sign in sign up
<<
Home , Pseudepigrapha

Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy

649-82; O. Eissfeldt, The : An Intro­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891); ]. duction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974);]. A. Fitzmyer, Schroter, "Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit: "KUPIOS-," EDNT 2:328-31; O . von Gebhardt, ed., Das Gottesbild der Psalmen Salomos in seinem Psalmoi Solomontos: Die Psalmen Salomos, zum Verhaltnis zu Qumran und Paulus," NTS 44 ersien Male mit Benutzung der Athoshandschriften (1998) 566-67; ]. Schiipphaus, Die Psalmen Salo­ und des Codex Casanatensis (TU 13.2; Leipzig: mos: Ein Zeugnis jerusaiemer Theologie und From­ Hinrichs, 1895); G. B. Gray, "The of migkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen jahrhunderts ," APOT 2:625-52; R R Hann, "Christos (ALGHJ 7; Leiden: E. ]. Brill, 1977); E. Schiirer, Kyrios in PsSoI 17.32: The Lord's Anointed' The History of the jewish People in the Age ofjesus Reconsidered," NTS 31 (1985) 620-27; idem, Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. and ed. G. Ver­ "The Community of the Pious: The Social Set­ mes, F. Millar and M. Goodman (3 vols.; Edin­ ting of the ," SR 17 (1988) burgh: T & T Clark, 1973-87) vol. 3.1; ]. L. 169-89; idem, The Manuscript History of the Psalms Trafton, "The Psalms of Solomon in Recent of Solomon (SB15CS 13; Chico, CA: Scholars Research," jSP 12 (1994) 3-19; idem, "The Press, 1982); R Harris and A. Mingana, eds., The Psalms of Solomon: New Light from the Syriac Odes and Psalms of Solomon (Manchester: Version?" JBL 105 (1986) 227-37; idem, Manchester University Press, 1916, 1920) vols. 1- "Solomon, Psalms of," ABD 6:115-17; idem, The 2; S. Holm-Nielsen, Die Psalmen Salomos (JSHRZ Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon: A Critical 4.2; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1977); H. L. Jansen, Evaluation (SB15CS 11; Atlanta: Scholars Press, Die spiitjUdische Psalmendichtung: Ihr Entstehung­ 1985);]. Tromp, "The Sinners and the Lawless skreis und ihr "Sitz im Leben ": Eine literaturgeschich­ in Psalm of Solomon 17," NovT35 (1993) 344-61; tlich-soziologische Untersuchung (SNVAO.HF 1937; M. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A Com­ no. 3; Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1937); R Kittel, "Die parative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and PauZ:s Psalmen Salomos," APAT 2 (1900 = 2d repr. Letters (ConBNT 26; Stockholm: Almquist & Wik­ 1962) 12748; K G. Kuhn,Die iilteste Textgestalt der sell, 1995); R. B. Wright, "Psalms of Solomon Psalmen Salomos: Insbesondere auf Grund der (First Century B.C.): A New Translation and syrischen Ubersetzung neu untersucht (BWANT 73; Introduction," OTP 2:639-70. M. Lattke Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1937); W L. Lane, . , "Paul's Legacy from Pharisaism; Light from the .. PSEUDO-DANIEL (4Q243-245). See PRAYER OF Psalms of Solomon," Conj 8 (1982) 130-38; M. NABONIDUS (4Q242) AND PSEUDO-DANIEL Lattke, Hymnus: Materialien zu -einer Geschichte (4Q243-245). der antiken Hymnologie (NTOA 19; Freiburg: Uni­ versitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & PSEUDO-EUPOLEMUS. See JEWISH LITERA­ Ruprecht, 1991); idem, "On the Jewish Back­ l1JRE: HISTORIANS AND POETS ground of the Synoptic Concept 'The Kingdom of God,' " in The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of PSEUDO-EZEKIEL. See PsEUDO- jesus, ed. B. Chilton (IRT 5; Philadelphia: For­ (4Q385-388, 390-391) tress, 1984) 72-91; idem, "Salomo III. Apokryphe Schriften," LTK3 8:1492; G. T. Milazzo, "Psalms PSEUDONYMITY AND PSEUDEPIG· of Solomon," in Dictionary of Biblical Interpreta­ RAPHY tion, ed.]. H. Hays (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, Pseudonymity and pseudepigraphy denote the 1999) 2:329-331;]. O'Dell, "The Religious Back­ practice of ascribing written works to someone ground of the Psalms of Solomon (Re-evaluated other than the author-that is, the works in in the Light of the Qumran Texts)," RevQ 3 question are falsely (pseud~) named (onoma, (1961-62) 241-57; P. Prigent, "Psaumes de "name") or attributed (epigraphos, "superscrip­ Salomon," in La , Ecrits Intertestamentaires, tion"). This must not be confused with anonym­ ed. A. Dupont-Sommer et al. (BP; Paris: Galli­ ity, in which no formal claim is made (e.g., mard, 1987) 945-92; A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id Matthew, John and Hebrews are all formally est lktus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes anonymous). Similarly one must distinguish be­ (ed. octava; Stuttgart: Wiirttembergische Bibel­ tween pseudepigraphical and *apocryphal anstalt. 1965) vols. 1-2; H. E. Ryle and M. R works. The word is tied rather more to James, Psalmoi Solomimtos: Psalms of the Pharisees, notions of canon than to notions of authenticity. Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon (Cam- The matter 0 f false attribution played little or no

857 - ' .. ~ .

Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy

part in the identification of the fourteen or fif­ quire copies of the works of ancient authors. teen books or parts of books that constitute the Among other things, Galen feels outraged and Apocrypha, most of which Roman Catholics betrayed by the interpolations and corruptions view as deuterocanonical. A book is either ca­ introduced into the medical works he and nonical or apocryphal (or, for Roman Catholics, Hippocrates had written (in Hippocrates Nat. deuterocanonical), regardless of whether or not Hom. l.42). it is pseudepigraphical. At this juncture it is vital to distinguish be­ Although pseudonymity and pseudepigraphy tween pseudepigraphical works and literary are today used almost synonymously, only- the forgeries (Metzger, 4): A literary forgery is a latter term has been traced back to antiquity (as work written or modified with the intent to de­ early as an inscription from the second century ceive. All literary forgeries are pseudepigraphi­ B.C., found at Priene). Apart from the intrinsic cal, but not all pseudepigrapha are literary interest of the subject-by what criteria do forgeries. There is a substantial class of pseude­ scholars decide that a document makes false pigraphical writings that, in the course of their claims regarding its authorship?-its bearing on transmission, somehow became associated with NT interpretation arises from the fact that a ma­ some figure or other. These connections be­ jority of contemporary scholars hold that some tween a text and an ancient figure, however fal­ of the NT books are pseudonymous. The list of lacious, were judgments made with the best will books varies considerably, but a broad consen­ in the world. We do not know how the commen­ sus would label Ephesians and the Pastoral taries of Pelagius on Paul came to be associated (attributed to Paul) pseudepigraphical, with the name of Jerome (who violently op­ as well as 2 Peter (attributed to Peter). Some posed Pelagius), but that is what happened. Most would add other books: Colossians, 2 Thessalo­ hold that Lobon of Argos wrote the Hymn to nians, I Peter. Poseidon in the third century B.C., even though l. Extrabiblical Evidence the hymn is widely attributed to Arion; but it is 2. The Stance of the doubtful that Lobon himself had anything to do 3. Evidence Internal to the with the attribution. The reason this distinction Documents is important is that debates over the authenticity 4. Some Contemporary Theories of NT books are tied up with the motives of ac­ tual authors, since the texts are so early and so 1. ExtrabiblicaI Evidence. stable that the putative author's name is there 1.1. Preliminary Observations. Given the from the beginning. For the purposes of this ar­ broadest definition, pseudonymity is a more ex­ ticle, then, it will be well to focus only on cases tensive phenomenon than some have thought where demonstrable intent is involved and thus It embraces every false claim of authorship, to exclude all pseudepigrapha that have become whether for good motive or ill, and whether ad­ such owing to nothing more than the irretriev­ vanced by the real author or by some later his­ able accidents of history. torical accident. It includes every instance of an The motives of pseudepigraphers, ancient author adopting, for whatever reason, a nom de and modem, have been highly diverse and in­ plum-Mary Ann Evans writing under the name clude the following. (1) Sometimes literary forg­ of George Eliot or the three Bronte sisters eries have been crafted out of pure malice. (Charlotte, Emily and Anne) publishing their According to Pausanias (Descr. 6.l8.2-6) and Jo­ poems under the title Poems by Currier, Ellis and sephus (Ag. Ap. l.24 §221), in the fourth century Acton Bell, or the English scholar Gervase Fen B.C. Anaximenes of Lampsacus destroyed the writing detective fiction under the name of Ed­ reputation of a contemporary historian, Theo­ mund Crispin. According to Galen, a learned pompus of Chios, by writing, under the name of physician from the second century A.D. , literary his rival, horrible invectives against three Greek forgeries first circulated in large numbers when cities (Athens, Sparta and Thebes) and circulat­ *Alexandria and Pergamum began a race to ing them. (Hist. Eat. 9.5.l) reports that outdo each other by increasing the number of in the fourth century the Acts of Pilate began to volumes in their respective libraries (see Alexan­ circulate (possibly written by the apostate Theo­ drian Library): the *Ptolemies of Egypt and King tecnus), full of bitter slanders against the moral Eumenes of Pergamum offered large sums to ac- character ofJesus . In modern times, czarist Rus-

858 Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy

sia produced the "Protocols of the Learned El­ One easily imagines that this motive runs ders of Zion." into another: (6) A deep desire to get published (2) More commonly, as we have already seen, and be widely read, for both personal and ideo­ literary forgeries were prompted by promise of logical reasons, doubtless characterizes more financial payment. authors than the Bronte sisters and may be the (3) Sometimes the pseudepigrapher used an motive behind the motive of Salvian. ancient name to gain credence for his writing in (7) More difficult to assign are the substantial order to support a position he knew to be false. numbers of pseudepigraphical writings that be­ According to Strabo (Geog. 9.1.10), in the sixth long to specific genres. Doubtless more than century B.C. either Solon or Pisistratus inserted a one ofthe preceding motives were involved. But verse in Homer's Iliad (book B, line 258) in or­ it is difficult to overlook what might almost be der to support the Athenian claim to the island called a genre incentive. In the post-Aristotle pe­ of Salamis. Herodotus (Hist. 7.6) says that Ono­ riod, the rise of the great Attic orators generated macritus was banished from Athens when it was high interest in *rhetoric and oratory. Students shown he had interpolated a passage into the were taught to compose speeches based on Oracles of Musaeus predicting that the islands models left by the ancient orators. The most off Lemnos would sink into the sea. This third skillful of these were doubtless difficult to distin­ motive has some overtones of the first guish from the originals. This drifted over into (4) Similarly the pseudepigrapher sometimes the reconstruction, by historians, of speeches used an ancient name to gain credence for his that their subjects probably would have made (in writing in order to support a position he judged the view of the historians). Some historians, of to be true. This was especially the case in an­ course, were more reflective about such prac­ cient schools in which the founder was highly tices than others (cf. Thucydides Hist. 1.22). venerated. Very few of the *Neo-Pythagoreans L Alexander has shown that from Isocrates on, published their works under their own names. one can distinguish between a more scientific They attributed them to Pythagorus himself, historiography and a looser, more creative even though he had been dead for centuries (so form-and Luke, at least (she insists), fits into Iamblichus, c. A.D. 250-325: De Vita Pythagorica the former category. 198, following Deubner's edition). In the sixth Further, if complex motives were involved in century A.D. several works appeared claiming to the creation of pseudonymous speeches, the be written by (cf. Acts same can be said of *letters. At least in the clas­ 17:34), though drawing on much later Neo-Pla­ sical period, great leaders and thinkers were tonic argumentation. credited with important and voluminous corre­ (5) A more idiosyncratic case of the same spondence. One hundred forty-eight letters are thing has occasionally occurred when an indi­ attributed to the sixth-century B.C. tyrant vidual has ostensibly hidden his or her own Phalaris of Acragas (= Agrigentum), portraying name out of modesty, using the name of an­ him as a gentle and kind man and as a patron of other. Perhaps the most famous instance is that the arts-though since the end of the seven­ of an encyclical that began to circulate about teenth century scholars have known that these A.D. 440, ostensibly written by someone who letters were almost certainly composed in the identified himself as "Timothy, least of the ser­ second century A.D. , probably by a Sophist (see vants of God." Bishop Salonius guessed the au­ the work of Bentley). The phenomenon is less thor was Salvian, a priest in Marseilles. Without common in *Hellenistic times, but see below. admitting anything, Salvian responded to the (8) Finally, several bodies of writings are as­ bishop's sharp queries by saying that he thought cribed to some philosophical-religious-mythical authors, out of humility and modesty, might be figure, especially , the Sibyl and Her­ justified in using the name of another, so as not mes Trismegistus (see esp. Sint, Speyer and some to seek glory for themselves (cf. Haefner). One essays in Brox). may perhaps be excused for thinking this is a tri­ 1.2. Jewish Exampks. Jewish literature evinces fle disingenuous. It is a strange modesty that a fairly high occurrence of pseudepigraphical thinks one's own writings are so good that they literature from about the middle of the third could and should be attributed to an ancient century B.C. to the third century A.D., much of it biblical hero. belonging to the genre of *apocalyptic (broadly

859

...... · ,.....

Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy

defined). One thinks of the *Psalms of Solomon, The latter was almost certainly written to pro­ 1 , , (see Enoch, Books of), vide the document mentioned in Colossians the works of the Ezra cycle (e.g., 4 Ezra; see Es­ 4:16. It is a brief and rough compilation of dras, Books of), the * Treatise of Shem, the *Apoca­ Pauline phrases and passages, primarily from lypse of Zephaniah, the *, Philippians. The largest collection of pseudony­ the Apocalypse ofAdam (see Adam and , Litera­ mous epistles from the early period of the ture Concerning) and many more. We may in­ church's history is the set of fourteen letters of clude here the various testaments, most of which correspondence between the apostle Paul and have apocalyptic sections (e.g., *Tesf4ments of the *Seneca. They are referred to by both Jerome Twelve Patriarchs, *Testament ofJob, *Testament of (Vir. 12) and Augustine (Ep. 153). The Murato­ Moses, Testament of Solomon). Yet other genres are rian Canon (c. A.D. 170-200) refers to the to not unrepresented (e.g., *Wisdom of Solomon). the Alexandrians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans Some works are of such mixed genre they are as "both in Paul's name" (Mur. Can. 64- variously classified The *SibyUine Oracles, for ex­ 65), and so the *canon will not allow them to be ample, appears to be made up of a strange mix included. This last observation leads to the next of pagan oracles from various countries, Jewish heading. writings from a wide spread of dates and Chris­ tian moralizing interpolations-yet all the while 2. The Stance of the Church Fathers. the document maintains the claim that this con­ All sides agree that pseudepigraphy was com­ glomeration is the utterance of the Sibyl, an an­ mon in the ancient world. Nevertheless, in Jew­ cient prophetess, sometimes represented as the ish and Christian circles it was not so common daughter-in-law of Noah. This arrangement is in epistles-and it is in the epistolary genre transparently designed to gain credence for the where the subject impinges on the NT docu­ oracles as genuine *prophecies. ments. But does pseudonymity occur in the NT? The wide variety of expansions of OT narra­ From a mere listing of pseudepigraphical tives are not normally pseudepigraphical, but sources, one might unwittingly infer that no one some of the expansions that are also *prayers cared. But that is not the case. "Both Greeks and must be placed in that category: *Prayer of Ma­ Romans show great concern to maintain the au­ nasseh, Prayer of Joseph, (see thenticity of their collections of writings from Psalms of Solomon). Occasionally a later, non­ the past, but the sheer number of the pseude­ biblical, literary figure finds his name forged: to­ pigrapha made the task difficult" (Donelson, 11). day's scholars read not only *Philo but *Pseudo­ Similarly J. Duff: "It simply cannot be main­ Philo (first century A.D., like the real Philo). tained that in the pagan culture surrounding the Examples of pseudepigraphical letters from early Christians there was no sense of literary this milieu are harder to come by. The two cited propriety, or no concern over authenticity" by everyone are Epistle of *Aristeas and Epistle of (Duff, 278). Referring both to Christian and Jeremy, neither of which is really a letter. non-Christian sources, L. R. Donelson goes so 1.3. Early Christian Examples. About the mid­ far as to say, "No one ever seems to have ac­ dle of the second century A.D., pseudonymous cepted a document as religiously and philosoph­ Christian works began to multiply, often associ­ ically prescriptive which was known to be ated with a great Christian leader. We are not forged. I do not know a single example" (Donel­ here concerned with works that purport to tell son, 11). us about esteemed Christian figures without This is virulently the case in early Christian making claims as to authorship but only with circles. We have already observed the stance of those that are clearly pseudepigraphical. Some the Muratorian Canon and of Bishop Salonius. of these are apocalypses (e.g., the Apocalypse of When Asian elders examined the author of an Peter, the ); some are , which included the pseudonymous (e.g., of Peter; Gospel of Thomas, which is re­ 3 Corinthians, they condemned him for presum­ ally no gospel but mostly a collection of sayings ing to write in Paul's name. When about A.D. 200 attributed to Jesus; see Apocryphal Gospels). Sev­ Serapion, bishop of Antioch, first read Gospel of eral are letters claiming to be written by Paul: Peter, he thought it might be genuine. When fur­ 3 Corinthians, Epistle to the Alexandrians, Epistle to ther investigation led him to conclude it was not, the Laodiceans (see Apocryphal Acts and Epistles). he rejected it and provided a rationale for the

860 Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy church of Rhossus in Cilicia: "For we , brothers, the work of F. C. Baur. But so far as the evidence receive both Peter and the other apostles as of the fathers goes, when they explicitly evalu­ Christ. But pseudepigrapha in their name we re­ ated a work for its authenticity, canonicity and ject, as men of experience, knowing that we did pseudonymity proved mutually exclusive. not receive such [from the tradition]" (Eusebius Hist. Eal. 6.12.3; cf. 2.25.4-7-widely cited in the 3. Evidence Internal to the New Testament literature). Tertullian is blistering against the Documents. Asian elder who confesses that he wrote Acts of All sides acknowledge that, however they are Paul and Thecla. All the elder's protestations that taken, the extrabiblical examples of pseudonym­ he had done so out of great love for the apostle ity cannot establish the ostensible pseudonymity did not prevent him from being deposed from of any NT document Such material provides no the ministry (Tettullian De Bapt. 17). Similarly, more than a social world of plausibility (or im­ when Cyril ofJerusalem provides a list of canon­ plausibility!) for the acceptance of pseude­ ical books, he allows only four Gospels, for the pigrapha into the NT. The pseudepigraphical rest are "falsely written and hurtful" (pseude­ character of any particular document is estab­ pigrapha kai blabera; Cyril ofJerusalem Cat. 4.36). lished on other grounds: anachronisms; a high I know of no exception to the evidence, percentage of words or phrases not found in the which is far more extensive than this brief sum­ known writings of the author; a high number of mary suggests. Ostensible exceptions turn out, words and phrases found in the ostensible au­ under close inspection, to be unconvincing. For thor's agreed writings but used in quite different instance, M. Kiley (17-18) rightly observes that ways; forms of thought and emphasis that seem the iWuratorian Canon attaches to its list of NT at odds with the dominant strains of the agreed books the Wisdom of Solomon, observing that it writings; and more of the same. was written by the "friends of Solomon in his Although some scholars view such evidence honor"-which surely, he suggests, ­ as having no more weight than that which af­ strates that "at least portions of the early church fects the balance of probabilities, many judge it were able to detect the pseudepigraphical pro­ to be so strong that there is no doubt in their cess." But where it is clear that a "pseudepi­ minds that some NT books are pseudepigraphi­ graphical process': is observed by the fathers, cal (e.g. Charlesworth, Donelson, Meade, Metz­ the fathers universally condemn it. In this case, ger, Speyer). In some cases, those who disagree as Kiley himself observes in an extended foot­ with them are dismissed as beyond the pale, un­ note, the reference in the Muratorian Canon may worthy and perhaps incompetent opponents. not be to our Wisdom of Solomon but to the But the issues are complex and interlocking. , which was at that time some­ One might usefully gain insight into the nature times referred to as the Wisdom of Solomon. But of the debate at its best by reading the respective in that case pseudonymity is not an issue, since commentaries on Ephesians by A. T. Lincoln the book itself frankly distinguishes various col­ and P. T. O'Brien-not only their introductions, lections of proverbs by different authors. but their exegeses wherever understanding of Similarly, some have argued that Tertullian's the text is affected by, or affects, the questions of words admit the legitimacy of at least some kinds authorship; or by reading the exchange be­ of pseudonymity: "It is allowable that that which tween S. E. Porter and R. W Wall; or standard in­ pupils publish should be regarded as their mas­ troductions, such as those by W G. Klimmel and ter's work" (Tettullian Marc. 4.5). But D. Guthrie Guthrie (esp. the lauer's appendix C: "Epistolary has rightly shown that this is t~ misunderstand Pseudepigraphy," 1011-28). Tertullian. Tertullian is discussing how Peter , The entire' complex' apparatus of technical stands behind Mark's Gospel and how Paul in­ scholarship and historical criticism. not to say forms Luke's writing. He does not suggest that theology and worldview, impinge on a complex the church received the second Gospel as if it string ofjuclgments that bear on the question of had been written by Peter when in fact it was whether or not there are pseudepigrapha written by Mark. among the NT documents, Scholars who answer The view that the NT includes some pseude­ yes are inclined to argue that, say, Ephesians has pigrapha was not mooted until two centuries ago far too much realized *eschatology for it to be (by Evanson in 1792) and became popular with Pauline; scholars who answer no highlight all

861

~ . .,. .

Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy

the passages that retain futurist eschatology and author, in "the interest of deception ... fabri­ argue that whatever differences that remain are cated all the personal notes, all the fine mo­ nothing more than different locations on the ments of deep piety, and all the careless but Pauline spectrum, variously applied by the apos­ effective commonplaces in the letter. . .. [He] is. tle himself in different ways to meet certain pas­ quite self-consciously employing pseudonymity toral needs. Scholars who answer yes carefully in order to deceive" (24). W A Meeks on Coloss­ list all the hapax legomena in Ephesians; scholars ians is similar. who answer no point out that Ephesians has no On the other side are those who similarly more hapax legomena than do some undisputed point out how often deception plays a role in Pauline letters. Such matters cannot be ad­ pseudepigraphy but recall how the church uni­ dressed here, yet it is important to see that they versally rejected any hint of such deception (e.g., impinge on our topic and that the evidence is Ellis). This is not to deny the complexity of mo­ spun by scholars in different ways and given tives that stand behind the various forms of very different weight pseudepigraphy lightly sketched above. It is to Two other bits of internal evidence bear on say that the letters of the NT, where pseudonym­ the discussion. (l) The author of 2 Thessalo­ ity is alleged to have taken place, are not educa­ nians is aware of forgeries made in his own tional exercises designed to ape the rhetorical name. He therefore warns his readers "not to styles of Attic orators. Nor are they writings that become easily unsettled or alarmed by some belong to a certain school of thought with a prophecy, report or letter supposed to have great but deceased head (whether Paul or Pe­ come from us" (2 Thess 2:1-2) and provides ter): the NT documents make concrete claims them with some signature or token to enable that the apostle is the author. Rather, the nature them to distinguish which letters purporting to of the ostensibly pseudonymous claim is such come from him were authentic and which were that we must conclude that if the documents are not (2 Tim 3: 17). If the author was not Paul, as pseudonymous, the writers intended to deceive many scholars think, then our pseudonymous in a way that is morally reprehensible-and author is in the odd position of condemning given the nature of the documents, this is not pseudonymous authors; a literary forgery damns credible. Thus in Ephesians, the author refers to literary forgeries. If the author was Paul, then his earlier ministry, written and oral (Eph 3:3-4), the apostle himself makes it clear that he is his chains, his arrangement of the ministry of aware of pseudonymity and condemns the prac­ other of Paul's men (e.g., Tychicus, Eph 6:21-22). tice, at least when people are using his name. (2) He exhorts his readers to pray for his (Paul's!) It is clear that Paul and perhaps other NT writ­ needs (Eph 6: 19-20), when, on the assumptions ers used amanuenses (e.g., Rom 16:22). There is of pseudonymity, the apostle was already dead a long and complex literature about how much Yet he also exhorts his readers to put off false­ freedom amanuenses enjoyed in the ancient hood and to speak truthfully (Eph 4:25; cf. also world-much as I might give my secretary de­ 4:15, 24; 5:9; 6:14). Similar things can be said tailed dictation or simply ask her to write a letter about all the ostensibly pseudepigraphical works along such and such a line, which becomes in the NT. It seems better to take the documents mine once I have read it and signed it. These at face value, respect the opinion and care of questions have a bearing on many critical de­ the church fathers in this regard and read the bates and cannot be overlooked in discussion historical-critical evidence for pseudonymity of, say, the authenticity of the Pastorals. with historical-critical discernment. In recent years several mediating positions 4. Some Contemporary Theories. have been advanced. K. Aland and others have Some scholars are convinced that the NT con­ argued that the Holy Spirit breached the gap tains many examples of literary forgeries and from ostensible author to real author. Provided are unembarrassed by this conclusion. On this the Spirit inspired the text, what difference does view, the pseudonymous author of 2 Peter, for it make who the human author was? But this so­ instance, was trying to deceive his readers into lution is awkward. It ignores the widespread rec­ thinking that the apostle wrote the missive (so ognition within earliest Christianity that there Charlesworth): he was a hypocrite. Similarly was such a thing as false prophecy. Worse, it Donelson on the Pastorals: the pseudonymous overlooks that these "inspired" prophets were

862 Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy

making historical claims that were either true or so ubiquitous and easily understood, why did not true. none of the church fathers who addressed ques­ D. G. Meade argues that the most believable tions of authencity view it as an appropriate background to NT pseudepigraphy is neither model for their grasp of the NT documents? the body of Greco-Roman parallels nor the cor­ Moreover, the new treatises published by the pus of Second Temple Jewish pseudepigraphy Neo-Pythagoreans did not attempt the personal but the process within Jewish writing whereby claims and allusions happily thrown in by the an original deposit (oral or written) has been NT writers. Their new truths were tied up with enlarged upon, with all the later material being new insights into numbers, not comments on attributed to the earliest author. This pattern, he Pythagorus's prison conditions or solicitations argues, began within the OT itself: , the that the readers pray for him. One must not fly Solomonic corpus, Daniel. But in every case the in the face of the evidence. J. D. G. Dunn (see ostensible parallels break down. On Meade's as­ DLNTD, Pseudepigraphy, 978), for instance, sumptions, the prophecy of Isaiah of Jerusalem writes, "It is hard to believe that such a conven­ was enlarged by contributions made more than tion was not recognized, at least by most a century later by others who followed in his thoughtful readers, in the case of the Enoch cor­ train. But Ephesians or 2 Thessalonians or the pus, the Testaments of tlu! Twelve Patriarchs or the Pastorals are not additions to a book, additions Apocalypse of Adam, all written probably between that seek to make contemporary the prophetic second century B.C. and second century A.D." word of someone long dead. They are indepen­ But the fact is that when "the most thoughtful dent documents, written, even under Meade's readers" discuss the authenticity of various doc­ assumptions, within a decade or so of the apos­ uments, where they become convinced that a tle's death. Nor is there anything like the per­ document is pseudonymous it is invariably sonal claims and historical reminiscences of judged ineligible for inclusion in the canon. Ephesians or the Pastorals in Isaiah 40 and fol­ In short, the search for parallels to justify the lowing chapters. Meade's theory sounds like an view that the intended readers of some NT doc­ attempt to make the results work out after one uments would have understood them to be has already bought into the dominant historical­ pseudonymous, so that no deception took place, critical assumptions. has proved a failure. The hard evidence de­ The mediating position that is perhaps most mands that we conclude either that some NT widely followed today is some form of school documents are pseudonymous and that the real theory (e.g. Dunn, Farmer, Bauckham; see authors intended to deceive their readers, or DLNTD, Pauline Legacy and School; 2 Peter). that the real authors intended to speak the truth Those who espouse it concur with the majority and that pseudonymity is not attested in the NT. opinion that certain NT documents are pseud­ See also APocRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA; onymous, but they argue that no deception was APOCRYPHAL ACTS AND EPISTLES; APoCRYPHAL involved because within the school of those GOSPELS; CANONICAL FORMATION OF THE NEW churches or writers everyone who needed to TESTAMENT; LITERACY AND BOOK CULTURE; know understood that the writing was not re­ SCHOLARSHIP, GREEK AND ROMAN; WRITING AND ally from the ostensible author. There was a LITERATURE: JEWISH. kind of living tradition that allowed for its ex­ BrnuoGRAPHY. K Aland, "The Problem of pansion in this way, and its adherents under­ Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Liter­ stood the process. ature of the First Two Centuries," in TIu! Autlwr­ If this position were genuinely sustain~bl~, it ship and Integrity of tlu! New Testament, by K Aland would have its attractions. In reality it presents et at. (TC4; Lond~'n : "SPci( 1965)'1-13; t. Alex­ more problems than it resolves. The school ter­ ander, TIu! Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Con­ minology suitable to the Neo-Pythagoreans does vention and Social Context in Luke 1:1-4 and Acts not transfer very well to the church: the former 1:1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ constituted a closed, disciplined society. More- versity Press, 1993); H. R. Balz, "Anonymitat und • over, even if the Neo-Pythagoreans understood Pseudepigraphie im Urchristentum," ZTK 66 that some new publication was not penned by (1969) 403-36; M. Barker, "Pseudonymity," in A Pythagorus, doubtless some outsiders were Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. R. J. c. duped. If the school mode of transmission was Coggins and J. L. Houlden (Philadelphia: Trin-

863 Pseudo-Philo

ity Press International, 1990) 568-71; R Bauck­ Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993) ham,Jud£, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco: Word, 1986); 37-58; B. M. Metzger, "Literary Forgeries and R Bentley, Dissertations upon the Epistles of Pha­ Canonical Pseudepigrapha," JBL 91 (1972) 3-24; laris . .. , ed. with introduction and notes by W P. T. O'Brien, Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, Wagner (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1874 [1697-99]); MI: Eerdmans, forthcoming); S. E. Porter, L H. Brockington, "The Problem of Pseud­ "Pauline Authorship and the : onymity,"]TS 4 (1953) 15-22; N. Brox, ed, Pseud­ Implications for Canon," BBR 5 (1995) 105-23; epigraphie in der heidnischen und jiidisch-christlichen idem, "Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Antike (WF 484; Dannstadt: Wissenschaftliche Epistles: A Response to R W Wall's Response," BuchgesellsChaft; 1977); J. H. Charlesworth, . BBR 6 (1996) 133-38; M. Rist, "Pseudepigraphy "Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy," ABD and the Early Christians," in Studies in New Testa­ 5:540-41; M. L Clarke, Higher Education in the ment and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune Ancient World (London: Routledge & Kegan (Leiden: E. J. Bril~ 1972) 75-91; J. A Sint, Pseud­ Paul, 1971); L R Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and onymitiit im Alterium, ihre Formen und ihre GrUnde Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (HUT 22; (Innsbruck: Unrversitatsverlag, 1960); W Speyer, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986); J. Duff, "A Criti­ Die literarische Fiilschung im heidnischen und chris­ cal Examination of Pseudepigrapy in First- and tlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung Second-Century Christianity and the Ap­ (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1971); E. Stump, "Moral proaches to it of Twentieth-Century Scholars" Authority and Pseudonymity: Comments on the (D. Phil. diss.; Oxford University, 1998); E. E. Paper of Wayne A Meeks," in Hermes and Athena: Ellis, "Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Tes­ Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology, ed. E. tament Documents," in Worship, Theology and Stump and T. P. Flint (UNDSPR 7; Notre Dame, Ministry in the Early Church, ed M. J . Wilkins and IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993) 59-74; T. Paige (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 212-14; E. Evan­ R W. Wall, "Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral son, The Dissonance of the Four GeneraUy Received Epistles: A Response to S. E. Porter," BBR 5 Evangelists (Ipswich: G.Jennyn, 1792); D. Farkas­ (1995) 125-28; M. Wolter, "Die anonymen falvy, "The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy Schriften des Neuen Testaments: Annaherungs­ in Second Peter and Its Role in the Fonnation of versuch an ein literarisches Phii.nomen," ZNW the Canon," SecCent 5 (1986) 3-29, response by 79 (1988) 1-16. D. A Carson W. R Fanner, 30-46; C. Gempf, "Pseudonymity and the New Testament," Them 17.2 (1992) 8-10; PSEUDO-ORPHEUS. See JEWISH LrrERATIJRE: D. Guthrie, "The Development of the Idea of HISTORIANS AND POETS Canonical Pseudepigrapha in New Testament Criticism," in The Autlwrship and Integrity of the PSEUDO-PHILO New 'ktament, ed K Aland et al. (TC 4; London: Pseudo-Philo is the name given the unknown SPCK, 1965) 14-39; idem, New Testament Introduc­ author of Biblical Antiquities (also known as tion (Leicester: Apollos, 1990); idem, "Tertullian Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum), a selective narra­ and Pseudonymity," &pT 67 0955-56) 341-42; tive of Israel's history from Adam to David, A E. Haefner, "A Unique Source for the Study composed in Hebrew around A.D. 70 in Pales­ of Ancient Pseudonymity," ATR 16 (1934) 8-15; tine. Attempts at connecting the work with a M. Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (Sheffield: specific Jewish group (*Essenes, *Pharisees, JSOT, 1986); W G. Kiimme~ Introduction to the *Samaritans) have not been successful. Rather New Testament (London: SCM, 1975); A. T. Lin­ it is best seen as a reflection of how Palestinian coln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1990); D. Jews in the first century A.D. interpreted the G. Meade, Pseudonymtty and Carum: An Investiga­ Jewish Scriptures, as a source for the popular tion into the &lationship of Aut./wrshiP and Autlwr­ biblical theology of the period and as a reposi­ ity in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition (WUNT tory for motifs and legends that are paralleled 39; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986); W A. or even unique in ancientJewish literature. For Meeks, "'To Walk Worthily of the Lord': Moral NT study it is important chiefly for its birth nar­ Fonnation in the Pauline School Exemplified by ratives; treatment of the Abraham-Isaac epi­ the Letter to the Colossians," in Hermes and Ath­ sode in Genesis 22; attitude toward *women, ena: Biblictd Exegesis and Philosophical Theology, *angelology and *eschatology, as well as for its ed. E. Stump and T. P. Flint (UNDSPR 7; Notre verbal, literary and theological affinities with

864