Appendix II—Dr. Hebert on Pseudonymity in Scripture
APPENDIX II
DR. HEBERT ON PSEUDONYMITY IN SCRIPTURE
THE aim of this note is not to discuss any specific cases of alleged pseudonymous authorship of biblical books, but to clarify the general evangelical view on this subject in the light of Hebert's confusing discussion of the position taken by the New Bible Commentary.
Hebert thinks that the Commentary is both unreasonable, in ruling out a priori the possibility that some biblical books are not by the authors whose names they bear, and also inconsistent in applying its own principles; for, he says, 'the principle of pseudonymity is admitted . . . in the case of Ecclesiastes.'1 This is not so. The principle of pseudonymity, in the sense in which the Commentary rejects it, is involved only when a book seeks to impose itself upon its readers as being by someone other than its real author. The view of Ecclesiastes taken by the Commentary is explicitly stated in the note on Ec. i. 1 : 'The author does not really claim to be Solomon but places his words in Solomon's mouth'; this device 'was not intended to deceive anyone, and none of its original readers would in fact have been deceived'.2 The literary character of the book is unambiguous ; the Preacher is transparently not Solomon, just as parables are transparently not history, and the form of his sermon (a meditation put into Solomon's mouth) no more involves an assertion of Solomonic authorship than the narrative form of Christ's story of the Good Samaritan involves an assertion that the events recounted actually happened. The principle of pseudonymity does not arise here, any more than it does when an article in a religious weekly begins : 'I am a collection-bag.'3
Hebert goes on to affirm it 'strange' for A. M. Stibbs to write that, since 'documents which claim to be what they are not' cannot have full canonical status, those who doubt the Pauline authorship claimed by the Pastoral Epistles had better leave them 'out of their operative canon of Scripture until they come to a better mind and a surer faith'.1 (Hebert puts 'saner' for 'surer', an unfortunate slip which imports a priggish note into Stibbs' remark.) Hebert's comment is this: 'Is he not assuming that all pseudonymous writings are "forgeries" in our sense of the word? and is he not applying a standard of apostolic authorship which would exclude from the canon at least the epistle to the Hebrews?' Hebert himself thinks (on 'critical grounds') that in the Pastorals 'it is not the real Paul… speaking to us, but someone else using his name'; but, he holds, 'this is not to say that they are "forgeries", that is to say, writings fraudulently drawn up to present a different teaching from St. Paul's.'
The first thing that must be said about this is that Hebert's Pickwickian definition of 'forgery' is entirely his own. The dictionary definition of 'forgery' is fraudulent imitation, as such, irrespective of its aim, the point of the fraud being simply to get one's own product accepted as somebody else's. Now, the Pastorals (unlike Hebrews, which makes no claim as to its authorship) tell us that they are by Paul, and hence by implication profess themselves to be invested with Paul's personal apostolic authority. On Hebert's view, they were not written by Paul, nor, presumably, with his sanction, or that of any apostle. They are, therefore, fraudulent; we must suppose (as Hebert seems to do) that the writer personated Paul in order that what he wrote might be regarded as having apostolic authority, to which he himself could not lay claim. Whether or not he incorporated genuine Pauline fragments, or reproduced the mind of Paul fairly, is neither here nor there; nor is it relevant to appeal to the fact (true though it is) that pseudonymous literary forms were common in the ancient world. The crucial point here is simply that by pretending to be Paul the writer sought to secure for his own work the unique and absolute authority which the early Church knew that Christ had given specifically to the apostles, and to them alone; and that he was no more entitled to do this than Hebert or I would be. On this view, the Pastorals are in truth a forgery and a fraud. And frauds are still fraudulent, even when perpetrated from noble motives, as Hebert thinks this one was.
When Stibbs judges that Epistles which originated in this way are not apostolic in such a sense that they could possibly be regarded as canonical, he is in line with historic catholic orthodoxy; the second-century Muratorian fragment specifies two alleged Epistles of Paul (to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians) which the early Church excluded from its canon because they were forged, and it is clear that, had the Pastorals been known to fall in the same category, they would have been rejected too. What is strange is not that Stibbs takes this line, but that Hebert should suppose that the authority of the Pastorals as canonical Scripture would not be affected if they were in fact pseudonymous. Such a view shows failure to understand two things : first, the unique personal authority and historical significance of the apostolate, and, second, the biblical concept of Scripture. For the first: if the Pastorals did not come from within the original apostolic circle, then they are no part of the authoritative exposition of the faith which Christ inspired His apostles to give for the guidance of the universal Church, and so they are not canonical. For the second : if the Pastorals are Scripture, then their claim to authorship, like all their other assertions, should be received as truth from God; and one who rejects this claim ought also to deny that they are Scripture, for what he is saying is that they have not the nature of Scripture, since they make false statements. Stibbs' position, that their canonicity cannot be affirmed if their authenticity is denied, thus seems to be the only one possible; and we may lay it down as a general principle that, when biblical books specify their own authorship, the affirmation of their canonicity involves a denial of their pseudonymity. Pseudonymity and canonicity are mutually exclusive.
In a footnote, Hebert dismisses 2 Peter with the comment: 'the same principles apply as in the case of the Pastorals.' This is true; and therefore if we are to regard 2 Peter as canonical we must regard it as apostolic also.
In view of the suspicion of Hebert and others that there is something arbitrary and dishonest about the evangelical attitude to the hypothesis of the pseudonymity of the books above mentioned, it may be helpful to conclude by showing what is the real state of the question with regard to it. As we have seen, if a New Testament book is not authentically apostolic, and if it makes false assertions (as on this hypothesis these books do), then it has not the nature of Scripture, and has no place in the New Testament canon. But the fact is that these books established their place in the canon of the early Church, and have been studied and expounded in the Church for centuries without anything unworthy of their apparent authors, or inconsistent with the rest of Scripture, either in teaching or in tone, being found in them. This fact alone is almost, if not quite, decisive; is it conceivable that this happened without the guidance and blessing of the Spirit, and indeed contrary to His leading?—for it is surely Satan, rather than the Spirit of God, who leads men to make false judgments as to what is Scripture and what is not! The presumption of authenticity is surely overwhelming. Some may still find themselves able to think it remotely possible that the Church has been misled here; but even if they do they can hardly think it likely. At all events, the onus probandi is on those who deny the traditional view. And it is not enough for them to produce evidence which could indicate pseudonymity; the evidence needs to be such as must indicate it, and cannot mean anything else, or else it will not be such as makes it reasonable to abandon a presumption which is so strong. As long as it is possible to explain the evidence adduced in a way compatible with authenticity, it will be right for us to do so. Any other course would be a breach of the rules of sound scholarship. It may safely be said that none of the evidence so far adduced is inexplicable, or even embarrassing, on the assumption of authenticity; and that it seems unlikely that stronger evidence will be forthcoming in the future. No adequate reason, therefore, exists for doubting the authenticity, and therefore the canonicity, of these books. The grounds on which many Christian scholars do in fact deny their authenticity appear insufficient to overthrow the enormous presumption in favour of it. The view of these scholars reflects failure to assess the strength of this presumption, a lapse due apparently to overlooking the fact that to deny authenticity is to deny canonicity also.