Pseudonymous writings in the bible are narratives and accounts written by anonymous authors but attributed to a more famous prophet, disciple or apostle.

A philosophical debate ensues when we consider the statement in the bible that all scriptures are inspired by God. The question then arises, is this inspiration restricted to the writings of acknowledged Prophets, Disciples and Apostles or does it extend to every biblical writer, copyist scribe and commentator. Surely it is one thing to have the written words of the Prophet Isaiah for instance, an undoubted Prophet of God and another to have the writings of an anonymous writer who wrote in his name, as we do have with the Deutero-Isaiah writings, is inspiration transferable to an anonymous writer or simply assumed?

What are we to make of the fact that the Apostle Paul is reputed to have stated in Timothy that all scriptures are inspired of God and fit for purpose, and then we discover Paul did not actually write those words (as we now know) ? Is it actually the case the forger wanted to make sure his forgery would be accepted as scripture?

It is not a question of “if” there were Christian pseudonymous writers we “know” there were. One of the most famous cases we know of is documented by Tertullian in his writings, he tells us the story of Serapion the Bishop of Antioch, who caught an early church leader red-handed in the act of “writing” a Pauline Epistle he was dismissed from his post, but claimed he did it out of “love” for Paul. The real question should be how many such writings made it into the NT canons?

Naturally Christians do not accept there are pseudonymous writings or, to use the proper term “forgeries” in the bible but the facts are that early church leaders lacked the means or the tools to determine the authenticity or veracity of the myriad of writings and documents they eventually accepted into the NT canons, the overriding yardstick or determinant was orthodoxy in so long as the manuscript conformed to orthodoxy it was generally acceptable.

The most depressing of these pseudonymous writings have to be those written in the name of the apostle Paul. He was the most prolific author in the NT. He was also the most copied, six of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul have question marks against them, 1 and 2 Timothy and the book of Titus are known forgeries and are not the works of Paul and in fact, any woman who reads the misogynistic 2 Timothy, will instantly realise Paul could not have written the book since he had the utmost respect for the contribution of women in the church, 2.Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians are almost certainly not Paul's work not least because differences in writing styles, vocabulary and historical context are obvious.

Additionally there are those that didn’t make it into the NT canons, for instance, 3 Corinthians (commonly known as Acts of Paul) the excellent Acts of Thecla, Paul’s letters to Seneca written fully 200 years after Paul had died and universally accepted as forgeries, there is also an Apocalypse of Paul. These forgeries are written by followers of Paul who tried to address issues arising in the church of the day.

Op are you a christian?
Just curios

Sal C: Op are you a christian?
Just curios

No

Sarassin:

No

Ok

If you were considered important enough in Christendom , even if you couldn’t write, books would be written in your name pseudonymously, For instance the correspondence of Jesus himself to the King of Edesus, discovered and unearthed in Asia minor by no less a person than Eusebius who actually vouched for its authenticity, it was established as a forgery written at least fifty years after the death of Jesus…thankfully.

One of the most curious forgeries in the NT is the book 2 Peter, attributed to Peter and written in educated Greek. The book is a litany against those who would mock the Christian ideas about the imminent end of time, and actually it is lifted almost word for word from Jude which is itself an early second century composition.

2 Peter 15-16, The author is referring to Paul’s writings; “.....there are some things in them that are difficult which the foolish and unstable twist about as they do with the rest of the scriptures to their own destruction.....”

Clearly the author of 2 Peter wrote this at a time that ALL of Paul’s epistles had come to be considered scripture, this would place the writing of the book around the first quarter of the second century, it couldn't be clearer that whoever wrote it, it was never Simon Peter, the disciple whom Jesus with a great sense of humour nicknamed the rock

In addition to pseudonymous writings in the NT, the canons have also the added problems of altered manuscripts by bible scribes, here are a few famous quotes;

The words of the pagan Celsus ;

“ some believers as though in a drunken bout go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original texts of the gospels three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticisms” (Against Celsus)

The early church leader Origen had the following complaint;

“the differences amongst the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others, they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”

The bishop of Corinth Dionysus, a contemporary of Irenaeus was furious when he wrote

“when my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them, I did so. These, the devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding some others. For them the woe is reserved, small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts”

Again, it is not a question of “if” the scripts were altered, we “know” they were. The question is, to what degree ?

Christians won't support this piece of research.

larrymoore: Christians won't support this piece of research.

Of course not. Nor do i expect them to.

Sometimes the alteration to texts and manuscripts were quite brutal insertions of chapter and verse, mostly they are largely subtle and almost imperceptible. 1 Corinthians is fully acknowledged as the work of Apostle Paul, and we are all familiar with the story of Jesus' betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane during prayers after supper. Writing about the resurrection, Paul states;

1 Corinthians 15:5 "and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve"

What do we make of this statement of Paul's ? is he unaware that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and had hung himself ? therefore, it was no longer a twelve...but an eleven ? Granted, it is a distinct possibility Paul is unaware of Judas Iscariot's deed since he makes no mention of him ever, more likely he actually stated "eleven" and an over-zealous later copyist forgetting himself simply amended the manuscript to read twelve perhaps thinking that the Apostle Paul of all people had got his figures wrong !

Why are christians absent on this thread?

Subtle alterations were often made to scriptural texts by biblical copyists and to be fair, often with the best of intentions of promoting a particular theology or doctrine;

1 Tim 3:16 refers to Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh and justified in spirit.....”, this is the primary verse in the NT used to promulgate the belief that Christ is God, most later manuscripts render the verse as above, however, the earlier manuscript, Codex Alexandrinus presently housed at the British Library shows otherwise, it refers to Christ as[i] “he ‘who’ was made manifest in the flesh….”[/i]

It turns out, the Greek letters used to abbreviate sacred names had been visibly altered in a different hand and different ink in the Codex Alexandrinus, and easily identifiable, it was as simple as adding a little line in an ”O” ( an Omicron and Sigma)to change the meaning of the abbreviation. There was never an explicit reference to Jesus as God.

We see the same alterations in later manuscripts of the Acts of the Apostles 20:28[i] “…the church of God which he obtained with his own blood” [/i]
the same verse in the much earlier Alexandrinus reads; “ the church of the ‘Lord’ which he obtained with his own blood….”[/i]
Jesus is Lord, but not identified as God.

I would also point out that the Codex Alexandrinus does not contain the [i]“pericope adultera” (the story of the woman taken in adultery) found in the Gospel of John. I maintained in another thread that the story was a later insertion by bible scribes.

For my final example of alterations to the scriptures, I have turned to the Gospel of Luke, and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus (Luke 24:51-52)

“ And it happened that while he was blessing them, he was removed from them and they returned to Jerusalem with great joy”

This being on the same day of the resurrection. The same author, Luke in his second narrative in Acts (1:11) with particular attention to verse 3 states;

“Jesus showed himself alive……being seen of them forty days….”

Why would the same author in one volume state Jesus ascended to heaven on the day of his resurrection, and in another volume state he ascended after forty days ?

In conclusion, being a true Christian today is no mean feat, here are a few points to contend with;

Moses most definitely did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT)

The exodus did not happen as described in the OT

The conquest of the Promised Land is based on legend

The historical narratives in the OT are legendary fabrications, many can be found in ancient Canaanite lore

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John most certainly did not write the gospels

The actual ‘historical’ teachings of Jesus will probably never be known

The Book of Acts is historically unreliable and inaccurate about the teachings and life of Paul, on occasion it actually contradicts the actual words of Paul’s own writings.

A significant amount of the works of the NT canons are written pseudonymously by writers claiming to be apostles, most of these works have in turn had insertions, alterations and deletions carried out on them depending on the theological bias of the copyist of the day.

Christianity today is a religion “about” Jesus, not “of” Jesus