[78] Dr. Moffatt makes, on page 415, a reference to "the reasons which justified" the author of the Pastoral Epistles in pretending that they were the work of Paul. As he says "it is not necessary to spend words upon the reasons"; they have already been sufficiently discussed in the "Historical New Testament" and the "Encyclopaedia Biblica". I do not wholly dissent from him as regards the difference between ancient and modern opinion about the propriety of writing a book under a revered name in order to gain authority for the teaching set forth therein. A pupil may have considered that he was expressing in his work the opinions of his master, and on that account may have from a mistaken but pious motive put forth the book in his master's name. That many works were com- [79] posed and published under false names is certain; but it is not made out that general Christian opinion approved of the attempt to gain Apostolic authority for a work of a later epoch by attributing it to the authorship of an Apostle. That, however, is what Dr. Moffatt strenuously asserts, and assumes to be proven. Almost all the examples which he gives in support of his assertion-an assertion confidently made by many modern writers -- are open to serious question.

He says, for example, that Luke fabricated speeches and put them in the mouth of Peter and Paul; and therefore it is evident that Luke thought this procedure honest and right, and could not have objected to the false attribution of letters to those Apostles. Even if, for the moment, we admit that in the Acts Luke composed speeches and put them in the mouth of Peter and Paul, that is not an analogous case to fabricating a book or a letter and attributing it to an Apostle in order to give it a spurious authority in the Church. A historian might compose and put in the mouth of some histori- [80] cal figure a speech containing what he believed to be a good summary of the facts and thoughts which belonged to the situation. That procedure was approved by ancient feeling, and practised by the greatest historians. The historian of standing did not thereby seek to palm off his own views about the situation of his own time under another name: he tried to make the past situation clear and vivid to his readers by a dramatic device which was regarded at the time as right and proper.

Moreover, I venture to deny absolutely that Luke fabricated the speeches which he attributes to the Apostles; he had good authority for them, though, of course, he gives merely summaries and not verbatim reports; and summaries are necessarily coloured by the writer's style. The nearest exception which I should be inclined to admit is the speech in Acts I.9 ff.: there the speech and the commentary on it pass into one another, and it appears that Luke had authority only for the general proposal but not for the details. He had no witness to rely on in this case; and he passes from the speech to [81] the comment and back again to the speech in a way which is quite different from his ordinary method. By this device he marks off the speech from his report of all others in the Acts.

The one certain example which Dr. Moffatt gives of a second century book attempting to gain credit by the use of Paul's name, and by the attribution to Paul of speeches that are entirely un-Pauline, is the Acts of Paul and Thekla, composed by an Asian presbyter; and the publication was disapproved by public sentiment, and punished by the degradation of the writer from the presbyterate. The presbyter pleaded that he had acted from love of Paul. Apparently he wished to add to Paul's glory by recording the Apostle's exploits and teaching; but the Church disapproved.

Dr. Moffatt, as it is only right to add, will have it that the presbyter was punished, not because he had falsely attributed to Paul acts and words, but only because these words were not in accordance with the doctrine of the Church. The testimony of Tertullian, however, seems to me certainly to imply that [82] the punishment was awarded because of the false attribution. Possibly that may have been a pretence, and the real reason may have been what Dr. Moffatt says; but even the pretence seems to imply a certain standard of public judgment unfavourable to false attribution. At that time the publication of opinions contrary to the right doctrine was certainly regarded as deserving of punishment: why should the authorities pretend that the punishment, which was deserved on this ground, had been inflicted for the other reason, viz., false attribution, if public opinion did not condemn such false attribution?

The question of false attribution requires fuller and more methodical treatment than it has yet received. It is usually treated by persons who have already formed the opinion that ancient opinion permitted every kind of false attribution. So far as I can judge, there is still an opening for the belief that early Christian opinion made distinctions: it would not condemn compositions such as the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, where there is no intention to spread opinions [83] under the shelter of Pauline authority, but merely to compose an edifying and harmless literary exercise after the fashion of the schools; but the typical Christian judgment, as a general rule, did condemn the attempt seriously to mould public opinion and affect Church teaching under a false assumption of Apostolic authority. The arguments that have been used or may be used to support this latter view are left out of sight by Dr. Moffatt.