) concludes: "Baum doesn't cite any evidence to suggest the Pastorals were composed in writing by Paul rather than dictated, by Paul or anyone else" (Forged, 278n14). Since Ehrman is allowing here for secretarial mediation, why isn't "a more literate secretary" an option? This seems as or more likely to explain a richer vocabulary. It seems unjustified by the evidence to suggest "dictation" meant word-for-word dictation, as I have argued previously (Richards, Letter Writing, 29–31).

100 Kenny, Stylometric, 100.

101 See, for example, Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2010), 242, 378.

102 It is better argued that the document is inspired, not the author; see Richards, Letter Writing, 224–29.

103 Ben Witherington, "Forged: Chapter Four—Alternatives to Forgery," accessed on April 30, 2011, http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/04/07/forged-chapter-four-alternatives-to-forgery.

104 Ibid. Witherington notes specifically of Ehrman: "This frankly seems to be because he [Ehrman] is assuming an all too modern notion about authorship, and is ignoring the evidence of the way ancient scribes worked, compiling ancient documents. In other words, he too quickly rules out whole ranges of possibilities that experts in ancient oral and scribal cultures have provided copious evidence for."

105 Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny, 541. There has been no more thorough examination of Pliny's letters.

106 Tyrrell and Purser, Cicero, 2:lxix-lxx. His speeches and formal letters have enough stylistic similarity, e.g., the celebrated "law of clause endings" detected by T. Zieliński, while his letters to friends do not; 2:lxvi-lxvii n.

↑ Back to top