The study of Christian origins has never been static. Each generation of scholars digs further into the complex formation of the texts that came to constitute the New Testament. Among the figures most responsible for pushing this conversation into the public sphere are Bart D. Ehrman and James D. Tabor—two historians of early Christianity who share a willingness to examine uncomfortable questions: Who really wrote the books of the New Testament? Were some texts written under false names? If so, what motivated those authors?
While they differ in their methods and conclusions, both scholars explore the presence of pseudonymous or forged writings in ancient Christianity. The provocative phrase “lies in the name of God”—most famously used by Ehrman—captures the unsettling idea that some early Christians may have composed texts claiming authority from figures who did not, in fact, write them. Tabor, for his part, frames the question in terms of competing movements within Judaism and early Christianity, where pseudonymous writings sometimes served ideological or theological battles.
Together, their work contributes to a deeper understanding of how early Christian literature took shape and why authorship mattered so profoundly in the ancient world.
1. Setting the Stage: What Counts as a Forgery?
Before examining the positions of Ehrman and Tabor, it helps to clarify the term forgery. In modern usage, “forgery” often evokes criminal intent: falsified checks, fake signatures, fraudulent documents. But in antiquity, pseudonymous writing took forms ranging from benign literary convention to deliberate deception.
Scholars generally identify several categories:
-
Pseudepigraphy – attributing a text to a figure who did not write it.
-
Interpolations – additions inserted into an originally authentic work.
-
Fabricated letters or gospels – texts composed to advance a theological position under an apostolic name.
-
Pious fraud – writings intended to promote what the author saw as religious truth by invoking a respected authority.
What modern scholars debate is intent. Was the author deliberately tricking readers? Was pseudonymous writing accepted literary practice? Or did the community knowingly preserve texts attributed to revered figures symbolically?
This is where the scholarship of Ehrman and Tabor becomes particularly important.
2. Bart D. Ehrman: Forgery as Intentional Deception
Bart D. Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has popularized the discussion of pseudepigrapha through widely read books such as Forgery and Counterforgery and Forged: Writing in the Name of God. His central thesis is bold and uncompromising: many early Christian writings were intentional forgeries, composed by authors who falsely claimed to be apostles or apostolic figures.
Ehrman’s Key Arguments
-
The Ancient World Condemned Forgery
Ehrman challenges the idea that pseudonymous writing was widely accepted or benign. He argues that Greek, Roman, and Jewish writers openly criticized the practice. Philosophers such as Galen and physicians like Hippocrates complained about forged texts written in their names. The ancient reader, he insists, expected honesty about authorship. -
Several New Testament Books Are Likely Pseudonymous
While the twenty-seven books of the New Testament have long-standing traditional attributions, modern scholarship questions some of them. Ehrman argues that certain epistles—such as 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, and possibly Ephesians and Colossians—show linguistic styles, theological positions, and historical contexts that differ from the apostolic authors to whom they are attributed. -
Pseudonymous Writing Was Used to Assert Authority
Ehrman contends that early Christian communities were diverse, often in theological conflict. Writing “in the name of Paul” or “in the name of Peter” gave one faction’s views apostolic weight, and in doing so, sought to influence the community’s beliefs. -
The Term “Lies” Is Intentionally Provocative
In titling his works with terms like Forged and “lies in the name of God,” Ehrman argues that these authors intended readers to believe something false—that an apostle wrote the text. He sees this not as benign literary convention but as deception, however well-intentioned.
Why Ehrman’s Work Resonates
Ehrman’s approach appeals to both scholars and general audiences because he combines rigorous textual analysis with accessible explanations. His work opens discussions about how the early church formed its canon and how power, theology, and authority shaped what became Scripture.
His conclusions are debated, but his influence is undeniable.
3. James D. Tabor: Pseudepigraphy in a Sectarian Landscape
James D. Tabor, professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, approaches the topic differently. A specialist in Christian origins and ancient Judaism, Tabor focuses on the historical and sociological contexts in which early Christian and Jewish texts were produced.
Though he does not use the term “forgery” as broadly or provocatively as Ehrman, Tabor acknowledges that pseudonymous writings were common in the Second Temple Jewish and early Christian milieu. His emphasis is on why they were written and how they reflect competing movements within Judaism and the Jesus tradition.
Tabor’s Key Arguments
-
Pseudonymous Writing Was Part of a Larger Jewish Tradition
Tabor points to works like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, and portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which were attributed to ancient patriarchs or prophets. These texts shaped the intellectual world of early Christians. -
Competing Sects Produced Competing Scriptures
Tabor’s broader thesis is that early Christianity was diverse. Different groups—Pauline communities, Jamesian (Jewish-Christian) followers, apocalyptic sectarians—produced writings expressing their own visions of the Jesus movement. Pseudonymous writings often served internal debates about authority. -
The Term “Forgery” Requires Nuance
Tabor cautions against projecting modern categories of deceit onto ancient literature. While some pseudonymous works attempted to assert apostolic authority, others may have used symbolic attribution as a form of homage or theological commentary. -
Understanding Intent Is Essential
Unlike Ehrman, who emphasizes intentional deception, Tabor stresses that motivations varied. In some cases, the audience may have recognized the symbolic nature of the authorship. In others, texts may have been circulated under authoritative names by later communities, not the original authors.
Where Tabor Adds Depth
Tabor’s scholarship helps contextualize pseudonymous writings within the broader religious landscape. He frames early Christianity not as a unified movement but as a spectrum of groups producing texts that reflect their evolving beliefs. This approach makes questions of authorship less about individual deceit and more about communal identity and competition.
4. Points of Convergence Between Ehrman and Tabor
Despite differences in emphasis, both scholars agree on several key points:
-
Many early Christian texts were written under names not belonging to their actual authors.
-
These writings sometimes served theological agendas.
-
The early church debated which writings were authentic—and struggled with pseudonymous works.
-
Understanding authorship helps illuminate early Christian diversity and historical context.
Both scholars also encourage readers to see the formation of the New Testament not as a straightforward process but as a centuries-long negotiation over authority, identity, and doctrine.
5. Points of Divergence: Forgery or Literary Convention?
Where Ehrman and Tabor part ways is primarily in tone and interpretation.
Ehrman’s Perspective
-
Pseudonymous writing is best understood as intentional deception.
-
The authors meant readers to believe the works were written by apostles.
-
Ancient critics condemned the practice, making it ethically fraught even in its own time.
-
The term “forgery” is historically justifiable.
Tabor’s Perspective
-
Intent is complex and context-dependent.
-
Some pseudonymous texts reflect accepted literary or sectarian norms.
-
Using “forgery” for all such texts risks oversimplifying diverse ancient practices.
-
The focus should be on the social dynamics behind the writings, not moral judgment.
These differences create fertile ground for debate and reflect broader tensions in biblical scholarship: between historical criticism and literary theory, between moral judgment and contextual analysis.
6. Why the Question Matters: Authority, Truth, and the Early Church
The study of biblical forgeries—or pseudonymous writings—matters because it touches on fundamental questions:
1. What is Scripture?
If certain canonical texts were not written by apostles, how does that affect their authority? Scholars like Ehrman argue that it challenges traditional views; others argue that authority rests not in authorship but in communal reception.
2. How did doctrine develop?
Texts written to support particular theological positions influenced debates over resurrection, Christology, church leadership, and ethical practices.
3. How should modern readers interpret biblical texts?
Understanding that early Christians sometimes used pseudonymous writing can contextualize difficult passages, especially those tied to church structure or social norms.
4. What does this reveal about early Christian communities?
It highlights a world of competing movements, lively debates, theological creativity, and evolving identities.
7. Conclusion: Continuing the Conversation
Bart D. Ehrman and James D. Tabor have brought scholarly debates about pseudonymous biblical writings into public consciousness. Ehrman’s forthright claim that some early Christians told “lies in the name of God” forces readers to confront uncomfortable possibilities about intentional deception. Tabor’s contextual approach complicates the picture, suggesting that these writings often emerged from dynamic religious communities navigating identity and authority.
Together, they invite a more nuanced understanding of early Christian literature—one that acknowledges both the human complexity of its production and the historical richness of its development.
Their work reminds modern readers that the Bible did not emerge fully formed. It grew from communities wrestling with questions of faith, authority, and truth. And whether we label certain texts as forgeries, pseudepigrapha, or literary expressions of theological vision, the discussion reveals something profound: early Christians were passionately invested in articulating what they believed to be the truth—sometimes boldly, sometimes creatively, and sometimes under names not their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment