Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (36 page)

In any event, this kind of theological Sachkritik did occur on occasion, never more forthrightly than in the famous incident involving Serapion and the Gospel of Peter, already recounted.
¹⁵⁰
Serapion forbade the future use of the book because of its occasional “docetic” affirmations. For him, the logic was inexorable. If parts of the book supported a theological perspective that he and his co-religionists found offensive or dangerous, then obviously they could not have originated from the pen of one of Jesus’ earthly followers. Unlike the other criteria we have considered, this one is deeply rooted in heresiological concerns. It is theology, not history. Or at least it is theologically driven history.

Eusebius records a comparable debate over the book of Revelation. Some “orthodox” critics had charged that the book could not be by John, or even by a member of the true church, because it supported a sensualist vision of the future kingdom of God, involving “unlimited indulgence in gluttony and lechery at banquets, drinking bouts, and wedding feasts.” Their conclusion: the book must have been forged in John’s name by a heretic, most likely that nefarious opponent of orthodoxy, Cerinthus (
H.E
. 7.25). In less vitriolic terms Jerome indicates that some of his orthodox colleagues reject the book of Jude because it quotes the apocryphal book of Enoch, something no orthodox writer, obviously, would do (
Vir. ill
. 4).

A comparable logic drives Rufinus to explain how “orthodox” books could contain statements that do not toe the theological line:

For it is shown in the case of saintly men of old and of those already judged to have been Catholics … that if anything is found in
their
works contrary to the faith of the Church, it should be thought to have been inserted by heretics rather than to have been written by the authors themselves. (
De adult. lib. Orig
., 8)
¹⁵¹

The second distinctively Christian form of criticism also has analogues in the Greek and Roman worlds. We have seen that discovery narratives were adduced in large measure in order to explain why a work of such importance was not previously known. It had been hidden. Behind the ploy lies a concern of criticism: writings should have an established lineage to be accepted as authentic, rather than appearing just recently.
¹⁵²

Christians took this criterion to a new level, in no small measure because it related closely to another cherished notion, that the validity of a doctrine, practice, or policy was closely tied to its apostolic connections, and that lines of succession for all things orthodox could be traced directly back to the apostles of Jesus themselves. With few exceptions, orthodox Christians maintained that their beliefs represented the earliest forms of the tradition, and that false beliefs were later corruptions of the “original” teachings of the apostles. Clear lines of descent could be traced for both true and false positions.

This idea of succession morphed into an arbiter of literary authenticity, already by the time of Tertullian:

These are the sort of summary arguments I use when skirmishing light-armed against heretics on behalf of the faith of the gospel, arguments which claim the support of that succession of times which pleads the previous question against the late emergence of falsifiers, as well as that authority of the churches which gives expert witness to the tradition of the apostles: because the truth must of necessity precede the false, and proceed from those from whom its tradition began. (
Adv. Marc
. 4, 5)

By the time of Eusebius the principle had solidified into a criterion. Christian—especially canonical—books are judged authentic largely on the basis of established usage among the orthodox Christian churches. Books that cannot trace a long lineage of use in such circles are suspect. And so, for example, in deciding which of Peter’s writings were to be accepted as authoritative, Eusebius indicates that 1 Peter is genuine because it is quoted extensively in the writings of the early church fathers. 2 Peter was not widely known however, although some have found it worthy of a place in Scripture. But the Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Preaching of Peter, and the Apocalypse of Peter—all attributed to him—are not to be accepted because they were not used by church writers of early days or in Eusebius’s own day (
H.E
.3.3).

One might suspect that Eusebius here is concerned only with the question of canonicity, not of authenticity. But these two issues are indelibly linked for
him, in no small measure because any writing by the apostle Peter would naturally need to be considered a scriptural authority. This connection is implied throughout his discussion, as when he summarizes his findings in terms of authorship: “These then are the works attributed to Peter, of which I have recognized only one epistle as authentic and accepted by the early fathers”
Note again
3.3.4). Elsewhere, on some such grounds, Eusebius can dispute the authenticity of James and Jude, considered
precisely because they are not widely mentioned by “ancient” Christian writers (2.23). So too for patently noncanonical books. 2 Clement is not a work of Clement precisely because it is not widely attested in earlier sources; nor are the dialogues of Peter and Apion written in his name since “there is no mention whatever of them by early writers” (3.38).

Augustine in particular stresses both the secular and theological logic of this criterion, in a statement worth quoting at length:

Were not certain books that were produced under the name Hippocrates, the highly renowned physician, rejected as authoritative by physicians? Nor did a certain similarity of topics and language offer them any help. For, compared to the books that it was clear were really Hippocrates’ books, they were judged inferior, and they were not known at the same time at which the rest of his writings were recognized as truly his. But how is it proven that these books are really his when, compared to them, the books brought forth out of the blue are rejected? How is it proven so that, if anyone rejects this, he is not even refuted but laughed at, except because a series of physicians, from the time of Hippocrates down to the present time and thereafter, has commended them so that to have any doubt about them is the mark of a madman? How do people know that the books of Plato, Aristotle, Varro, Cicero, and other such authors are their works except by the same unbroken testimony of the ages following one upon another?

Many authors have written extensively on the Church’s writings, not, of course, with canonical authority but with some desire to be helpful or to learn. How is it determined who wrote what except by the fact that, in the times in which each author wrote them, he made them known and published them for those for whom he could, and from them they were passed on to future generations, one after another, with unbroken knowledge that was quite widely accepted, down to our times, so that, when asked whose book is whose, we do not hesitate what we ought to reply? … Since that is the case, who, then, is blinded by such great madness—unless he has been corrupted by agreeing with the wickedness and fallacies of lying demons—as to say that the Church of the apostles, so faithful and so numerous a harmony of brothers, could not have merited faithfully to transmit their writings to future generations, though the sees of the apostles have been preserved down to the present bishops in an utterly certain line of succession, especially since this is so much the case
with any people’s writings, whether outside the Church or even in the Church? (
Contra Faust
. 33.6)

The continuous attestation of books from the time of their author gives evidence of their authenticity, even in the case of secular writings. But that is even more the case with Christian writings, transmitted by faithful believers, unaltered over the years, in a way analogous to the famed apostolic succession, in which bishops can trace their lineage through their predecessors back to the apostles of Jesus themselves. With the Christian writings this is not just a matter of historical accident; it is an act of providence.

1
. “Der Verzicht auf ein Herausarbeiten der Absichten der Fälscher wäre gleichbedeutend mit dem Verzicht, die Fälschungen zu verstehen. Nur das Motiv erklärt die Fälschung.”
Die literarische Fälschung
, p. 9.