2 stanley e. porter and gregory p. fewster
methodologies for measuring epistolary authenticity, Bauckham’s obser-
vation applies more broadly to the study of ancient pseudepigraphy itself.
even before Bauckham, donald guthrie was able to demonstrate that,
since the work of Friedrich schleiermacher and Baur, authorship disputes
had (1) resulted in almost any conclusion imaginable, including the rejec-
tion of every Pauline letter as authentic, and (2) made use of a variety
of methods, apparently to little avail.5 these conclusions are not surpris-
ing, since the implications of falsely attributed authorship are significant.
in a discipline that has typically been concerned with issues of history,
to assign a particular text to an incorrect historical milieu wreaks havoc
upon interpretation. Furthermore, a discipline often grounded in certain
theological and ethical pursuits must take care to fairly weigh the ramifi-
cations of literary forgery upon such issues as canon, theology, authority,
and, ultimately, truth.
Perhaps in response to Bauckham’s charge, there have been noticeable
efforts to refine how Pauline (and non-Pauline) pseudepigraphy is talked
about.7 For example, Kent clarke distinguishes between “pseudepigraphy”
5 see donald guthrie, “the development of the idea of canonical Pseudepigrapha in
new testament criticism,” Vox Evangelica 1 (1962): 43–59.
6 Metzger raises such questions, defining literary forgery as “a piece of work created
or modified with the intention to deceive” (Bruce M. Metzger, “literary Forgeries and
canonical Pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 [1972]: 4). Whether or not intent to deceive is present,
such issues remain a concern. On pseudonymity and deception, see Metzger, “literary
Forgeries,” 19; e. earle ellis, “Pseudonymity and canonicity of new testament documents,”
in Michael J. Wilkins and terence Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early
Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (Jsntsup 87; sheffield: JsOt Press, 1992), 217–19;
stanley e. Porter, “Pauline authorship and the Pastoral epistles: implications for canon,”
BBR 5 (1995): 114–15; lee Martin Mcdonald and stanley e. Porter, Early Christianity and Its
Sacred Literature (Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 2000), 388–93; armin d. Baum, Pseudepig-
raphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum: Mit ausgewählten Quellentexten
samt deutscher Übersetzung (Wunt 2.138; tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2001); ruben Zimmer-
mann, “unecht—und doch wahr? Pseudepigraphie im neuen testament als theologisches
Problem,” ZNT 12 (2003): 27–38; Kent d. clarke, “the Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical
literature and its implications for canon Formation,” in lee Martin Mcdonald and James a.
sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, Ma: hendrickson, 2002), 442–57; terry l.
Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament, and Deception (lanham, Md: university Press
of america, 2004); stanley e. Porter, “the implications of new testament Pseudonymy
for a doctrine of scripture,” in carlos r. Bovell (ed.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the
Authority of Scripture: Historical, Biblical, and Theoretical Perspectives (eugene, Or: Pick-
wick, 2011), 236–56; Bart d. ehrman, Forgery and Counter-Forgery: The Use of Early Chris-
tian Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2013), 128–53.
7 david aune makes note of two periods of revived interest in pseudepigraphy, includ-
ing the 1960s–80s and at the turn of the twenty-first century (see “reconceptualizing the
Phenomenon of ancient Pseudepigraphy: an epilogue,” in Jörg Frey et al. [eds.], Pseude-
pigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen: Pseudepigraphy and Author Fiction
in Early Christian Letters [Wunt 246; tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2009], 792–93).