The so-called Deuteropauline letters are those that bear Paul's name but may not have been written by him. Some confuse pseudonymous compositions with anonymous compositions (whose author is not identified). For example, the Gospels are anonymous writings, and their attribution to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John dates back to the 2nd century and is not part of the original work. Among the anonymous works we must add Acts, the letter to the Hebrews and the first of John (2 Jn and 3 Jn claim to be written by the "presbyter"). The pseudonymous works of the New Testament, i.e., whose text identifies the author of the work that he may not have composed, are: 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, James, 1-2 Peter, and Jude.

1. Pseudonymous Composition in General

   It is perhaps clearer here to speak of "writer" rather than "author". Normally, for us, "author" does not simply mean the person responsible for the ideas contained in a work, but the person who actually wrote the text. The ancients were often not so precise, and by "author" they may have meant only the authority behind a work. This distinction is not entirely unfamiliar to us, as we encounter the phenomenon of "ghost writers", especially in the case of artists who wish to write an autobiography but need the help of a competent writer to present their story in a correct or attractive way. However, it is increasingly common for even a ghostwriter to have to be acknowledged in the form of "The autobiography of so-and-so with the cooperation (or assistance) of John Doe." This phenomenon is close to an ancient use of scribes and can be encountered in an authentic Pauline letter if Paul dictated the ideas and someone like Silvanus formulated them in writing. But this is not what scholars mean by pseudonymity in reference to NT works.

   Modern readers also encounter writing under a pseudonym or pen name, a method adopted for various reasons. In the 19th century, Mary Anne Evans wrote under the male name of George Eliot, because it was difficult for women to gain acceptance for serious writing. In the 20th century, more than one mystery writer wrote under several names, sometimes with a particular fictional detective for each "name," e.g., John Dickson Carr and Carter Dickson are names for a male author; Ruth Rendell and Barbara Vine are names for a female author. Writing under a pseudonym is objectionable when it is a deception (e.g., composing a new Sherlock Holmes story and selling it as a newly discovered original by Arthur Conan Doyle) but not when one publicly continues to write in the style of the now-defunct original author (e.g., the Sherlock Holmes scripts used in the films featuring him during World War II)

   In NT scholarship, some of those who first proposed that the letters attributed to Paul were actually pseudonyms suggested that the purpose might be fraudulent, but this connotation has largely disappeared from the discussion. Most often what is suggested is that one of the disciples of the Pauline "school" took the initiative to write a letter in Paul's name because he wanted it to be received with authority as what Paul would have said in the situation at hand. Such a situation makes sense if one assumes that Paul was dead and that the disciple considered himself the authorized interpreter of the apostle whose thoughts he endorsed. To attribute the letter to Paul under these circumstances would not be to use a false name or to falsely claim that Paul wrote the letter. It would be to treat Paul as the author in the sense of the authority behind a letter that was intended as an extension of his thought - a taking up of the mantle of the great apostle to carry on his work. Indeed, such an attribution could serve to prolong the apostle's presence, since letters were considered a substitute for face-to-face personal conversation. Mutatis mutandis, the same can be said of other proposed cases of pseudonymity in the NT: those who considered themselves in the school of James (of Jerusalem) or Peter were able to write letters in the name of their authority.

   The justification for this type of pseudepigraphy is found in the OT. The law books written 700 or 800 years after the time of Moses were written in his name since he was the great lawgiver. The psalms (even those whose titles attribute them to others) were collected in a Davidic psalter, since David was known to be a composer of psalms or songs. A book like Wisdom, written in Greek around 100 BC, was attributed to Solomon, who had lived 800 years earlier, because he was the sage par excellence. The prophets of the school of Isaiah continued to write 200 years after the prophet's death and had their compositions included in the book of Isaiah. Apocalypses, both canonical and non-canonical, tended to invoke the names of famous figures from the past (Daniel, Baruch, Enoch, Ezra) as seers of the visions narrated, long after their deaths. In the centuries before and after the time of Jesus, pseudepigraphy seems to have been particularly frequent, even in Jewish works of a non-apocalyptic nature: the Prayer of Nabonides, the Odes of Solomon, the Psalms of Solomon.

2. Problems about Pseudonymity

   As true as all this may be, when we posit the pseudonymous nature of the NT works, difficulties remain that should not be overlooked. Unlike the OT where centuries separate the pseudonymous work from the claimed authority, the pseudonymous Pauline works were written within a few years of Paul's life. We speak of Paul's disciples or adherents of the Pauline school of thought as pseudonymous writers, but we do not know their precise identity. How close did one have to be to the historical Paul to write in his name? Or was it simply a matter of knowing Paul's writings and using an earlier letter as the basis for a later composition? Some scholars date the Pastorals to 125 AD or later, when Paul would have been dead for half a century or three quarters of a century. How long after the master's death could one still claim authority to write in his name, especially when other Christian writers of the postapostolic generation were writing in their own names? How do canonical works under a pseudonym differ from apocrypha written in the name of NT characters but rejected by the church as non-canonical?

   Should the audience (the church) being addressed be considered historical? For example, if it is a pseudonym, was 2 Thess written to the church in Thessalonica as 1 Thess, or did the author simply copy that address since he was using 1 Thess as a guide for his motive? How, in the 1st century, would a wider audience have received a letter apparently addressed to the problems of the church in Thessalonica? Did the audience that first received a pseudonymous letter know that it was actually written by another in Paul's name? Would the authority of the letter have been diminished if this had been known? Did the author think this knowledge made a difference? (2 Pet makes the apostolic identity of the author a key importance, e.g., 1:16) Would the later church have accepted these letters into the canon if it had known they were pseudonymous? The percentage of scholarly opinion holding that the author was not the claimant varies for each work, and so there remains the obligation to ask and answer the question: what difference does a ruling on the issue of pseudepigraphy make in how this letter/epistle is understood?

   What are the criteria for determining authenticity and pseudonymity? They include internal data, format, style, vocabulary, and thought/theology. Let's take as criterion 2 Th, which we'll analyze in the next chapter.