THE SHADOWED SCROLLS
In my previous blog post, I reflected on The Jefferson Bible and how this particular founding father urged us to “separate the gold from the dross.” In other words, Jefferson cautioned against clinging to false notions such as biblical inerrancy — beliefs that have led, time and again, to damaging consequences and entrenching dogmas. If you haven’t read that one, go check it out: Separating the Gold from the Dross
To sharpen this point, let’s pause for a brief vocabulary lesson. You may not have come across this word before, as it isn’t often used: pseudepigrapha.
The term refers to “spurious or pseudonymous writings, especially Jewish texts ascribed to biblical patriarchs and prophets but composed within approximately 200 years of the birth of Jesus Christ.” The root word pseudonymous means “written under a false name.”
Why does this matter? Because the majority of scholars agree that several books of the New Testament fall into this category. Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus are widely considered falsely attributed to Paul — composed not by the apostle himself, but by later authors writing in his name. Others, like Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, are debated but likewise suspected of pseudepigraphy.
How do we know this? Consider the evidence:
Reasons to doubt Pauline authorship of Ephesians
The language and style differ markedly from Paul’s genuine letters. Ephesians introduces 40 new words (e.g., “heavenly places” in 1:3; “family/fatherhood” in 3:15), and in 1:19 alone, four different terms are used for “power.”
Ephesians and Colossians employ a different term for “reconcile” than Paul typically used (Col. 1:20, 22; Eph. 2:16).
Nearly half of Ephesians mirrors Colossians: 73 of its 155 verses resemble passages from Colossians (e.g., Eph. 4:1–2 ≈ Col. 3:12–13; Eph. 5:19–20 ≈ Col. 3:16–17; Eph. 6:21–22 ≈ Col. 4:7–8).
Many key ideas appear lifted directly from Colossians: wisdom, mystery, “the word of truth,” “the gospel of salvation,” and “the saints of God.”
Ephesians reads like a retrospective digest of Paul’s letters — a disciple summarizing and updating his teacher’s ideas for a later audience.
Metaphors in Paul’s genuine letters become literalized in Ephesians (e.g., faith, gospel, word of God, reconciliation, salvation, resurrection, glorification, the Church as Christ’s Body, “Saints of God”).
The Church is portrayed as a universal institution — something that did not exist in Paul’s time, when gatherings were smaller, local, and loosely connected.
Charismatic gifts, common in Paul’s authentic writings, are absent.
Jesus acts on his own authority without explicit mention of acting under God’s blessing — a departure from Paul’s usual emphasis.
Regarding the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus)
They are absent from Marcion’s canon — the earliest known compilation of Christian scriptures — with no evidence Marcion had ever heard of them.
Their vocabulary and phrasing diverge significantly from Paul’s letters.
Over one-third of their vocabulary is unique to these epistles, with one-fifth appearing nowhere else in the New Testament. Strikingly, two-thirds of this non-Pauline vocabulary aligns with 2nd-century Christian writers.
Concerning Colossians
Some argue it was written to refute Gnosticism — a movement that only gained traction in the early 2nd century, after Paul’s lifetime.
Its style and grammar differ from Paul’s authentic works, including unusual genitive constructions.
The epistle reflects a more advanced theological development than Paul’s other letters, prompting doubts about his authorship.
Concerning 2 Thessalonians
Many verses parallel 1 Thessalonians almost word-for-word (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:9 ≈ 2 Thess. 3:8).
It reflects familiarity with the Synoptic Gospels, which most scholars believe were not yet written during Paul’s ministry.
It explicitly insists it is “not a forgery” — ironically, a common trope of forgeries of the time.
Its eschatology (teachings about the end times) differs noticeably from 1 Thessalonians.
Concerning 1 & 2 Peter
The letters’ language, structure, and dating cast serious doubt on Petrine authorship.
The writer demonstrates advanced rhetorical training and fluency in Greek philosophy — unlikely traits for a Galilean fisherman.
The letters omit personal details about the historical Jesus.
They reference the Septuagint translation, which Peter likely would not have used.
2 Peter uses a different spelling of the name “Peter” than 1 Peter or any other New Testament text.
There are major linguistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter.
2 Peter references the book of Jude.
The epistles allude to 2nd-century Gnosticism.
They address the problem of the delayed Second Coming.
2 Peter, in particular, enjoys the weakest external and scholarly support of any New Testament letter.
What do these findings leave us with? A call to humility. A reminder that sacred texts are not static monuments but living artifacts, layered with human hands and human intentions. To pretend otherwise — to cling to the notion of inerrancy — is to turn scripture into a prison rather than a guide.
The danger is not only that such dogmas harm the world, but that they also harm those who wield them. To assume one’s knowledge is complete is to refuse the gift of discovery, to turn away from the light of new evidence. True wisdom, as Jefferson knew, lies not in clutching every word as flawless, but in learning to sift the gold from the dross.
References:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2019/03/sorry-christians-our-bible-contains-fake-letters-from-paul-and-peter/
https://ehrmanblog.org/2-thessalonians-as-a-forgery-does-the-author-write-like-paul/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudepigraphon
