Part of the encouragement in reading and preaching on 1 and 2 Timothy is being told of the history of Paul’s relationship with Timothy and the drama of Paul’s current plight. But are we actually reading the words of the apostle? When 2 Peter 1:16–18 speaks of the transfiguration, it is thrilling to consider that these are the personal recollections of Peter, many years later. But are they genuine?
The topic of pseudonymity regularly comes up in New Testament studies. You might encounter it in commentaries as you research an essay or sermon. An argument that is often used in support of pseudonymous authorship, particularly by more sceptical scholars, is the comparison of the language used. They compare the language in a book whose authorship is disputed with language used in books whose authorship is settled to demonstrate an author is not who they claim to be. The problem with this line of argument is that linguistic evidence can be spun in a way that suits the preconceived ideas of the scholar.
Pseudonymity in Paul and Peter’s Epistles
For example, scholars often cite the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) as being pseudonymous because their language differs so markedly from other epistles that are believed to be authentically written by Paul (‘Pauline’). On the other hand, scholars will equally cite similarities between Pauline letters as proof of pseudonymity. To put it another way, similarities are considered as evidence of skilful imitation rather than authenticity. First and Second Thessalonians provide an interesting case study in that both arguments have been used to suggest that 2 Thessalonians is pseudonymous. That is, genuine Pauline authorship is denied for 2 Thessalonians because the language is deemed to be both too different or too similar to 1 Thessalonians—or even both![1]
Scholars focussed on books attributed to Peter (‘Petrine’), posit pseudonymity for similar reasons. Petrine authorship of First Peter is dismissed because it doesn’t appear to have much connection with the gospel tradition which one would expect to be associated with Peter, especially in relation to the Gospel of Mark and how Peter is presented by Luke in Acts.[2] At the same time, paradoxically, Second Peter is deemed to draw too heavily on the gospel tradition and so stress Peter’s alleged authorship too heavily! In other words, the authenticity of 1 Peter is questioned because the language is not Petrine enough while the authenticity of 2 Peter is questioned because the language presents as overly Petrine.[3] Still other scholars reject authentic Petrine authorship because the language used appears to be too Pauline.[4]
What about Pseudonymity in the Gospels?
Occasionally, scholars posit the pseudonymity of some, or all four gospels. While the gospels bear the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they are technically anonymous. The names that are attributed to them have come to us through early church tradition. This is not controversial and, strikingly, the names attributed to the gospels do not appear to have been contested in the early church, even as other doctrinal claims were up for grabs. To my mind, when scholars try to argue for pseudonymity with regards to the gospels they make a category error, because if the gospels don’t claim an author in the first place they cannot fairly be claimed as pseudonymous at all.
Linguistic Arguments in Favour of Authentic Authorship
One could easily take the same linguistic evidence provided above and spin it in favour of Pauline or Petrine authenticity. With regards to linguistic similarities between two documents, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that such similarities exist because they share the same author and not because someone is copying a particular style.
In the case of shared language between two authors, commonalities may just as well be attributed to shared theological traditions and convictions (see for e.g. Paul’s acknowledgment of this in 1 Cor 15:3).
When it comes to linguistic disparities between two letters, such a reality may be the case because of a multitude of factors including different audiences, different circumstances, or different theological concerns.
Finally, we should also observe that the body of literature under consideration in the New Testament is not exactly substantial. It would be a mistake to assume that any author could or would exhaust their vocabulary within a handful of letters or a single gospel account.
Each point above is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the available linguistic data. It’s a different and equally legitimate way to view the very same evidence that leads others to suggest pseudonymity.
`
Where does all of this leave us? The fact that linguistic comparison can be used to make the case both for and against authentic authorship demonstrates that the criterion itself is not as significant as it is often made out to be. Pseudonymous literature did exist in antiquity, but it is a misstep to use linguistic commonalities or differences alone to justify categorising a New Testament book as pseudonymous literature or otherwise.
[1] In his commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Baker Academic, 2014), Jeffrey Weima, concludes that critical scholars often overplay their hand in relation to the evidence. Their arguments, he writes, are often overly subjective and given to exaggerating similarities and differences between the letters (p. xxvi).
[2] On Peter’s connection to the Gospel of Mark, Luke’s presentation of Peter in Acts, and 1–2 Peter, see Gene L. Green’s Vox Petri, ch. 2 (Cascade, 2019).
[3] Infamously, Werner Georg Kümmel argued in his Introduction to the New Testament (Abingdon Press, 1975) that 1 Peter bore no familiarity with the earthly Jesus meaning that the Apostle Peter could not possibly be the author (p. 424). A few pages later in relation to 2 Peter, Kümmel implies that the reference to Jesus’ transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16–18 (among other gospel allusions, see p. 430) comes across as trying too hard to affirm Petrine authorship (p. 433).
[4] Tom Schreiner’s updated commentary, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude (Holman Reference, 2020), provides an excellent overview of these conversations in relation to both 1 & 2 Peter (pp. 4–18; 298–323, respectively).
