Biblical scholars traditionally use fancy terms like ‘pseudepigrapha’ and ‘redaction’ to avoid calling things what they really are — such as forgery, fraud, and fakes.

By Tanner the Humanist

Biblical scholars have a habit of dressing up straightforward concepts in fancy, meaningless jargon. Instead of calling a spade a spade, they twist themselves into linguistic pretzels to avoid using more common terms that the average Jane and Joe can relate to, like forgery, fraud, or faking.

They’ll say “pseudepigrapha” instead of “forgery.” They’ll talk about “interpolations” when they mean someone tampered with a text. They’ll mumble about “redaction” instead of admitting somebody rewrote history. Why? Because it sounds better. Nobody wants to accuse ancient scribes of fraud outright — they might hurt someone’s feelings.

1. Pseudepigrapha — A Fancy Word for Lies

First up: “pseudepigrapha,” which means “false writings.” Scholars use it to describe texts written under a fake name. Sounds harmless, right? It isn’t. Imagine if someone today published a book and claimed J.K. Rowling wrote it. That’s fraud. But when ancient writers slapped the name of Moses, Peter, or Paul on something they wrote to give it more clout, scholars shrug it off.

No one’s going to argue that these people were just being cute. They were lying to make their writing seem authoritative. If you’re deliberately deceiving people, that’s a forgery.

2. Interpolations — Tampering with the Truth

Next up: “interpolations.” This one’s a gem. It’s what scholars call it when somebody adds, deletes, or changes parts of a text. You know, if you’re arguing with someone, and they rewrite the rules halfway through to win? That’s interpolation in action.

A famous example is the “long ending” of the Gospel of Mark. The original version ends abruptly, but somewhere along the way, someone decided to tack on a nice, tidy ending where Jesus appears to his disciples. Scholars call it an “interpolation,” not “faking.”

3. Redaction — Editing with an Agenda

“Redaction” sounds so official, doesn’t it? Like someone’s just tidying up a text for clarity. But in reality, it’s editing with an agenda. It’s rewriting something to fit your beliefs, politics, or narrative. It’s the ancient version of selective quoting — cherry-picking and tweaking to make your point.

Take the Gospels. Many scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were redacted versions of Mark, with bits added or changed to suit different audiences. That’s not just editing. That’s manipulation.

4. Textual Variants— Sloppy or Shady?

“Textual variants” is scholar-speak for “this manuscript says something different than that one.” Sometimes, the changes were accidental — like when a scribe got bored and copied something wrong. But sometimes, they were deliberate.

For example, some manuscripts of 1 John 5:7 include a clear reference to the Trinity, while others don’t. Why? Because someone wanted to “clarify” the doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, they added it in. But instead of calling this a falsification, scholars just shrug and call it a “textual variant.” How polite.

5. Attributed Authorship — A Soft Word for a Hard Lie

“Attributed authorship” is my personal favorite. It’s what they say when a text claims to have been written by someone but probably wasn’t, such as Paul’s letters in the Bible. Scholars agree that at least six out of thirteen letters credited to Paul — like 1 Timothy and Titus — weren’t actually written by him. Instead, they were written by someone else who pretended to be Paul.

But do scholars call it pretending? Do they call it forgery? Of course not. They say, “Oh, it’s attributed authorship.”

6. Deutero-Anything — Fake by Tradition

Another favorite is “deutero-” authorship, as in “Deutero-Pauline letters,” meaning the text was supposedly written “in the tradition of” Paul but not actually by Paul. Let’s translate that: someone wrote it and lied about who they were. Calling it “deutero-” anything is just slapping a scholarly bow on a big, fat forgery.

7. Anonymous — The Ultimate Cop-Out

Then there’s the word “anonymous.” Sure, some biblical books don’t name their authors. However, for others, like the Gospels, people just assumed Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote them. Scholars now say, “Well, these works are technically anonymous.” Okay, fine. But when later scribes ascribed them to those four guys, they were spreading falsehoods.

8. False Ascription — The Nicest Way to Say “Fraud”

“False ascription” is one of the most honest terms scholars use, but even it pulls its punches. If you’re falsely ascribing a work to someone, you’re lying. Why not just call it fraud?

What If Scholars Reported Madoff Scandal?

Now, let’s have some fun.

You’ve perhaps heard of Bernie Madoff, one of the biggest fraudsters in recent history, whose firm stole over $19 billion from 40,000 investors. But what if scholars told us about the Madoff scandal?

Bernie Madoff had engaged in decades-long high-level pseudepigrapha. He threw in a few creative interpolations to make things look better than they were. Of course, his entire scheme was a masterclass in redaction to keep his clients hooked.

Madoff also relied heavily on textual variants, where the reality of his clients’ money and the statements he sent them were just “different versions” of the same story. His financial performance? Pure false ascription . All of this was done under the guise of attributed authorship.

But hey, don’t call it a crime — call it “creative accounting” with a flair for biblical-style deceit.

Before You Go

Why do biblical scholars use this weaselly language? Part of it is tradition. Academia loves its big words and neutral tones — it makes them feel smart and impartial. But part of it is fear, which is, to be honest, understandable to a degree. If they called forgery what it is, it would ruffle feathers. People don’t like being told their sacred texts were tampered with.

But the truth matters. While not as excessive, doesn’t this jargon remind you of the mindset that kept the Bible in Latin to make its content inaccessible to the average person?

Comments:

Benjamin David Steele
I entirely agree with you about the dishonest rhetoric biblical scholars use. Much of it is apologetical sophistry, as the field is full believers defending their faith.
Even so, I do think we should seek to understand people in their own times, according to their mentalities. Projecting modern individuality onto the ancient world isn’t helpful.
There obviously was a lot of plain dishonesty involved. But there were also likely some people who genuinely believed they were inspired in writing within a lineage.
Does that distinction matter? I think it does. Early Christianity was an oral culture and so they worshipped a spiritual experience of a ‘Living Word’ more than they worshipped texts.
In such a text-based society as ours, it’s extremely hard to intellectually understand and viscerally grok the oral mentality. It’s an entirely different way of being in the world.
A more interesting approach to ancient texts is philology. It seeks to grasp what people meant in the context of their times, what motivated them and how they experienced identity and the world.
Still, none of that is necessary for your more simple purpose. Modern scholars are being outright deceptive in obscuring what they mean. Of course, they should use simpler language.

Robert W Ahrens
Yes, fake is fake, forgery is still forgery, no matter what word you use to describe it.

Steve Ruis
Oh, and “deutero-” just means secondary as in a document that didn’t make the final cut into the official canon but people still like to read them as if they had. There are sects of Christianity today which prefer Bibles containing the Pseudepigrapha. Many of those books were kicked out of the Bible by Martin Luther and his revolutionaries (in the 1500’s!) and only because of their personal preferences, not because of some divine revelation.

Simon Burnett
Nothing has changed much in the intervening years. Putin’s “military operation” comes to mind immediately. “Ethnic cleansing” is another.
Coll

Eddie Lau
I agree with you this time, with an additional reason : the devil always tries hard to influence them to twist God’s Word because he is ‘the father of lies’ (John 8:44).

Steve Ruis
Ironically the caption of your photo is wrong (“One of the 15 Biblical manuscript fragments found near the Dead Sea.”). This is not even a photograph of said fragment. It appears to be a painting or other illustration.
Oh, and 15? There were many thousands of such fragments found “near the Dead Sea.”