Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (100 page)

62.
Didascalia Apostolorum
, p. 3.

63.
Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, “The Didascalia Apostolorum: A Mishnah for the Disciples of Jesus,”
JECS
9 (2001): 501–2.

64.
At the same time, it is important to affirm Fonrobert’s overarching point about Jews and Christians in antiquity, that neither Rabbinic Judaism nor Christianity was a fixed point along a spectrum, and that a document such as the Didascalia cannot neatly be located somewhere along the line between them. There were obviously massive interchanges and nuanced relationships among people who self-identified as Jews and/or Christians, as is becoming increasingly clear among scholars who refuse to think simplistically about the so-called parting of the ways.

65.
See Rémi Gounelle and Zbigniew Izydorczyk,
L’Évangile de Nicodème ou Les Actes fait sous Ponce Pilate
(Belgium: Brepols, 1997); and especially Z. Izydorczyk,
The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus: Texts, Intertexts, and Contexts in Western Europe
, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 158 (Tempe: Arizona State University, 1997).

66.
Translation from T. Falls,
Writings of Saint Justin Martyr
.

67.
My translation of the French from Gounelle and Izydorczyk,
L’Évangile de Nicodème
, p. 106.

68.
Translation of G. A. Williamson,
Eusebius
.

69.
Stephen Mitchell, “Maximinus and the Christians in
A.D
. 312: A New Latin Inscription,”
JRS
78 (1988): 121. For general background on Maximin Daia and his persecution of Christians, see Robert Grant, “The Religion of Maximin Daia,” in
Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults
, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 143–66.

70.
Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus
, p. 24.

71.
Gounelle and Izydorczyk draw the obvious conclusion that the Acts of Pilate was in circulation in Asia Minor by no later than the second half of the fourth century.
L’Évangile de Nicodème
, p. 108.

72.
In Schneemelcher,
New Testament Apocryphya
, 1.501–4. Scheidweiler’s argument is demolished by Jean-Pierre Lémonon,
Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée: textes et monuments
(Paris: J. Gabalda, 1981).

73.
L’Évangile de Nicodème
, p. 110.

74.
Attested otherwise in the Apostolic Constitutions 21.52.1 and the fourth-century
Lives of the Caesars
39.13 (
L’Évangile de Nicodème
, p. 110).

75.
“The Trial of Jesus in the Acta Pilati,” in
Jesus and the Politics of His Day
, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 176.

76.
Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus
, p. 24.

77.
Rémi Grounelle, “Évangile de Nicodème ou Actes de Pilate,” in Pierre Geoltrain and Jean-Daniel Kaestli,
Écrits apocryphes chrétiens
(Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 2005), pp. 251–59. For a fresh English translation of the A text (
chs. 1
–16) and parts of the B text (including the Descent to Hell), see Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 419–89.

78.
Prologue. Translations taken from Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
.

79.
For further reflections on its value as a counterforgery, in the context of early Christian apologetics, see pp. 484–85.

80.
See ch. 15.

81.
See Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 491–99; and Rémi Gounelle, “Rapport de Pilate, réponse de Tibère à Pilate, comparution de Pilate,” in
Écrits apocryphes chrétiens
, vol. 2, ed. Pierre Geol-train and Jean-Daniel Kaestli (Paris: Gallimard, 2005), pp. 303–4, 306–7.

82.
Quotations of all works from the Pilate cycle are taken from Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
.

83.
Another work of the Pilate cycle, the
Paradosis Pilati
, is sometimes, wrongly, taken as a direct response of Tiberius to the Anaphora; it may indeed have been conceived in that way, but it is stylistically different and is almost certainly written by another hand. As it does not claim to be written by Tiberius, but is an anonymous narrative about his reaction to Jesus’ crucifixion, it need not concern us further here. See Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 501–9; and Gounelle, “Rapport de Pilate,” pp. 301–9.

84.
Jean-Daniel Dubois and Rémi Gounelle, “Lettre de Pilate à l’empereur Claude,” in
Écrits apocryphes chrétiens
, vol. 2, ed. Geoltrain and Jean- Kaestli, pp. 357–63.

85.
Dubois and Gounelle (“Lettre de Pilate”) maintain that the letter was originally composed as part of the Latin “Passion of Peter and Paul,” thus explaining its supposed origin from the time of Nero’s immediate predecessor.

86.
Felix Scheidweiler, “The Gospel of Nicodemus / Acts of Pilate and Christ’s Descent into Hell,” in
New Testament Apocrypha
, ed. Schneemelcher, p. 205.

87.
Thus Gounelle. “Rapport de Pilate.”

88.
See Montague R. James,
Apocrypha Anecdota
, second series (Cambridge: University Press, 1897), pp. xlv–xlviii, 66–70; Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 523–27.

89.
See Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 517–21.

90.
One other interesting document of the Pilate cycle, the Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, is also forged, but probably after our period; two others, the Mors Pilati and the Vindicta Salvatoris, are anonymous narratives rather than forgeries. Texts and introductions for all three can be found in ibid., pp. 537–85.

91.
For Syriac text and English translation, see George Howard,
The Teaching of Addai
(Ann Arbor, MI: Society of Biblical Literature, 1981).

92.
Sebastian Brock, “Eusebius and Syriac Christianity,” in
Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism
, ed. Harry Attridge and Gohei Hatta (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1992), pp. 212–34.

93.
See pp. 455–58. F. C. Burkitt,
Early Christianity outside the Roman Empire
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899); Walter Bauer,
Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum
(Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1934), ch. 1; H. J. W. Drijvers, “Addai und Mani: Christentum und Manichäismus im Dritten Jahrhundert in Syrien,”
Or. Chr. A
. 221 (1983): 171–85. For a recent discussion of how the legend functioned in its later context, see Alexander Mirkovic,
Prelude to Constantine: The Abgar Tradition in Early Christianity
(Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004).

94.
Translations from Ehrman and Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 413–17.

95.
For the following epigraphic and manuscript notes, see Judah Segal,
Edessa, the “Blessed City
” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 75.

96.
Ibid., p. 75. For discussion of papyrus fragments later discovered in Egypt, see Rolf Peppermüller, “Griechische Papyrusfragmente der
Doctrina Addai
,”
VC
25 (1971): 289–301.

97.
Thus Drijvers.

98.
The only factum that she mentions not in the letters themselves is that the letter of Jesus was brought to Edessa by Ananias; but this is also found in the superscript to the letter.

99.
Augustine,
Faust
. 28.4;
Cons
. 1.7.11; Jerome,
Comm. Ezech
. 44.29 (PL 25.443).

100.
The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2009).

101.
Translation of Howard,
Teaching of Addai
.

F
rom the earliest of times, Christian churches of every description encountered difficulties of organization and leadership. From the early years of the movement we are best informed about the churches connected with Paul, where problems arose that could make even the most stalwart apostle tremble. Nowhere is that clearer than in the Corinthian correspondence, directed to a community organized (if one can use the term) according to a charismatic principle that enabled considerable chaos to reign not only in the worship services but also in the life of the community in general, especially in competing factions and their outspoken representatives. Within such communities factionalism often played itself out in the realm of theological discourse, as subcommunities and individuals advocated views of the faith in opposition to the rest. Small wonder that the church as a whole could not continue to structure itself along such lines, that hierarchical organization and established leadership soon took hold in order to provide both clarity and direction for a church settling in for the long haul.

But even more conventionally organized communities experienced serious internal problems and conflicts over how the church should be structured and who should be granted roles of leadership. Concerns for church order are evidenced throughout our literature, whether orthonymous (Paul’s letters), anonymous (e.g., the Didache), or forged. At the early stage of our literary record, nowhere are the concerns more evident than in two of the Pastoral epistles, 1 Timothy and Titus, forged in Paul’s name by the same author who produced 2 Timothy, which we have already considered for another reason and in a different context.

In that earlier discussion I provided a preliminary sketch of all the background issues of relevance to the question of the pseudonymous character of these two
books, and I do not need to repeat that discussion in detail here. My argument can be summed up quickly: all three of the Pastoral epistles were written by the same author; that author was not Paul; strong arguments for this conclusion obtain from considering the three letters as group; but the strongest arguments derive from each letter individually. The arguments involving 1 Timothy and Titus were already advanced in that earlier context. Moreover, it is important to reiterate that these books were not produced within some kind of “Pauline school” (a modern scholarly invention),
¹
nor can their differences be explained (in support of their authenticity) on the grounds that others of Paul’s letters were produced by committee, whereas these come from the man himself.
²

To restate one other fundamental point: even though the three letters were written by the same author, that does not justify the scholarly attempt to conflate their contents into one mega-Pastoral letter, interpreting the three as a unified and uni-functional canon, as done over the past several decades, for example, by such scholars as G. Haufe and P. Trummer, in a different way by Richard Pervo, and most recently by G. Häfner.
³
The character, concerns, and presupposed historical situation of 2 Timothy, in particular, are not those of the other two, and leveling out their differences—particularly when trying to ferret out the teachings of the opponents—creates an amalgam that is both unrecognizable and unhelpful.

For this reason, a number of scholars have argued that the three need to be considered as individual productions, just as one today is more inclined to study Galatians or Philippians as its own literary production, not simply in relation, say,
to Romans. It is easy to take this move toward individuation too far, however, as William Richards does in positing three different authors for the three Pastorals, living decades apart.
⁴
The books should be treated individually, but they still share a number of important features. In particular 1 Timothy and Titus have a good deal in common, in language, concept, theme, and presupposed (i.e., alleged) historical situation. Nowhere is that more evident than in the two overarching concerns of the letters: the attack on false teaching and the concern to establish appropriate church leaders.

The concerns to silence false teachers and to appoint appropriate church leaders make particular sense in the historical contexts that the letters presuppose. These situations are roughly similar to one another, and are unlike the ostensible situation of the third of the Pastoral epistles. In 2 Timothy, Paul was in prison awaiting trial and anticipating his imminent death. Not so for 1 Timothy and Titus. As a result, if one does read the letters as a corpus, it would be natural to assume that these two were written somewhat earlier in Paul’s life. It is in the allusions to Paul’s situation that the great bulk of the letters’ verisimilitudes occur. These may not overwhelm the reader, as those in 2 Timothy threaten to do, but they are abundant enough to show that the author was quite intent on making these letters appear actually to be by the apostle himself.

In 1 Timothy Paul is hoping to come visit his young colleague (4:12) soon (3:14). He had earlier left Timothy in the city of Ephesus to lead the church, to control the false teaching that had erupted there (1:3–7, 18–20), and to be sure that the “right” people were appointed to positions of leadership (3:1–15). It is probably not technically correct to call Timothy the “bishop” of the church, although he certainly does exercise the key leadership role as the one in charge, as seen especially in 4:11–16. But unlike the resident bishop and the deacons, he is passing through. There is some question of whether Paul’s designation of him as a “deacon” (4:6) is meant in a technical or general sense; and it is not clear what “gift” was bestowed upon him through “prophetic utterance” when he was ordained by the presbyterial “laying on of hands” (4:14). But however one understands this complicated passage, it does appear that a leadership role has been passed on to Timothy by leaders before him, including the apostle Paul himself.