The disputed letters of Paul and the ethics of the art trade

Abstract

Opinions about the authenticity/inauthenticity of the disputed canonical letters of Paul are framed within some of the basic ethical codes associated with the upper echelons of the London art trade, where careful consideration is given to the descriptions of objects of uncertain origin and status when they are put on sale. Acting responsibly when conclusions are inconclusive; having regard for the importance of maintaining an honest reputation; and valuing the opinions of experts are as important for Bible teachers as they are for the trade.

Keywords

art trade Augustine fakes forgeries Pauline pseudepigrapha Paul’s letters

For over 30 years I have supported the scholarly consensus around the authorship of Paul’s letters in my preaching and teaching: the genuine letters are Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. It is unlikely that Paul himself was the author of Ephesians. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are not by the ‘real’ Paul. With 2 Thessalonians and Colossians the jury is still out, and there is no prospect of an early return. Standard academic introductions to the New Testament and recent books by leaders in the field of the study of Paul generally support this post-war consensus.¹ Some scholars, notably N. T. Wright (who now seems to be particularly committed to Paul’s authorship of Colossians and Ephesians) are questioning it.² Meanwhile, in popular discourse – including online education programmes offered by some leading Christian figures and organizations – there is evidence that the established critical assessments of the dating and authorship of New Testament letters have yet to be seriously entertained, let alone adopted.³ In these circles, Paul’s personal authorship of all of the canonical letters carrying his name is generally taken for granted.

The investigation of ‘fakes and forgeries’ has found its way into two completely different areas of my personal and academic life. The first is in the teaching and study of the New Testament, which involves, among other things, appreciating and evaluating the disputed letters of Paul (and similarly puzzling documents from both inside and outside the biblical canon). The second is around the art trade. I interact with this as a collector and consultant, having become an authority on the work of a particular British painter who died at the end of the twentieth century. In this article I aim to bring to bear some first-hand insights and experiences from the art world – its respectable as well as its less respectable sides – to the realms of New Testament scholarship. Can insights based on observations of the honest dealings within the upper echelons of the London art market help us to evaluate competing claims about the authorship of some disputed letters?

I recently found myself in the vaults of a major London auction house, having been invited to look at a group of paintings that someone had brought in as prospects for a future sale. Museums and galleries have in-house experts, but they readily acknowledge and respect the opinions of dedicated amateur enthusiasts. A serious collector of particular paintings, pots or manuscripts will have a well-developed ‘feel’ for the objects they are passionate about, and – in many cases – an encyclopaedic knowledge to back it up, often gained from decades of handling, viewing and reviewing: this can be of great usefulness to the professionals. Being routinely in touch with the house’s specialists, I had already been sent images to look at and felt that, behind the immediate and ostensible respectability and ‘rightness’ of these works, there was something that did not quite ring true. There was a chance that they were deliberate fakes (albeit very good ones) and – given the buoyant state of the market – the seller, the auctioneer and any eventual buyer were playing for high financial stakes. I needed to see them at first hand before giving my advice.

Here is what I saw and noted. The signatures were more than passable, but perhaps not quite right for the purported dates of the paintings. The look and size of the paintings was broadly as one would expect for works of their type, but there were issues with some of the more detailed aspects, and there was an overall sense (just a sense) of ‘newness’, which, once seen – and on further visual acquaintance – was impossible to unsee. The framing was of a high quality and no expense had been spared, as would befit artworks of high value. The frames were quite recent, having been added long after the time when known and authenticated pictures from this series were first exhibited. There was also a background realization that images from this distinct phase in the artist’s stylistic journey might be relatively easy ones to attempt to imitate, if anyone were so inclined. I was told that the prospective seller had been unable to provide any convincing details of provenance or previous history; by now, this came as no surprise. Knowledge and instinct, plus an accumulation of generally quite ambiguous visual evidence, converged to suggest that these pictures could not confidently be accepted as authentic. The works were therefore returned to the would-be seller.

Acting responsibly when conclusions are inconclusive

This case study demonstrates that auction houses and art dealers of good repute do not busy themselves trying to prove that suspect works of art are fakes, although this is possible in some instances: materials used, for example, may post-date the lifespan of an artist. Instead, efforts move in the other direction: the aim of the investigations is to reach the point where it can be reasonably determined that objects are authentic. The bar is set very high for the acceptance of any item for sale as ‘the genuine article’ because dealers and auctioneers must be confident about the formal claims they make in their marketing descriptions. With the paintings I looked at there were too many doubts and unanswered questions. But were they fakes? When receiving them back, their owner would have been politely advised that, on the basis of available evidence, the paintings fell short of being demonstrably authentic (with the inescapable consequences that no reputable agent would now be willing to offer them for sale).

This means that, from the vantage point of the auction house’s balcony, the current opinion – in every case – on the authorship of 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus would have to be the same: the verdict can only be that, for as long as there is an element of doubt, nobody at all is in a position to claim that Paul himself was their real author; or at least not without equivocation, reservation and explanation.⁴

Many people who argue or assume that Paul did write these six letters – including church leaders, preachers and some parties and individuals associated with the scholarly establishment – do so primarily because of their distinct confessional position rather than on the basis of having reached a reasoned conclusion.⁵ For people who believe that the Bible is the ‘inspired word of God’, and who note within it the ostensible claims that these letters were indeed sent from Paul, there is little room for questioning or debate.⁶ The fact that the authorship issue has not been completely settled one way or the other within the scholarly realm seems to have left the territory open and insecure, with conservative interpreters able to push their way in, claim certainty and raise a home-made banner carrying the slogan ‘Paul Wrote These!’ They may also deploy the tools and insights of critical scholarship in order to ‘prove’ their case. In this instance, the tools may be used disingenuously, as part of an effort to back up a predetermined understanding rather than for the advancement of an objective quest – a bad habit in any academic discipline. The analogy here is as follows: with the pictures I was shown, there were features that were seemingly ‘right’ – the signatures, the style, and an apparent dateable-ness to a specific, known phase in their purported maker’s distinguished career. If I had personal reasons for supporting the works through to a sale (a vested interest, perhaps, or the promise of a payment), it would have been an easy matter to make a strong appeal to those features and advise that the works were genuine. (If I had been less of an expert, I might even have been fooled myself!) In that scenario, a successful sale could have followed and gains might have been made, but although my verdict might have pleased a range of individuals, it would have thwarted the spirit of honest investigation and judgement. People would have been enriched at the expense of my moral standing as well as the good name of the auction house.

Maintaining an honest reputation

The second point, already alluded to above, is around the importance of integrity and the enjoyment of an honest reputation. In both instances – the dealer or auctioneer and the world of biblical knowledge – the stakes are high. Top auction houses know that if they try to pass off works of art that are ‘not right’ and this gets noticed (often, first, by those amateur enthusiasts who receive the catalogues) then their reputations are publicly besmirched and their expertise liable to be called into question: their prestige (and the value of their businesses) is directly related to the honesty of their dealings.⁷ Similarly, in church leadership, the reliability of all claims made can – and perhaps should – be judged on the basis of the honesty of each claim made. Conclusions can be drawn about the personal integrity of speakers and writers on the basis of the security and credibility of their discourse. Historically, this has been seen in the controversies around the reception of Genesis 1.1–31. If Christian people insist on the ‘scientific truthfulness’ of the ‘six day’ account of creation (apparently flying in the face of the evidence of observational science), there is a risk that the credibility of their other, more central and ‘salvation critical’ claims is undermined. This concern is not a new one, and Augustine of Hippo, writing about creation and aware that people outside the churches often had a reasonable grip of science, voiced it when he wrote:

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The consequences can be serious. He warns of the dangers of Christians having entrenched opinions about biblical books:

If [people] find a Christian … maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?⁸

To insist without qualification that Paul wrote any or all of the six disputed letters is indicative of a ‘slippage’ into the literalist (or creationist) mindset – the thin end of a wedge that a lot of people do not like the look of. For that reason, references to these letters must surely be contextualized, explanations given and the temptation to introduce and discuss passages using expressions such as ‘Paul says …’ or ‘Here Paul writes …’, even as shorthand, should be avoided. By taking that amount of care, we show that we value our congregations and students (and, if we are involved with writing books, our readers) in the same way that those top-ranking auction houses and dealers value their customers. The auctioneers need to maintain the full trust and support of their customers just as churches need to maintain the full trust and support of their congregations and communities.

Valuing the opinions of the experts

Within and around the art trade, the passing off of fake or questionable items as genuine can have serious legal consequences. A dealer or auctioneer who continues to offer an item as ‘authentic’ after they have become aware that reasonable questions are being raised about the accuracy of their cataloguing claims is liable to prosecution.⁹

Leaving aside the threat of legal proceedings, it is well known in the art trade that operators who knowingly attempt to pass off fakes as genuine are held in very low regard and risk exclusion from a ‘trade community’ that – to an impressive extent – polices itself and readily and voluntarily defers to the experts.¹⁰ Compliance is to the advantage of the trade as a whole because it contributes to the maintenance of an honest and respectable commercial profile. In fact, dealers love to cultivate working relationships with the curatorial authorities of museums and public galleries as well as academic writers and researchers because these links bring credibility and prestige. It is interesting to contrast this state of affairs with the dynamics of the world of biblical knowledge, preaching and interpretation, where things often seem to work the other way around.

Here, it is the discourse of the more conservative community that tends to marginalize the scholarly practitioners, perhaps labelling them as ‘liberals’ and ‘sceptics’ and portraying their academic agendas as secular, suspect and even clumsy.¹¹ This discourse has led to the emergence of ‘unwritten rules’ that result in the exclusion of certain academically engaged preachers and teachers from the pulpits, platforms or podiums of particular churches or institutions.¹² With some Christian communities far from ready to listen to the experts, who are the real ‘dodgy dealers’?

Conclusions

I am not alone in claiming that the only honest conclusion arising from a full scholarly assessment of all the evidence is that there are, at the very least, significant doubts about Paul’s authorship of certain canonical letters attributed to him: the doubts are an established part of the equation and have not been dispelled. The demands of integrity and transparency mean that these doubts need to be aired all the time, every time. Now that the stage is backlit with an awareness of the honest practices and priorities of the upper echelons of the London art trade, is anyone brave enough to step up and attempt a full rejection and rebuttal of this position?

Finally, in case you were wondering, the paintings I referred to have not, to date, resurfaced on the open market. If or when they do – and in the absence of any additional evidence – my opinions about them will not have changed.

Footnotes

Notes

Author biography

Stephen Laird is Dean of Chaplains and Honorary Lecturer at the University of Kent; Parish Priest at Blean, Canterbury; and Tutor in New Testament at Saint Augustine’s College of Theology.