Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (22 page)

Baum’s detailed and learned study is useful in many ways, but this overarching thesis is problematic for a number of reasons.
⁶⁵
It is true that the content of a book mattered to critics, and that it was one of the chief criteria used to establish claims of authorship. But there were other grounds as well, as we have already begun to see; moreover, these other grounds were employed precisely because ancient critics were genuinely interested in the historical question of who actually put pen to papyrus.

Before pursuing this particular issue further, it might be worthwhile pointing out a broader problem with Baum’s line of argumentation, the inconvenient fact that numerous authors and groups of readers, holding wildly disparate philosophical or religious views, could claim that the contents of a particular text really were, or were not, those of the alleged author. In most instances there was no way then, and scarcely any way now, of adjudicating these claims. This will be an enormous issue once we come to the Christian materials in the following chapters. Various followers of Paul took contrary lines on such fundamental issues as the unity of the godhead, the nature of Christ, the viability of marriage and sexual relations, and so on. Some among these followers produced writings in Paul’s name, all claiming that Paul himself authorized their views. The reality is that he authorized none of them. Baum’s view may be theologically satisfying: apostolic pseudepigrapha can be accepted as apostolic, even if apostles did not write them, and no charge of forgery need be leveled against their pseudonymous authors. But the view is very hard to establish historically, given the nature of our evidence and our ability to trace multiple lines of thought back to apostles (e.g., that women can be active in the worship of the church or that they have to be passive and submissive instead—both views are “Pauline”).

That is to say, pseudonymous texts supporting divergent views, on Baum’s assessment, would theoretically all have to be seen, historically, as nonproblematic in their authorial claims. But the ancients did not see it that way. If a book did not support the “correct” interpretation of Paul, then it could not be by Paul. And then it was labeled a lie, a deceit, and a bastard. The correct interpretation, however, was generally established not on historical-critical but on theological grounds. If a text agreed with the interpreter’s own understanding of Paul, then it could be accepted as genuinely Pauline; if not, then it was forged.

Moreover, as I have begun to emphasize, in many instances in antiquity, critics both Christian and non-Christian were interested in the simple historical question of whether the alleged author of a work was its real author. This decision was not based purely on the question of the contents of a work, but on other grounds as well. Take the famous words of Origen on the authorship of Hebrews:

If I were asked my personal opinion, I would say that the matter is the Apostle’s but the phraseology and construction are those of someone who remembered the Apostle’s teaching and wrote his own interpretation of what his master had said. So if any church regards this epistle as Paul’s, it should be commended for so doing, for the primitive Church had every justification for handing it down as his. Who wrote the epistle is known to God alone: the accounts that have reached us suggest that it was either Clement, who became Bishop of Rome, or Luke, who wrote the gospel and the Acts. (Quoted in Eusebius,
H.E
. 6.25.11–14)

Origen’s attitude may seem to justify Baum’s view that only the contents mattered in establishing “genuine” authorship. But in fact it does not. Even though Origen agrees that the contents of the letter to the Hebrews are Pauline, he refuses to call it Pauline (even though he understands why others would want to do so). In other words, he refuses to do precisely what Baum’s view suggests he should have done: accept the Pauline authorship of the book because of the Pauline contents. For Origen—at least in his one explicit discussion of the matter—the contents are not enough. He will not say a book is by Paul unless Paul actually wrote it.
⁶⁶

So too Origen’s contemporary Dionysius of Alexandria, who was heavily invested in knowing who actually wrote the book Revelation. On the basis of a
stylistic
analysis, he shows that it could not have been John, the apostle and author of the Fourth Gospel and the book we now call 1 John. He concludes that it was
instead produced by a holy and inspired man of the same name writing at the same time (Eusebius,
H.E
. 7.25.7).

Eusebius too was interested in knowing the actual authors of the early Christian writings. As one of his leading criteria he, the inveterate historian, looked to see how widely a book was used and attested by earlier authors. Writings that appear to have been unknown in earlier times were suspect, not just with respect to their canonicity but more specifically with respect to their authorship, two issues that were closely tied together (but by no means synonymous) in Eusebius’ mind. Usage, though, was as important as content.

And so, for example, he has this to say about the epistles of James and Jude:

Such is the story of James, to whom is attributed the first of the “general” epistles. Admittedly its authenticity is doubted, since few early writers refer to it
any more than to “Jude’s,” which is also one of the seven called general. (
H.E
. 2.23.25)

At stake here is not merely whether these books should be included in the canon, but also the fundamental issue that makes the canonical decision possible: Are these books genuinely by the ascribed authors? Or are they vóθa? On balance, Eusebius thinks the former. He engages in much the same line of argument with respect to the writings ascribed to Peter (
H.E
. 3.3.1–4). 1 Peter is genuine, because it is quoted widely; 2 Peter is not to be seen as canonical, even though some Christian leaders find it valuable. Other books such as the Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter are to be rejected because they were not used in earlier times or in orthodox circles, to Eusebius’ knowledge (
H.E
. 3.3.2). Again it may appear that Eusebius is concerned here only with issues of canon, but in fact the question of canon for him is closely tied to the more precise question of authenticity: a book not actually written by Peter and not widely accepted as being written by Peter is not to be included among the canonical writings of Peter. This is clear from the conclusion of his discussion: “These then are the works attributed to Peter, of which I have recognized only one epistle as authentic and accepted by the early fathers”
Note:
[3.3.4]). That the issue for Eusebius was not merely canonicity but also authorship in se is seen by the circumstance that he applies the same kinds of criteria—especially lineage of usage (not contents)—in discussing works that he clearly did not consider canonical, such as 2 Clement (
H.E
. 3.38.4). If the book does not have an established lineage of usage from Clement’s day, it is not to be attributed to Clement, independently of the question (Baum’s) of whether the contents are Clementine.

Much the same could be said about Jerome, who determines that the letter to Jude is to be included among the Catholic epistles, but points out that it is rejected by other Christian critics because it quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch (and
surely no inspired author would quote as authoritative an apocryphal book!) (
Vir. ill
. 4). Here, as in Eusebius, the authority of the book resides in the actual author. In this instance the authenticity of the book is determined on the basis of its contents. This is not a case that supports Baum’s perspective, however; for here the contents render a negative judgment (what is found in the book indicates that Jude could not have written it), not a positive one (the book is rightly attributed to Jude because the contents—apart from the wording and style—
do
go back to him). Moreover, Jerome, like Eusebius, is interested in the matter of authorship itself, that is, in who actually produced a book that goes under the name of a well-known person (and not simply on the grounds of contents).
⁶⁷
Thus, for example, he argues that the work
De fato
ascribed to Minucius Felix is not actually by him, not because of its contents but because of its writing style: “although the work of a very learned man, [it] does not seem to me to correspond in style with the work mentioned above” (
Vir. ill
. 58). So too Theophilus, the sixth bishop of Antioch, composed many surviving genuine accounts, but the two books “On the Gospel” and “On the Proverbs of Solomon” are not authentic, because they “do not appear to me to correspond in style and language with the elegance and expressiveness of the above works” (
Vir. ill
. 25).
⁶⁸

And so there are two points that need to be stressed with respect to Christian approaches to forgery. On one hand, contrary to Baum, it was not simply the contents of a work that mattered; Christian critics were invested in knowing who actually wrote a work, on the basis of content, style, and established patterns of usage. On the other hand, this question of authorship did stand in a clear but ironically symbiotic relationship with the contents of a work. It was the contents that, in part (but only in part), helped determine whether an author actually wrote the book circulating under his name; but it was precisely the fact that he wrote the book that provided the authority for its contents.