"....his authentic letters make it more likely that they are pseudepigraphical."
First, although it has become a commonplace ever since Baur for defenders of pseudonymity to maintain that it was an acceptable practice, and that there was no intention to deceive, they yet offer ??no historical evidence for their assertions that New Testament pseudepigrapha were recognised as such and were regarded as innocent compositions...?? On the contrary, as Dr L R. Donelson concedes, ??we are forced to admit that in Christian circles pseudonymity was considered a dishonourable device??. A pseudonymous work was either believed and therefore esteemed, or exposed and therefore condemned. There seems to be no evidence that some pseudonymous works were both exposed and esteemed. Several commentators quote the judgment of Serapion, the early third-century bishop of Antioch. Concluding that the Gospel of Peter was not genuine, he stated this principle: ??We, brothers, receive both Peter and the other apostles of Christ. But pseudepigrapha in their name we reject ...??
Secondly, the claim that a pseudepigrapher did not intend to deceive, and indeed did not deceive, appears to be self-defeating. If nobody was deceived, what was the point of the subterfuge?
Thirdly, in spite of confident assurances about the innocence of pseudepigraphy, many of us find that our consciences are not so readily pacified. We remember that Scriptures lays constant emphasis on the sacredness of truth and the sinfulness of false witness. We are not comfortable with the notions of a deceit which does not deceive and a pseudepigraphon which is not a forgery. ??The dictionary definition of "forgery" is fraudulent imitation??, writes Dr J. I. Packer, whatever people's aims and incentives may be. ??Frauds are still fraudulent, even when perpetrated from noble motives??.
It has often been observed that in most of Paul's letters he associates a colleague with him in its writing, e.g. Sosthenes, missionary associates ??co-labourers??, it would be misleading to call them ??co-authors??. For Paul was careful to affirm his own apostolic authority as the author, and to distinguish his colleagues from him (since they were not apostles) by referring to them as ??our brother Sosthenes?? or ??Timothy our brother??. The Thessalonian letters are significant in this respect. Although they both begin with ??Paul, Silas and Timothy??, and although the first person plural ??we?? is used much of the time, it is nevertheless plain that the leadership role and apostolic authority were Paul's. So he frequently lapses from ??we?? to ??I??. The end of the second letter puts the matter beyond doubt. ??I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.?? So the letter was essentially his letter, written with his apostolic authority. Paul, Silas ad Timothy were not joint authors, although there is no reason to deny that Paul may have involved them in the writing process, by the encouraging them to contribute their thoughts to it.
An amanuensis, however, was different. Not only did he undertake the actual mechanics of the writing, but Paul may have given him some liberty in clothing the apostle's thought with words. It is possible that this was the arrangement when Tertius wrote down the letter to the Romans. But the only specific New Testament reference to this practice is the apostle Peter's statement that he had written his first letter ??with the help of Silas??, literally ??through Silas??, whom he regarded, he adds, as ??a faithful brother??.
