Not only was the Greek translation of the Jewish Torah reportedly pro-
duced for such a reason during the third centuryb.c.e.(see theLetter of
Aristeas), during the first several centuries many “heretical” works of sus-
picious value were brought to the Library of Alexandria, which perhaps on
that account was subjected to destructive activities in 48b.c.e.(Julius
Caesar), 270-275c.e.(Aurelian), and especially 391c.e.(the decree by the
emperor Theodosius) and 634 (by the order of the caliph Umar).
Second, writing under the name of someone important frequently
served to gain a hearing for one’s own views. Thus the analogies between
the time of the real author and the ancient figure invoked could not always
hide the very real and immediate concerns behind the composition. Exam-
ples of this abound, more obviously in pseudepigraphal documents that
contain historical allusions to present or more recent events (so thepost-
eventumprophecies of1 Enoch85–90 and 91:11-17; 93:1-10; Daniel 8-11;
2 Baruch). For example, where the biblical book of Ezra is associated with
the return from exile, the erection and rededication of a new Temple, and
the reestablishment of the Torah among the people,4 Ezrais concerned
more immediately with the aftermath of the destruction of the Second
Temple by the Romans. Thus the affinities between biblical context and
the time of writing were overwhelmed by the real author’s pressing inter-
ests. Moreover, the process of transmission attempted to reshape or redi-
rect received pseudepigraphal traditions to address new circumstances and
theological issues; this can be observed in the later activities of Christian
scribes who edited and even interpolated into the texts (e.g.,Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Job, Testament of Abraham, 3 Baruch,
4 Baruch, 2 Enoch, Apocalypse of Zephaniah).
Third, in some streams of tradition, such as philosophical schools or
apocalyptic circles, the notion of writing in one’s own name could simply
be regarded as unethical. This was the case during generations subsequent
to Pythagoras and Plato among students who produced a vast number of
writings in the names of their teacher. Such a practice was regarded by the
writers as a reasonable way for them to express their humility, indebted-
ness, and devotion in relation to the received tradition.
A fourth reason is related to the previous two: the name of a famous
teacher or well-known figure of the past could be invoked in order to com-
bat or refute other interpretations or views of the same tradition. This was
especially true, again, in the literary output of philosophical schools and in
the reception, transmission, and reappropriation of earlier pseudepi-
graphical tradition. An example of this is provided in the second-century-194loren t. stuckenbruckEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:02 PM