After the completely uncritical approach of the Middle
Ages the questionings of the Reformers brought a breath
of critical enquiry to certain problems raised by
New Testament books. The criticism, however, was not
historical but subjective. To that extent the opinions
expressed by individual Reformers on the disputed
books of the canon contribute little to a just appreciation
of the problems of pseudepigraphy. Luther, although
creating a deutero-canon consisting of Hebrews, James,
Jude and the Apocalypse, did not disfavour any of
the books because they were pseudepigraphic, but because
they did not present Christ as other books did. For
this reason all these books were regarded as non-apostolic.
That his notion of apostolicity had nothing to do
with authorship is clear from his statement regarding
the Epistle of James -- "That which does not
teach Christ is still not apostolic, even if it were
the teaching of Peter or Paul. Again, that which preaches
Christ, that were apostolic, even if James, Annas,
Pilate and Herod preached it." If we are to take
this latter statement seriously, Luther would have
found no difficulty in regarding a pseudepigraphon
as apostolic provided it [[page 15]] preached Christ.
 His comments of Jude are illuminating since he
displaced it on the grounds that it is either an extract
from, or a copy of 2 Peter, a precursor of a later
criticism which has reversed the procedure.
Calvin may be supposed to point the way towards the
recognition of a canonical pseudepigraphon in his
attitude towards 2 Peter, when he says, "I therefore
lay it down that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of
credit it proceeded from Peter, not that he wrote
it himself, but that some one of his disciples at
his command included in it what the necessity of the
times required."  Yet such a production at
Peter's command is not strictly pseudepigraphic, for
it has the sanction of the name it bears. Calvin's
theory rather adumbrates the numerous secretary hypotheses.
The opinions of Grotius, which have been regarded
as a kind of foreshadowing of the Tubingen school
of criticism,  are interesting for our study. His
method was speculative, but he does not appear to
have postulated any clearly defined pseudepigrapha.
He regarded 2 Peter as originally an Epistle of Simeon,
successor to James as bishop of Jerusalem, and suggested
that its present form comprises two original letters
of that bishop (chs. 1, 2 and 3). The Petrine pseudonym
was not therefore original, and the work only became
pseudepigraphic in its later history. Similarly the
Epistle of Jude was written by Judas, who was bishop
of Jerusalem in Hadrian's time, and although it would
therefore become excluded from the genuine apostolic
writings it would not be classed as pseudepigraphic.
That it later became mistaken for an epistle of Jude
the Lord's brother does not affect this conclusion.
A similar later confusion is presupposed by Grotius
in his views on the Apocalypse, which he regarded
as having been kept in the care of the Elder John
and "that therefore it came to pass that it was
supposed by some to be his work", although Grotius
himself regarded it as apostolic.
It will be seen, therefore, that during these first
awakenings of a free criticism of the New Testament
Scriptures, the idea of a [[page 16]] canonical pseudepigraphon,
in the narrower sense, did not arise. The grounds
for determining apostolicity were too subjective for
the idea to develop of a later author counterfeiting
apostolicity by means of pseudepigrapha in accordance
with an accepted literary convention. It was left
for nineteenth-century criticism to propose the noting
2. THE RISE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM AND
THE GENESIS OF PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC HYPOTHESES
It was in the mental atmosphere of the Rationalist
period that the first theories of New Testament pseudepigrapha
were advanced. Before the end of the eighteenth century
an Englishman, Edward Evanson,  proposed that several
epistles were spurious -- Romans, Ephesians, Colossians,
Philippians, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews and James. He
claimed that his grounds of attack were historical,
although many of them arose from a misunderstanding
of the text. In spite of this assumed historical approach
Evanson made no attempt to suggest parallels to these
supposed pseudo-apostolic writings. His criticisms
were in fact quite superficial and made little impact.
It was among the early German critics of the nineteenth
century that the idea of canonical pseudepigrapha
became current. J. E. C. Schmidt  suspected the
authenticity of 1 Timothy and other books, but it
was F. E. D. Schleiermacher  who launched the first
reasoned attack upon 1 Timothy. Strangely enough he
argued from the differences between that Epistle and
the other two Pastoral Epistles, and concluded that
1 Timothy was unauthentic. This attack, which gave
the lead to later criticism, was the product of feeling
rather than of true historical investigation. As Schweitzer
commented with much penetration, "Strictly speaking
it was not Schleiermacher the critic, but Schleiermacher
the aesthete who had come to have doubts about 1 Timothy."
 His approach to 1 Timothy is instructive [[page
17]] for our purpose, for he maintained that the measure
of association between 1 Timothy and the other two
epistles was due to borrowing. In fact, he asserted
that the author of 1 Timothy had 2 Timothy before
his eyes (in discussing the reference to Hymenaeus
and Alexander in 1 Tim 1.20).  But he saw no necessity
to support this theory with any investigation into
the nature of literary borrowing. Schleiermacher's
attack was very soon followed up by J. G. Eichhorn,
 who saw that Schleiermacher's critical method
must lead to the conclusion that all three Pastoral
Epistles must be spurious, because all three differ
from the others in language and thought. In other
words he rejected Schleiermacher's arguments but accepted
his method. 1 Timothy was not an imitation of 2 Timothy
and Titus, but all three epistles were the work of
someone else who has put himself in Paul's place.
This type of pseudonymity seems to have presented
no problems to Eichhorn. There was no need to discuss
it, and the same principles led Eichhorn to regard
2 Peter and Jude as pseudepigraphic.  Belonging
to the same school of thought was W. M. L. de Wette,
 [[page 18]] who, although showing some vacillation
between his earlier and later works, still maintained
the Pastorals and 2 Peter to be non-apostolic and
therefore pseudepigraphic. He also retained some doubts
about Ephesians and 1 Peter. His influence on F. C.
Baur is noted below.
THE APPROACH OF F. C. BAUR
Because of his influence on later New Testament criticism,
the opinions of F. C. Baur require careful examination.
In spite of the fact that many of his hypotheses have
been abandoned his principles of criticism still unconsciously
affect many critical judgements. In his earliest book
on the Pastoral Epistles  he followed Eichhorn
in attacking their authenticity and consequently concluded
that they were spurious. That this influenced his
approach to other Pauline literature is clear from
a statement he made in his more thoroughgoing presentation
of his position in his book on the apostle Paul. 
In discussing the epistles whose authenticity he disputed,
he wrote, "What gives these Epistles their claim
to the name of the apostle is simply the circumstances
that they profess to be Pauline and make the apostle
speak as their author."  In other words it
was the pseudonymous device which had created the
impression of apostolicity. But Baur continued, "Even
if one of them (i.e. the Pauline Epistles) be unable
to make good its apostolic name, and with regard to
1 Timothy this can scarcely be denied, then we see
at once how little that circumstance can prove of
itself; it must then be admitted that what has happened
in one case may have happened equally in several others."
Here is the principle that one canonical pseudepigraphon
leads to the possibility if not the probability of
others, and the investigator can proceed without restraint
to postulate as many pseudepigraphic hypotheses as
he wishes.  He can always fall back on his precedent.
But Baur did not entirely ignore the problems involved,
although he treated them rather lightly. He remarked
on the different literary standards of the ancient
world and then observed, "There is therefore
no reason to think here of deception of willful forgery;
yet even if it be asserted that the matter is not
intelligible except on this hypothesis, that cannot
be maintained as an argument against its possibility
and likelihood."  His own attitude was clearly
confused for while obviously wishing to remove the
accusation of "forgery" he nevertheless
frequently speaks of the disputed epistles as "forgeries".
His attitude to this whole problem was undoubtedly
influenced by Schleiermacher. In fact, he made a definite
appeal to Schleiermacher's method over 1 Timothy in
justification of his own criticism of Colossians.
Having also been influenced by de Wette's attack on
Ephesians because of its close connection with Colossians,
he turned the table and argued that as doubts over
1 Timothy had spread to other Pastoral Epistles, so
doubts over Ephesians affected Colossians.  With
such principles of literary criticism there was no
check to the growth of canonical pseudepigrapha. The
close connection between Colossians and Ephesians
was no difficulty to Baur for both epistles were,
in his [[page 20]] opinion, pseudonymous. The pseudo-author
could do what Paul could not do, i.e. produce two
similar letters and get away with it.  To explain
why the particular destinations were chosen, Baur
maintained that the author deliberately chose two
Laodicea and Colossae, where Paul was not personally
Similar principles were applied to the other disputed
epistles. Over Philippians, the imitative process
is again assumed. It was "characterized very
decidedly by monotonous repetition of what has already
been said, by a want of any profound and masterly
connection of ideas, and by a certain poverty of thought".
 Similarly the self-testimony in chapter 3 is
"nothing but an imitation of the passage in 2
Cor. 11. 13 f."  While Baur's criticism of
this Epistle can find now no supporters , his approach
is of interest for our present purpose in demonstrating
how an acute mind like Baur's could make the most
far-reaching literary assumptions without seeing the
need to produce historical parallels. Once he got
rid of the idea that ancient literary practice did
not differ from modern, it was left for the critic
himself to fill in the blanks. This Baur did without
difficulty. He even suggested how the author set about
creating his portrait of Paul in Philippians. It appeared
to the author that "the apostle might be expected
to speak much of himself . . . . So he concluded that
the could not make him speak too humbly, and meekly,
and depreciatingly of himself."  As so many
of his successors have done over other critical questions
Baur appealed to style. "An author writing in
the name of the apostle was of course obliged to write
a Pauline style, yet the language of the Epistle betrays
the imitator in many particulars."  Yet what
appeared imitative to Baur appears genuine to most
modern critics, which shows the unreliable character
of this criterion. [[page 21]]
There is no need to multiply instances of Baur's method
of appealing to pseudepigraphic hypotheses. But his
attempt to justify his somewhat reluctant classification
of Philemon among the pseudepigrapha is worthy of
note. He described it as "a Christian romance
serving to convey a genuine Christian idea",
 and cited as a parallel the idea of recognition
and reconciliation in the pseudo-Clementine homilies.
But he did not explain how any author, designing to
write a romance, would ever have written it in so
exquisite a form as this Epistle. The fact is that
Baur's literary criticism was dominated by his dogmatic
presuppositions and since these had to be maintained
at all costs, it was no embarrassment that pseudepigraphic
writings became more normal in the extant Pauline
canon than genuine works.
It is not surprising that Baur's principles reached
their logical extreme in the rejection of all the
Pauline Epistles and in the transference of the entire
Pauline canon into the category of pseudepigrapha.
This occurred first in the works of Bruno Bauer and
later in the writings of the Dutch sceptical school.
 It is obvious that no historical grounds for
the assumption of wholesale pseudepigraphic theories
can be expected from writers who approach was almost
Modifications of Baur's position, however, are found
in the writings of H. J. Holtzmann,  who admitted
the spuriousness [[page 22]] of only 2 Thessalonians,
Ephesians and the Pastorals, and the working over
of Colossians. But since the principle of canonical
pseudepigrapha had been take over from Baur, there
was the tendency to take it for granted without discussion
of its difficulties.  But A. Julicher,  another
scholar of the same school of thought as Holtzmann,
included a fairly detailed discussion on pseudonymity
in his Introduction to the New Testament, and several
of the points he made are worthy of consideration
since they are still appealed to in defence of canonical
(a) Julicher pleaded first for the avoidance of the
word "forgery" (Falschung) for he maintained,
"it is only to the advantage of an exceedingly
narrow view of history that we should attach ideas
of fraud and deceit to writings published by men of
a later generation under cover of some honoured name
in the past; we thus make it easy to say that Holy
Church cannot possibly have accepted such scandalous
fabrications".  This anti-forgery plea, which
had been hinted at by Baur, has become almost a canon
of criticism as the history of further development
shows. (b) In justification of this difference in
the ancient and modern approaches Julicher appealed
to what he called "the boundless credulity of
ecclesiastical circles" (Die grenzenlose Leichtglaubigkeit
kirchlicher Kreise), which cannot be "got rid
of" (aus der Welt zu schaffen) by moral indignation.
Here Julicher fails to place his statement in a chronological
setting, for "boundless credulity" is not
a just description of the earliest period of Church
history. It might as truly be said that the sense
of moral indignation will not be got rid of by an
appeal to credulity. Julicher, in fact, gave no specific
evidence for this credulity apart from a passing allusion
to the many New Testament Apocrypha. [[page 23]] (c)
He next appealed to the habit among Christians of
borrowing from other works without acknowledgement,
and paralleled this to the idea of the apostolic pseudepigrapha,
maintaining "that with the best intentions and
the cleanest consciences they put such words into
the mouth of a revered apostle as they wished to hear
enunciated with apostolic authority to their contemporaries,
while yet they did not regard themselves in the smallest
degree as liars and deceivers".  But again
Julicher did not cite supporting evidence nor did
he say how he knew the intentions and consciences
of the pseudo-authors. (d) Then the difference in
literary habits was cited. "The arbitrary way
in which copyists and exegetes treated the sacred
writings" was paralleled with the habit of composing
discourses under apostolic names (or even attributing
sermons to Jesus culled from various fragments) and
with the further step of the production of pseudo-apostolic
epistles. Paradoxically Julicher  appealed here
to the adulterae scripturae of which the Fathers occasionally
speak with such horror. But this shows that some of
the Fathers at least regarded such procedure with
censure. (e) From this Julicher maintained that first-
and second-century Christians were indifferent to
the "form" in which truth was expressed;
"they applied their conception of truth solely
to the substance of their religious consciousness,
and were quite indifferent as to the form in which
it was clothed."  This is a sweeping statement
which requires the strongest support, but all that
Julicher could do was to appeal to Tertullian's evidence
regarding the author of the Acts of Paul, which may
be shown to indicate the reverse conclusion. 
But to Julicher, the author's "judges, including
our informant, were not shocked by his literary fraud
as such, but by his venturing to advocate heresies
in his book, such as the right of women to preach
and baptize". This very dubious interpretation
of Tertullian's evidence is all that Julicher considered
it necessary to cite. To him the early Christian tendency
toward literary disguises was "as strong as it
was naive". (f) He did, however, cite Graeco-Roman
and Jewish parallels, apparently merely to corroborate.
He [[page 24]] mentioned writings attributed to Pythagoras,
Demosthenes, Alexander, and Plato, "the authors
of which were certainly not deceivers", and the
practice in Jewish apocalypses of ascribing all revelations
to men of old (Daniel, Ezra, Enoch, Noah). (g) Julicher
made a distinction between western and eastern criticism,
for he admitted that neither Irenaeus nor Augustine
would have "composed and Epistle under the name
of Paul". But he brushed aside this consideration
by asserting that even western criticism was concerned
only with "tradition and orthodoxy" and
that "any work that could produce plausible evidence
and was unexceptional as to doctrine was allowed to
pass unchallenged". What Julicher meant by "plausible
evidence" is not clear, for he again cited no
examples. (h) To conclude his survey, Julicher asserted
that the arguments he had used raise a probability
that some pseudepigrapha are found in the New Testament,
but cautioned against the inference that all the Epistles
might be, by invoking the principle that "a forgery
is usually an imitation of some greater original".
So he explained that Paul "must first have written
his Epistles and these Epistles have won repute and
influence, before those who had not the courage to
appear openly under their own names could attempt
to influence Christendom in the customary form of
the didactic letter, or could put forward their apostolic
reflections under cover of the name of Peter, Paul
or John". 
Julicher's opinions have been stated at some length
because he not only represents a somewhat different
approach from Baur, but also represents the general
attitude of many more recent scholars. There is a
certain element of tension in his attempted justification
of the practice of pseudonymity. He recognized the
inadequacy of proposing pseudepigraphic hypotheses
without some reference to the historical background,
but he relied more on vague inferences than on sound
historical examination. There was still evident the
legacy of Schleiermacher and Baur.
In a similar vein to Julicher's statement of the case
is the discussion by J. Moffatt,  but the latter
advanced upon the former in several respects. Unlike
Julicher, Moffatt appealed first of all to the practice
in Jewish apocalyptic literature and considered this
as the basis for further discussion. He mentioned
the group [[page 25]] literature of David and Solomon
and Deuteronomy as a precursor of pseudonymous apocalypses,
which "showed that the literary device was quite
compatible with religious and moral motives of the
highest order".  Moreover, he maintained
that "the rise of a literature which included
the Solomonic correspondence, written by Eupolemus,
or the so-called "epistle of Jeremiah" indicates
how congenial and innocent the practice was in pre-Christian
Judaism".  This view of the innocency of
pseudepigraphy has gained numerous adherents, but
it should be noted that Moffatt gave no justification
for this value judgement apart from the sheer quantity
of the literature.
He did, however, bring into the discussion Graeco-Roman
practice and appealed particularly to the later Pythagoreans
and to the Fourth Philippic and the speech peri sunt€xewv
attributed to Demosthenes. The bearing of Graeco-Roman
practice on Christian pseudepigraphy is not obvious.
Indeed, careful examination shows that little connection
exists between them. But Moffatt's appeal to this
evidence is at least a serious attempt to view canonical
pseudepigrapha against an historical background.
Moffatt is also a representative of two other proposals
regarding pseudepigraphy which have frequently been
echoed. The first is the modesty motive. "The
high motives for such compositions sprang from the
innocent admiration and naive sympathy which prompted
a disciple to reproduce in his own language the ideas,
or what he conceived to be the ideas, of his master,
and yet forbade him, out of modesty, to present these
under his own name. Conscious of the master's influence,
disciples viewed their own writings as an extension
of his spirit."  The productions were, therefore,
evidences of "unselfish piety" on the part
of the authors, and pseudonymity became elevated on
this theory to a definite virtue.
The other proposal of Moffatt's,  in an attempt
to furnish parallels, was an appeal to the practice
of ancient historiography in the composition of speeches
and the attribution of them to a given historic person.
Indeed, he devoted more space to a discussion of this
principle in relation to pseudonymity than to any
other [[page 26]] consideration. Several ancient historians
were cited in support, such as Tacitus, Caesar, Thucydides,
Theopompus, and Sallust, while the New Testament speeches
were placed in the same category. In Moffatt's opinion,
"It is further obvious that from the historian
composing not only a letter but a speech in the name
of some historical figure, it was only a short step
to the composition of a pseudonymous epistle, in all
good faith, which was designed to edify and instruct."
Scholars generally admit a difference between ancient
and modern historiography, but it may be questioned
whether the transition from this general historical
convention to specifically Christian epistolary literature
can be justly called "a short step." A fundamental
difference between the two has not been noted by Moffatt.
The historian has a ready-made historical situation
into which to affix his speeches, but the pseudonymous
letter-writer must create his own. The latter process
requires a more fictitious set-up than the former.
It should also be noted that Moffatt's approach was
based on the assumption that Christian writers shared
precisely the same literary outlook as their non-Christian
contemporaries. This may or may not be true, but it
deserved more discussion than Moffatt gave, yet in
spite of this unproved assumption this approach has
exerted a wide influence on later criticism. In one
sense it was a by-product of the general Hellenistic
approach to the New Testament problems at the turn
of the century, but with the reaction towards a greater
emphasis on Jewish influence, some of Moffatt's literary
judgements need modification.
The theory of pseudonymity as a literary convention
has found many advocates, and once this is accepted
little need is felt for further historical discussion.
This appears to be the view taken by M. Dibelius,
 who, after pointing out that the epistolary form
was often itself artificial (as for instance in the
Epistle of Barnabas), declared, "But if the form
itself is artificial it is not surprising that the
name of the author also should be an invention."
He continued, "At that time this was a literary
convention and is to be judged ethically exactly in
the same way as when to-day, in accordance with the
literary customs of our time, composers clothe historical
descriptions of a certain period in dialogue, or write
a novel in the [[page 27]] form of letters."
In other words these pseudepigrapha must be viewed
as no more than literary pieces and must be judged
accordingly. We may detect here an absence of the
apologetic element seen in Julicher's and Moffatt's
approach. We are in fact confronted with Baur's opinion
brought up to date.
Closely linked with Dibelius' viewpoint is that of
E. J. Goodspeed, who devoted a whole chapter to the
discussion of the problem in his New Chapters in New
Testament Study (1937)  in which he nevertheless
showed a much more acute awareness of the difficulties
involved in the postulation of New Testament pseudepigrapha.
He gets over the difficulty, however, by resisting
what he calls "atomism" in approaching hypotheses.
"If they (i.e. the proposed pseudonymous writings)
are treated separately, the problem of pseudonymity
is extremely difficult and baffling, but taken together
they may throw much needed light on what has long
been their most difficult feature."  The
principle so enunciated appears to be that an increase
in the number of pseudepigraphical hypotheses progressively
makes more of them probable and helps to justify the
whole. But the mere quantity of a phenomenon does
not explain it, and this hypothesis must inevitably
place the whole collection of hypotheses on a very
insecure foundation. Given one canonical pseudepigraphon,
there is an immediate motive for the finding of others,
a process already well illustrated from Baur. Goodspeed's
principle is implicitly assumed when 2 Peter is appealed
to as an exemplar and therefore the justification
of other pseudepigraphic epistles.
C. L. Mitton, while still regarding pseudonymity as
somewhat conventional, draws a distinction between
various classes of pseudepigrapha. Thus, he maintains,
"In some cases pseudonymity seems to us to be
something less than honest, but this charge need not
be levelled against Ephesians. If the writer deliberately
derived what he wrote from the epistles which Paul
had written, and did so that he might the more faithfully
represent Paul to a subsequent generation, it might
well have been less honest in his case to pass the
result off under his own name then to acknowledge
it as Paul's".  This is Moffatt's theory
of pseudonymous virtue taken one [[page 28]] step
further. But it is noteworthy that to maintain it
Mitton is obliged to admit a theory of degrees of
Another recent writer who maintains a similar theory
for the Pastorals is F. D. Gealy, who asserts that
"the very use of pseudonymity must itself be
regarded as a most important service rendered by the
author both to Paul and the Church, a service which
in the times could not have been rendered otherwise".
 If this view is correct pseudonymity ceases to
be suspect. Nevertheless, Mitton does not dismiss
it as lightly and in fact devotes detailed attention
to the problem of imitation.  In common with all
other contemporary advocates of pseudepigraphical
hypotheses, Mitton objects to the use of the word
"forger" and prefers "imitator",
because of its lack of emotional content. He acknowledges
the important principle that the onus of proof must
rest on the challengers of authenticity and not on
the defenders, which illustrates his cautious approach
to the whole subject of canonical pseudepigrapha.
This principle means that pseudepigraphy is not to
be assumed unless there is proof enough to make authenticity
A still more cautious approach is adopted by H. J.
Cadbury,  who nevertheless still maintains canonical
pseudepigrapha. He pleads that "each writing
should normally and freely be dealt with as though
the question was an open one to be faced separately".
He makes certain propositions regarding pseudonymity
with reference to Ephesians in an effort to arrive
at a common basis for both defendants and opponents
of Pauline authorship, and his basic suggestion is
that both parties could accept "that pseudonymous
writings can come into existence very soon after the
namesake's lifetime". But unfortunately he can
produce no evidence for such an assumption. He admits
"the absence from Christian antiquity of cases
where we can compare the spurious with the genuine
writings of the same author", and he agrees that
the late Jewish and early Christian writers made little
attempt to write "in character" for they
had no models of the man whose style they were impersonating.
The recognition of this fundamental distinction is
the real key to the problem of canonical pseudonymity.
In the case of Ephesians [[page 29]] Cadbury applies
the following caution: "Until we can discover
an instance where close adherence to a known master's
style has been aimed at in a definitely spurious composition
it must be regarded as doubtful whether any imitator
of Paul would or would not either strive for or unconsciously
achieve the degree of stylistic similarity which exists
between Ephesians and the Pauline homologoumena."
 But the fact is that no such parallel exists.
Cadbury's approach to pseudonymity therefore marks
a definite advance in respect of critical principles.
Pseudepigraphic hypotheses must, in a word, be viewed
in comparison with literary types vouched for among
the acknowledged pseudepigrapha. Where there are no
parallels that fact must be a mark against those hypotheses.
THE DOGMATIC APPROACH
Among those who during the period since the rise of
criticism have maintained the rejection of canonical
pseudepigrapha two different approaches may be discerned,
the dogmatic and the historical. The former approach
is well represented by a recent writer, J. I. Packer,
who makes the following assertion, "We may lay
down as a general principle that, when biblical books
specify their own authorship, the affirmation of their
canonicity involves a denial of their pseudonymity.
Pseudonymity and canonicity are mutually exclusive."
 He goes on to assert that since the New Testament
books were received into the canon, that must ipso
facto rule out the possibility of pseudonymous authorship
for any New Testament writing. "As we have seen,
if a New Testament book is not authentically apostolic,
and if it makes false assertions (as on this hypothesis
these books do), then it has not the nature of Scripture,
and has no place in the New Testament canon. But the
fact is that these books established their place in
the canon of the early Church, and have been studied
and expounded in the Church for centuries without
anything unworthy of their apparent authors, or inconsistent
with the rest of Scripture, either in teaching or
in tone, being found in them." 
This view differs radically from all those so far
considered in that [[page 30]] it begins with an essentially
different presupposition. The books under discussion
are of a different kind from all other books since
they claim an authority which other books do not.
There is no place, therefore, for a critical comparison
of proposed New Testament pseudepigrapha with non-canonical
literary types. Such comparison is in the nature of
the case invalid. The force of this kind of argument
has not always been fully appreciated by those who
have unhesitatingly rejected it. Consistency would
seem to demand that any proved unauthentic works would
be automatically excluded from the canon. If this
policy had been followed it would in one sense have
lessened the problem, although it would have created
may others unless complete unanimity had been attained.
But it is the fact that this policy has not been followed
that has led to the many attempts to justify the literary
device as a commendable or at least excusable and
certainly harmless convention, which need not detract
from the book's authority.
Packer argues strongly for the description of pseudonymous
works as "forgeries". He defines it as follows.
"The dictionary definition of 'forgery' is fraudulent
imitation, as such, irrespective of its aim, the point
of the fraud being simply to get one's own product
accepted as somebody else's".  Moreover,
in answer to those who postulate the highest motives,
Packer maintains, "frauds are still fraudulent,
even when perpetrated from noble motives". 
The difficulty which arises here is that different
minds have different notions of what is meant by "forgery".
Thus J. C. Fenton defines it as follows, "A forger
is one who writes in the name of another for his own
profit: they (i.e. pseudonymous writers) did not do
so. Forgery involves deceit for gain; pseudonymity
did not."  In all probability Fenton's definition
is rather too narrow, for there are other gains besides
financial. J. D. Deniston has another definition --
"with a true forgery the attribution must be
made by the real author himself and there must be
intention to deceive".  In this case the
motive does not affect the issue. In view of this
lack of agreement on the essential meaning of the
word there is a case for avoiding it because of its
possible overtones, although the mere [[page 31]]
refusal to use the word does not automatically remove
the idea of culpable deceit as a possible factor in
the problem. 
Naturally a dogmatic rejection of all idea of canonical
pseudepigraphy can find no place in an historical
and purely literary enquiry. Yet it does not necessarily
follow that the resultant position of both dogmatic
and historical advocates will diverge. The dogmatic
theologian cannot ignore the assured results of criticism,
any more that the historical investigator can fail
to take into account the facts surrounding the formation
of the canon. But the former has every right to demand
conclusive proof for assured results and where this
is lacking he may with reason maintain authenticity.
In other words the onus probandi rests on the advocates
of non-authenticity. At the same time the historical
critic has every right to insist on a thorough investigation
of every avenue of historical knowledge to form a
background against which to view the Biblical writings.
6. HISTORICAL ENQUIRIES
The earlier traditional reaction toward the critical
postulation of canonical pseudepigrapha almost invariably
followed the dogmatic pattern, although there were
some notable exceptions such as the approach of men
like Dean Alford  who rejected the hypotheses
on critical grounds. But it was not until the end
of the nineteenth century that a serious attempt was
made to present a reasoned investigation of the claims
made in respect of pseudepigraphy in the course of
critical enquiries. Two such enquiries will be mentioned
as representative of what might be called more enlightened
J. S. Candlish  strongly challenged the assumptions
of English scholars like Farrar, Simcox, S. Davidson,
and Plumptre that [[page 32]] pseudonymity was an
innocent literary device -- in view of the fact that
none of them gave supporting evidence. He then discussed
whether innocent impersonations are known from Graeco-Roman
antiquity, and in the course of his enquiry he called
attention to various types of ancient pseudonymity
-- mercenary, dramatic, ironic -- but concluded that
there was little evidence of such works being published
"in perfect good faith". He made much of
the early Christian approach to pseudepigrapha (e.g.,
the Book of Wisdom, Sibylline Oracles, Gospel of Peter,
Acts of Paul) and his summing up of this investigation
is worth quoting as one of the earliest and clearest
attempts to present the problem in its historical
perspective. He declared, "From these facts it
would seem to follow that in the early Christian centuries,
when any work was given out as of ancient or venerable
authorship, it was either received as genuine, which
was done with very great facility of belief, or rejected
as an imposture; that such fictions, though very common,
were regarded, at least by the stricter Christian
teachers, as morally blameworthy; and that the notion
of dramatic personation as a legitimate literary device
is never mentioned, and seems never to have been thought
of as a defence of such compositions. If any author
wrote a pseudonymous book in such a way, he must have
been very unsuccessful in his purpose; for it was
generally taken as a genuine work, or else rejected
as feigned and worthless."  Candlish partly
accounted for the practice on the grounds that it
was a prevalent Greek view that what is false might
sometimes be used to promote men's higher good in
religious matters. He also disputed the relevance
of an appeal to ancient historiography as a justification
for pseudonymity on the grounds that the facts do
not support it. But his main concern was to demonstrate
that the moral outlook of the majority of pseudonymous
authors was not so high as to make deception improbable.
His conclusion  regarding these pseudepigrapha
is "that their moral and spiritual character
is not inconsistent with their having been pious frauds
employed in what was supposed to be the service of
religion, in an age when deceptions of that kind were
common and allowed by a current system of philosophy."
After such historical enquiries, Candlish came to
the dogmatic problem of inspiration and expressed
the opinion that books in which "a false authorship
is claimed, merely in order to gain the [[page 33]]
more acceptance for their contents, cannot be divinely
inspired, or an part of the canon of Scripture".
 This approach may be summarized as follows. If
criticism proves a book to be deliberately pseudonymous
it must be excluded from the canon, while if, within
itself, a book bears the mark of its own inspiration
and claims a certain authorship that fact must take
precedence over critical conclusions. Candlish admitted,
however, that these two kinds of evidence may sometimes
conflict, and his final position is marked by the
following caution. "In such cases the inquiry
on each point should be carefully kept to its proper
subject matter, and the critical question of authorship
not influenced by theological considerations, nor
the religious question of inspiration by mere literary
conclusions; but after each has been fairly examined
by its own evidence, and effort must be made to compare
their relative degrees of probability, though the
result may be that judgement must be suspended and
fuller light waiter for." 
The position taken up by R. D. Shaw  was very
similar to that of Candlish, who obviously influenced
his approach. He rejected equally strongly the view
that a pseudonymous work written in good faith in
accordance with a literary convention would have been
received without demur in the Christian Church. On
the other hand he admitted in relation to inspiration,
"If there were no conscious transgression of
any moral principle, it would be impossible to refuse
inspiration to a pseudonymous writing on the mere
grounds of its pseudonymity. But if there be the conscious
insincerity that we believe there must have been,
then we have to consider the question: could we conceive
such a writer, under the Christian dispensation, a
medium of revelation such as the Spirit of truth and
holiness would use? It is very difficult to think
of any but one answer to this question. If we are
'to try the spirits whether they be of God', what
better test can there be than that now applied? It
seems to us that if the case of Christian morality
breaks down, and we certainly regard it as in a condition
of utter collapse, the claim to a place in the canon
must go with it."  It will be seen [[page
34]] from this that Shaw is representative of a merging
of the historical into the dogmatic approach to the
Among Continental scholars the need for a thorough
enquiry into the notion of a pious fraud was certainly
not overlooked. G. Wohlenberg,  for instance,
called for an extensive examination of the evidence,
but although he made certain suggestions as to the
direction which such an enquiry should take he did
no more than recognize the need. He himself thought
that there was little probability of any book being
used for Church reading which had not been authorized,
and this would naturally have acted as a curb on canonical
But it was not until F. Torm  produced his monograph
on the subject that a fuller attempt was made to provide
such an enquiry. Torm's main interest was the psychological
problems underlying the production of pseudepigrapha.
After studying the problems of author-mentality and
motive, he concluded that greater problems exist in
relation to religious that to secular pseudonymity.
The comparisons he makes are, therefore, mainly confined
to this sphere (for instance, the Orphic, Hermetic,
Sibylline, and Jewish writings). His conclusions coincide
strikingly with those of Candlish in that he asserts
that a pseudonymous writing was either believed and
therefore highly esteemed, or else its unauthenticity
was accepted and the writing, because of its pseudonymity,
was regarded as somewhat disreputable.  The importance
of Torm's work cannot be too greatly stressed, especially
his examination of alleged New Testament pseudepigrapha.
But its weakness lies in the inadequate attention
given to Jewish antecedents. [[page 35]]
Another study of a similar character is that of Arnold
Meyer,  who made a brief but comprehensive survey
of pseudepigraphic literature, but came to a different
conclusion from Torm, since he used his investigations
to support a number of canonical pseudepigrapha. His
principle is that this procedure was so widely used
in the ancient world that it was quite natural for
Christians to adopt it. On the whole, an attempt to
approach the subject from an ethical point of view
does not appear convincing since different scholars
form different estimates of the same evidence. An
objection to it has been summarily expressed by Kurt
Aland in the most recent study of the problem. He
states categorically, "Ethics is no proper category
for our problem."  On the other hand, it
is difficult to contend that ethics plays no part
in this literary procedure, unless it is to be maintained
that Christianity had absolutely no impact in the
field of literature.
7. K. ALAND'S THEORY
Aland's own proposals are perplexing, for, on the
one hand, he attempts to meet the requirements of
an historical approach by a definite assertion that
a solution "can be achieved only by taking into
account the literature of the first two centuries
as a whole".  This is an advance on the earlier
critics and must be commended. But, on the other hand,
he takes no account of possible Jewish antecedents,
nor of the apocryphal Christian pseudepigrapha, except
as a development later than his chosen period. He
effectively excludes by this means any possible comparative
study and leaves himself free to propose his own explanation
of pseudonymity without the restraint of any parallels.
It is difficult to see how such a method can claim
to be historical. Nevertheless, Aland's thesis must
be briefly considered if only to illustrate the constant
dilemma of advocates of pseudonymity.
His first proposition is that it is not until towards
the latter part of the first century that authors
appear as distinct personalities; and his second proposition,
which is presupposed in the first, is that [[page
36]] real letters must be distinguished from epistles,
by which device he excludes the letters of Paul, Ignatius,
Polycarp, and Dionysius. This differentiation between
epistles and letters, which was first proposed by
A. Deissmann,  is not sufficiently certain to
make an exclusion of the vitally important Pauline
letters at all convincing. This is particularly so
since Aland classes the Pastoral Epistles among the
pseudepigrapha. His theory, therefore, commences with
the initial disadvantage of being far less comprehensive
than he himself supposes to be desirable.
The mainstay of his approach is that anonymity and
pseudonymity are intricately connected and that the
latter cannot be considered apart from the former.
He thinks that the earliest period was dominated by
the notion of anonymity.  All the Gospels were
originally anonymous, as were also 1 Clement and the
Epistle of Barnabas. Of the latter, he says, "The
author is but its instrument, the channel through
which it flows to the readers of his writing."
 Of the transition from anonymity to pseudonymity
Aland surprisingly finds the key in the Didache. Since
the writer knew himself to be, and was acknowledged
as, a charismatic, "the written word received
the same credence as the charismatically spoken word,
and thus the Didache achieved recognition in the Church
of those days".  In other words, the work
was attributed to the twelve apostles because of the
evidence of its charismatic character. From this kind
of evidence Aland concludes that an author who reported
holy events remained anonymous, because he was writing
according to the Spirit. He was "but the pen
moved by the Spirit".  Consequently an authentic
author of an epistle (as distinct from a letter) could
not maintain his own name without exciting suspicion.
From this Aland reaches the extraordinary position
that there is no need to justify anonymity or pseudonymity,
but that there is only a need to give an explanation
where the author's real name is stated. Now this is
tantamount to calling anonymity and particularly pseudonymity
normal, which goes much farther than the hypotheses
of [[page 37]] literary convention which at most regard
pseudonymity as a possible literary form for Christian
writers to use.
Such a suggestion involves so much reversal of literary
value that it requires the most careful sifting. Are
Aland's presuppositions valid? The most obvious criticism
which at once springs to mind in the arbitrary distinction
between the author-mentality of letter writers and
epistle writers. The idea that the Spirit would lead
some to write in their own names and forbid others
to do so is inconceivable. If Paul's letters be taken
as examples, it is not at all evident why he should
be able to manifest the Spirit's activity by writing
in his own name, whereas the author of the Pastorals
could do no other than attribute his work to Paul.
In any case Aland seems to regard 2 Timothy as an
intended forgery,  which is hardly in harmony
with the work of the Spirit. In fact, the Pastorals
are somewhat of an embarrassment to him.
This leads to the second criticism of Aland's position.
His conception of the work of the Spirit is not in
agreement with New Testament teaching. The Spirit
is the Spirit of truth, and it must be assumed that
he teaches men in conformity with his own nature.
This would at once exclude deliberate deception, but
would it also exclude the idea of pseudo-apostolic
ascription on the grounds that par excellence the
apostles were instruments of the Spirit? Aland see
in this latter practice the Spirit's activity. He
comments on pseudonymous writings as follows: "The
unknown men, by whom they were composed, not only
believed themselves to be under the sign of the Holy
Spirit; they really were."  By this means
the inspiration of pseudonymous writings may be retained
and no barrier exists to forbid their canonicity.
But this is really the principle that the end justifies
the means. If the authors really were under the sign
of the Spirit why could they not write in their own
names? Aland supplies no satisfactory explanation.
A more certain approach to the whole matter would
be to make a comparison with non-canonical pseudonymous
works such as contemporary Jewish examples and the
earliest apocryphal New Testament writings. It is
possible here to give only one or two of the main
results of such a comparison,  but these will
be sufficient [[page 38]] to show that any explanations
of suggested canonical examples must be able to stand
parallel with contemporary literary processes. It
may, at once, be said that there is no evidence in
Christian literature for the idea of a conventional
literary device, by which an author as a matter of
literary custom and with the full approbation of his
circle of readers publishes his own productions in
another's name. There was always an ulterior motive.
In the case of the Jewish books, the canon was closed
and no effective audience could be secured without
the sign of authority upon the writings.  This
was achieved, so it was believed, by attributing the
books to ancient worthies whose authority was sanctioned
within the Canon. Contemporary with the development
of the Christian Church was the appearance of such
writings as the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra, both
of which address a first-century situation using assumed
writers of centuries before. The apocryphal Gospels,
Acts, and Apocalypses later do precisely the same
thing, although with far less interval between the
real and assumed authors and with much greater approximation
to canonical forms. In both Jewish and Christian examples
there was usually an attempt to give some verisimilitude
to the pseudonym adopted, although these attempts
were often not serious.
In most cases, some extra-canonical doctrine was being
commended (particularly in the case of gnostic pseudepigrapha)
or else some unorthodox or unusual procedure (such
as women baptizing in the Acts of Paul). Such deviations
could command no respect apart from apostolic authority
and hence the resort to pseudepigraphy for propaganda
purposes. This is highly intelligible, but it means
that the pseudonymous device was not generally used
unless there were good reasons for it. Some advocates
of canonical pseudepigrapha have tried to maintain
that Christians may have found it necessary to publish
a work under an apostolic name or some other authoritative
early Christian name in order to recall a later generation
to the apostolic teaching.  But can it be conceived
that orthodox Christians would have used a method
currently being [[page 39]] used by gnostic writers
and that this method was sanctioned by the whole Church?
For those who propose canonical pseudepigrapha the
problem must be squarely faced. There are none of
the suggested examples which bear any close resemblance
to the known Jewish or apocryphal or pseudo-Christian
pseudepigrapha.  Aland is right in concluding
that these latter show no evidence of possession of
the Spirit and, therefore, cannot be used to explain
the former. But the logical consequence of this should
be a reluctance to propose hypotheses which involve
a similar procedure unless the evidence is so overwhelming
that there is no alternative but to suppose a new
category of pseudepigrapha, quite different from others
either before or since. This is virtually Aland's
position and is undoubtedly more logical than any
appeal to common literary practice. But it is really
a confession of perplexity, particularly as it appears
to involve a confusion over the doctrine of the Spirit.
From this brief survey it will be evident that New
Testament criticism in attempting to solve one type
of problem has created another which it has never
satisfactorily solved. It may at least be questioned
whether the principles of criticism with have led
to this situation are necessarily correct. 
 Originally appearing in Vox Evangelica 1 (1962):
43-59. [This web version was prepared from a reprinting
of the article in The Authorship and Integrity of
the New Testament: some recent studies by Kurt Aland...(et
al.). London: S.P.C.K., 1965: 14-39. Page numbering
in this web version follows the latter.]
 The quotation is cited by Westcott, On the Canon
of the New Testament4 (1875), p. 478 from Luther's
Werke xiv. 150. In explaining the origin of James,
Luther inclined to ascribe it to "some good pious
man who had taken some sayings from the apostles'
disciples". Cf. J. H. Ropes, The Epistle of St
James (ICC, 1916).
 Cited by Westcott, op. cit., p. 485.
 Cf. Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament
(1913), p. 203.
 The Dissonance of the four generally received
Evangelists and the evidence of their respective authenticity
examined2 (1805). It is interesting to note that Evanson
regarded Hebrews as spurious because he objected to
 Schmidt's position is described in B. Weiss' A
Manual of Introduction to the New Testament (1887),
 Uber den Sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an
den Timotheus (1807).
 Ibid., p. 8.
 Ibid., p. 111, "Wie hochst naturlich dagegen
wird alles, wenn Sie sich einen andern Schreiber des
ersten Briefes denken, der den zweiten von Augen hatte."
 Historische-kritische Einleitung in das Neue
Testament (1812), III, p. 315. Eichhorn acknowledged
his debt to Schleiermacher, but considered the latter
had not gone far enough (cf. pp. 318, 319 n.). "Ich
lasse aber meiner Untersuchung den Gang, auf welcher
sie zu ihrem Resultat gekommen ist, um so mehr, da
letzteres von dem des gelehrten und scharfsinningen
Verfassers des Sendschreibens noch verschieden ist,
und viel weiter geht" (p. 319).
 Eichhorn's remark on 2 Peter is as follows, "An
das Unternehmen selbst hatte der Verfasser ohne alles
Bedenken und Arg gehen konnen, weil es die Gewohnheit
seines Zeitalters war, Ideen denkwurdiger Manner in
einer ihnen beygelegten und in ihrem Namen geschriebenen
Schrift zu erhalten, und sie auf die kurzeste Weise
als ihr Eigenthum zu bezeichnen" (ibid., p. 637).
 Cf. Introduction to the New Testament (1858),
pp. 283 ff, 298-304, 324 ff, 345 ff. With regard to
Ephesians, de Wette considered its close association
with Colossians to be a sufficient indication of the
work of an imitator, while he thought that style and
doctrine supported this conclusion (cf. p. 283). When
dealing with the Pastorals de Wette drew from his
predecessors, maintaining as Eichhorn a common authorship
for all three (p. 302), but he did not discuss or
even envisage the difficulties which might beset his
pseudonymous hypotheses. About 1 Peter he said, "The
theory of forgery, in itself odious, lacks the positive
ground of a demonstrable design to be accomplished
by it, for the supposed design of mediating between
Paulinism and Petrinism is not clearly manifest"
(p. 345). At the same time he thought that the Pauline
flavour "awakens a strong suspicion of the genuineness
of this Epistle".
 Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe (1835).
 Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi (1845, Eng. tr.
from 2nd German ed. 1875).
 Ibid., II. pp. 109, 110.
 Ed. Reuss, History of the Sacred Scripture of
the New Testament (1884), p. 84, made an acute observation
on Baur's method. Baur had argued from the close affinity
between 1 Timothy and the other Pastorals that 1 Timothy
would always be the "betrayer of its spurious
brothers", and Reuss commented, "But he
was sharp-sighted enough to see afterwards that the
two swept away by 1 Tim. on the ground of similar
allusions unmasked a whole series of 'spurious brothers'
beside them, and he found himself obliged to seek
for grounds of suspicion (Thessalonians, Philippians,
Philemon) in order to justify a scepticism which had
originated prior to and not in consequence of, investigation,
and which therefore had not grown upon its natural
 Op. cit., II., pp. 110, 111. It is illuminating
to note Baur's comment on Ruckert's "violent
reaction" against the non-Pauline authorship
of Ephesians (Der Brief an die Epheser, 1834, p. 303
f) -- "Only a man such as Paul was can be the
author of this Epistle, and if it was not he, point
out to me the spirit in that age that was his peer
. . . . In the ranks of the imitators, the compilers,
or the quacks, we dare not seek him; where then?"
After citing this passage, Baur retorted, "Critical
doubts then, it appears, may be simply disposed of
even nowadays with declamations like this. The author
of a canonical Epistle, such writers imagine, must
either be an apostle, or one of the most despicable
class of men, 'the botchers, forgers and woodenheaded
compilers' (Ruckert, p. 299); or if he were not a
compiler he must have been known to us by reputation,
since he could not have gone through the world without
leaving his mark on history. But is not this product
of his genius itself a sufficient trace of his existence?"
(ibid. xx, p. 2n). There is point in Baur's criticisms
which should have made the defendants of authenticity
more cautious in stating their case, although his
own hypothetical pseudepigraphists cannot so easily
as he imagined be excluded from the ranks of the imitators
and compilers, even if we exclude the botchers.
 Ibid., pp. 1 ff.
 Ibid., p. 5, "But the apostle would never
have copied himself in this manner, nor does this
hypothesis . . . escape from the objection that the
agreement of the two Epistles is not the result of
chance, but is certainly intentional." And yet
the imitator produced two, "probably because
he thought that what was said in the same way in two
letters would produce the greater impression"
(pp. 43, 44).
 Cf. ibid., p. 44 n.
 Ibid., p. 53.
 Ibid., p. 54.
 Ibid., p. 74.
 Ibid., p. 78.
 Ibid., p. 84.
 As a representative of this extreme scepticism
W. C. van Manen (Encyclopaedia Biblica, iii. 3634)
may be cited. In rejecting the Epistles of Paul, he
declared, "They are all, without exception, pseudepigrapha
. . . . No distinction can any longer be allowed between
'principal epistles' and minor or deutero-Pauline
ones. The separation is purely arbitrary, with no
foundation in the nature of things here dealt with.
The group . . . bears obvious marks of a certain unity,
of having originated in one circle, at one time, in
one environment, but not of unity of authorship .
. . " This pseudepigraphic collection is, in
van Manen's view, "the latter development of
a school, or, if the expression is preferred, of a
circle of progressive believers who named themselves
after Paul and placed themselves as it were under
his aegis". The idea of a school of pseudepigraphy
has been met with in some recent hypotheses on Matthew's
Gospel, but it should be noted that a criticism such
as van Manen's which could pronounce all the basic
documents as pseudepigraphic shows itself at once
to be out of touch with sound historical principles
of investigation, as generally recognized by his own
contemporary and more recent scholarship.
 Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1885).
 The approach of Holtzmann is paralleled by that
of Renan, who did not hesitate to call the Pastoral
Epistles "false" (St. Paul (Eng. tr. 1888-89),
pp. viii, ix), although he drew a distinction between
these and other epistles (Colossians and Ephesians),
over whose authenticity he was doubtful. It is significant,
however, that he admitted the need as well as the
difficulty of suggesting a purpose that a forger might
have had in producing Ephesians (ibid., pp. xii, xiii).
Yet in no cases did he consider any comparative study
of pseudepigraphy in general to be necessary. He is
representative of a criticism which had no qualms
about postulating "forgeries".
 Einleitung in das Neue Testament7 (1931) (edited
by E. Fascher).
 Cited from the English translation, Introduction
to the New Testament (1904, based on 3rd German edition),
p. 52. This is followed in the subsequent citations.
German phrases are inserted from the edition of Fascher
7 (1931), pp. 54-6.
 Ibid., p. 52.
 Ibid., p. 53.
 Ibid., loc. cit.
 See the present author's discussion of this in
his New Testament Introduction: The Pauline Epistles
(1961), p. 290.
 Op. cit., p. 54.
 Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament2
(1912), pp. 40 ff.
 Ibid., p. 40.
 Ibid., p. 41.
 Ibid., loc. cit.
 Ibid., pp. 42-4
 A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early
Christian Literature (1937), pp. 140-1.
 Op. cit., pp. 172 ff.
 Ibid., p. 172.
 The Epistle to the Ephesians (1951), pp. 259,
 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Interpreter's Bible)
1955, p. 372.
 Op. cit., pp. 111 ff.
 "The Dilemma of Ephesians", NTS (1959),
pp. 94, 95.
 Ibid., 95, 96.
 Fundamentalism and the Word of God (1958), p.
 Ibid., p. 185.
 Ibid., p. 183.
 Ibid., p. 184.
 "Pseudonymity in the New Testament",
Theology (1955), p. 55.
 Article, "Forgeries, Literary", Oxford
Classical Dictionary, p. 36.
 G. Milligan, writing on theories of non-authenticity
for 2 Thessalonians stated, "It is unfortunate
to have to use the word 'forgery' -- round which such
definite associations have now gathered -- in connexion
with our problem; but I know no other word that brings
out so well the deliberate attempt of one man to use
the name and authority of another in his writing.
In view of 3.17, 18, there can be no talk here of
a harmless pseudonymous writing." (Exp. VI.ix.
(1904), p. 449 n)
 The Greek Testament6 (1868).
 Op. cit., "On the Moral Character of Pseudonymous
Books", Exp. IV.iv. (1891), pp. 91 ff, 262 ff.
 Ibid., p. 103.
 Ibid., p. 272.
 Ibid., p. 278.
 Ibid., p. 279.
 The Pauline Epistles4 (1913), pp. 477-87, an
excursus on "Pseudonymity and Interpolation".
 Op. cit., p. 482.
 Die Pastoralbriefe (1906), p. 63, n. 1.
 Op. cit., p. 64. "Aber es ist schon an sich
sehr wenig warscheinlich, dass Schriften, welche als
Vorleseschriften in Gemeindegottesdienste Aufnahme
fanden, unbesehens als solche aufgenommen oder belassen
worden sein sollten. So gut wie von anderswoher kommende
Reiseprediger, ‡pcstolo± in Beziehung auf ihre Lehre
gepruft werden sollten (Off. ii. 1, Did. xii, cf.
1 John 4.1), so wird es auch bei Uberreichung von
Briefen gewesen sein."
 Die Psychologie der Pseudonymitat im Hinblick
auf die Literatur des Christentums (1932).
 Cf. ibid., p. 19. In a footnote Torm calls the
idea of a recognized literary form, whose rightness
was acknowledged, a modern invention ("eine modern
Erfindung, die man aus der grossen Menge der pseudonymen
Schriften und der Leichglaubigkeit der damaligen Zeit
hat wahrscheinlich machen wollen, die man aber mit
wirklichen geschichtlichen Grunden nicht unterbauen
 "Die Pseudipigraphie [sic] als ethisch-psychologisches
Problem", ZNTW xxxv, (1936), pp. 262-79.
 See above, p 2. [Referring to K. Aland, "The
Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian
Literature of the First Two Centuries," JTS XII/1
(April 1961): 39]
 Ibid. [p. 40]
 Cf. his Bible Studies, (1901), p. 16 and his
Light from the Ancient East (1927), pp. 233-45.
 See above, p. 4 [op. cit., p. 41]
 Ibid., p. 6. [ibid., p. 43]
 Ibid., p. 7. [ibid., p. 44]
 Ibid., p. 8. [ibid., p. 45]
 See above, p. 9 [ibid., p. 46]
 Ibid., p. 13 [ibid., p. 49]
 A detailed comparison by the author is in the
course of preparation for publication.
 Many other motives may have contributed to the
genesis of Jewish pseudepigrapha and these will be
full discussed in the above mentioned publication,
but the closure of the Canon seems the most dominant.
 Cf. J. C. Fenton, op. cit., p. 54.
 J. C. Fenton, op. cit., p. 49.
 When this essay was prepared, the author did
not have available the recent study by J. A. Sint,
Pseudonymitat im Altertum, Ihre Formen und ihre Grunde