Scholars often claim that pseudepigraphy in the ancient world was not deception, but was a commonly accepted practice. To test that claim, one must examine attitudes toward pseudepigraphy in the Greco-Roman world, how known pseudepigraphs were handled and treated, why they were written, and how the early church treated them.
All these issues are important and have been covered in many monographs many times over. But one of the most important points about pseudepigraphy that all Christians should know is that there is never a time when the church accepted a letter as authoritative when they knew it to be pseudepigraphal.
Indeed, the useful and recently published The Cross, the Cradle, and the Crown (2nd ed.), which is our current Book of the Week, contains 30+ pages that covers most of the ancient evidence and secondary literature related to pseudepigraphy. The authors include the following helpful sidebar on the early church’s attitude toward the practice (p. 9):
SIDEBAR 1.1: PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN THE EARLY CHURCH
There is no known example of a book falsely claiming to be written by an apostle (a “pseudepigraphical” work), orthodox or not, that was accepted by the early church as canonical. Serapion, bishop of Antioch (died AD 211), stated concerning the spurious Gospel of Peter: “For our part, brethren, we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us.” (1) Tertullian (ca. AD 160–225) recorded the defrocking of an Asian elder, noting that, “in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing [i.e. Acts of Paul and 3 Corinthians], as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office.” (2) Thus, when a book in the canon claims to have been written by a certain author, it may be assumed that the early church believed it was authentic.(1) Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.22.1.
(2) Tertullian, On Baptism 17, in Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 , vol. III: Tertullian, ed. A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, A. C. Coxe, and A. Menzies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 677. See also Eusebius’s statement regarding apocryphal works: “in order that we might know them and the writings that are put forward by heretics under the name of the apostles containing gospels such as those of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias, and some others besides, or Acts such as those of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of the orthodox ever thought it right to refer in his writings. Moreover, the type of phraseology differs from apostolic style, and the opinion and tendency of their contents are widely dissonant from true orthodoxy and clearly show that they are the forgeries of heretics” (Eccl. Hist. 3.25).
Although only a few bits of the evidence are cited, much more exists. Most of it was examined by Terry Wilder in his published dissertation Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception, in which he concluded regarding the early church that they “did not knowingly allow either pseudo-apostolic or heretical works to be read publicly in the churches along with apostolic writings. … evidence is lacking for a convention of pseudonymity which existed amongst orthodox Christians” (p. 147).
So, did the early church accept any known pseudepigraphs? No. The other issues related to pseudepigraphy are worth discussing, and perhaps they may be the subject of later posts.
So, did the early church accept any known pseudepigraphs? No. Share on X(**Note: Augustine strangely accepted Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach in Civ. 17.20, despite admitting they are pseudepigraphal, but he rules out all pseudepigrapha as authoritative in Civ. 18.38. He was inconsistent on this point.**)
Check out the rest of the comprehensive and updated content in The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, our Book of the Week and a useful tool to have on your shelf among your other New Testament introductions.
