of his court orations; however, to his great dismay, the court stenographers, having recorded what was said, later took his ideas and expressed them in their own words.29 Quintilian felt he should have the rights to publish his spoken word, that his orations were not part of public domain.
What troubled these authors and others was not simply that someone might gain financially from this deception, but that the entire corpus of their work, their ideas and reputation, could be smeared or lowered with the addition of works claiming to be their own. Herodotus explains that Onomacritus was exiled from Athens for adding to the oracles of Musaeus.30 Diogenes Laertius notes that the Stoic Diotimus wrote fifty obscene letters in his opponent Epicurus’ name, attempting to ruin his reputation.31 But notice also in Galen’s story above that at least some ancient readers asked questions of authorship by examining the style of a work compared to known authentic texts. Suetonius echoes the same sentiment in his critique of some works in the Homer corpus that he identifies as not genuine because they are both common and obscure, that is, their style and grammar did not match that of the genuine works of Homer. “What emerges clearly is the widespread use of pseudonymity in Greco-Roman antiquity, a literary practice well-regarded by some but held in contempt by others.”32
Plato’s Noble Falsehood
Alongside the question of intellectual property is Plato’s concept of a noble falsehood. The idea taught that if a fabrication would help a person, then it was acceptable for someone to tell a lie. The example often given by the ancient authors themselves was of a physician who, in order to help the patient, would lie about a remedy so that the patient would follow orders and thus be healed. Some argue that the early church would have accepted a pseudepigraphic letter if its content was in line with apostolic thought, because the message mattered more than the medium. While it is true that a few church fathers speak favorably of the noble falsehood, the contexts differ so greatly from the issues of apostolic writings so as to limit their usefulness in the argument. For example, Chrysostom approves of the noble falsehood, but the context is his “lie” to his friend concerning their joining the priesthood.33 He explains why he was not straightforward about his own actions in the matter, but notes that he obfuscated his position for his friend’s greater good. Again, Origen admits that the noble falsehood is a logically conceivable way of understanding how Jesus might have taught.34 But he then goes on to reject that possibility as it pertains to Christ. Finally, Clement of Alexandria uses the concept, even citing the example similar to the one noted above of a physician’s practice.35 He suggests that such was also used by Paul in circumcising Timothy, but in the end he says that he cannot accept the label of deceit; Paul was accommodating to the Jewish sensibilities, not being deceitful. Interestingly, Chrysostom, in his long explanation to his friend about his apparent duplicity, also notes Paul’s circumcision of Timothy, and likewise rejects a label of deception. In any case, while these few church fathers do acknowledge the noble falsehood as a possible reality in their daily lives, they do not accept it as the modus operandi for apostles and Jesus Christ. It seems, then, that the early believers would not have countenanced a pseudepigraphic letter on the grounds it that was a noble falsehood.
Evidence from the Early Church
The early church resisted accepting as authoritative anything beyond the apostolic period, such as the Acts of Paul.36 For example, in the fifth century, the presbyter Salvian wrote Timothei ad Ecclesiam (libri IV). The local bishop guessed that his presbyter was responsible, and protested the writing. Salvian responded that he knew who wrote it (he denied responsibility), and that he felt it necessary to attach an authoritative name to the work, for otherwise no one would read it. Moreover, Salvian asserted the author was being humble by not attaching his name. And anyway, the name Timothy was chosen as a play on words, for it means “honor of God.” Salvian wanted it both ways, to say that people read it because of the reputed author, and that the name means nothing. At bottom, Salvian (the likely author) used the name Timothy to deceive the readers, and his bishop denounced it. The problem is addressed from a different angle in Eusebius’ discussion of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (ca. 170 CE), who commented that his epistles had been defaced. “As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord’s writings also, since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less account.”37
One might argue that such late evidence does not help us with Ephesians, which is an early work. In an interesting twist, some scholars have suggested that the earliest church followed the Jewish practice of accepting pseudepigraphic works, and that second-century Gentile Christians condemned the practice.38 Some of the Jewish pseudepigraphic texts cited to defend the theory, however, are from the apocalyptic genre, which might as part of its literary technique attribute the text to a worthy ancient such as Enoch or Ezra. The Christian biblical texts were written in the apostolic age and use apostles’ names, not names of the distant past. Additionally, 1 Baruch and its final chapter, the Epistle of Jeremiah, while part of the LXX and the Vulgate, were not included in the Jewish canon. It is difficult, then, to state definitively from this example that Jews accepted pseudepigraphy. The Epistle of Jeremiah does not begin with the sender’s salutation, but the narrator indicates that this was a letter the prophet sent to the exiles in Babylon. The lack of salutation limits its usefulness as a direct comparison to Ephesians. Generally speaking, the pseudepigraphic works use the names of ancient patriarchs or heroes of the faith, which increases the possibility that the Jewish authors mirrored the Gentile writers. Both looked back with admiration at their historical past, and wished to have those great figures speak anew in their day. We might bring the book of Hebrews into the discussion here. This work was ultimately put into the Christian canon by connecting it with the Apostle Paul, though the letter itself is anonymous. Origen’s discussion of Hebrews is instructive. He recognizes that the style of speech is much better than Paul’s rough wording. But he also observes that the content is Pauline, and suggests that someone who was very familiar with Paul’s ideas, who perhaps even took notes from the master, wrote the piece. Origen acknowledges that those who claim it comes from Paul are right to say so. But as for him, he declines to make any specific judgment, instead admitting that only God knows who wrote it. That does not stop him quoting Hebrews as though it were Paul’s work.39 From this evidence two points should be emphasized. First, Origen was well aware of the Greek style and grammar of the Pauline corpus, and was comfortable discussing questions of authenticity based on that data. Second, Origen does not say anything similar about the disputed Pauline epistles as he does about Hebrews. That is, he does not offer that the style, grammar, or theology of any of the Pauline letters might have been that of a disciple of Paul who used Paul’s name to extend Paul’s thought for a new day or situation.
A related issue is that of apostolic authority. Paul insists that his apostolic authority is of a special type: it is directly from God (Gal 1:1). We have no evidence that Paul seconded that authority to his coworkers; indeed, that would not be possible, for only God could appoint apostles (1 Cor 12:4, 28). And the early church also regarded the era of the apostles, and the apostles themselves, as divinely commissioned to communicate the word of God. Yet Hebrews shows that authoritative material need not have within its text the name of an apostle (the canonical Gospels are another example; the author’s name is found in the title page). What does seem off limits is assuming apostolic authority without having been given that responsibility by God.40
Conclusion
In closing, I justify the time spent reviewing the evidence concerning pseudonymity in the Greco-Roman world and early church because the issue is often treated as a fait accompli: the Ephesians letter is pseudepigraphic, but not deceptive both because the early church accepted the wider conventions of pseudonymity, and because the ancients had little sense of intellectual property. This survey has cautioned against accepting these claims. Instead, the evidence suggests the church did not accept (knowingly) pseudepigraphic letters or works. If Ephesians is determined to be pseudepigraphic, then the use of Paul’s name and personal data were included in an effort to pass off the letter as genuine. In that case, it was an
