58 armin d. baum
later critics (245–301), and the origin and character of Callimachus’ “Pinakes” (301–25).
Compare also Blum’s book published in 1983 by the same publishing company concern-
ing Lite ra turverzeich nung im Altertum und Mittel alter.
Brox, norbert. Falsche Verfasserangaben: Zur Erklärung der früh christlichen Pseudepigra-
phie. sBs 79. stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975.
the roman Catholic theologian and classical philologist Brox emphasizes that the
existence of new testament pseudepigrapha (such as 1 and 2 Peter, James and par-
ticularly the Pastorals) must not be denied for dogmatic reasons. early Christian texts
were pseudepigraphically ascribed to the apostles because the teaching of the apostles
was regarded as authoritative (11–40). early Jewish pseudepigrapha did not claim indi-
vidual literary authorship but identified the authoritative origin of important assertions
(41–44). Many greco-roman pseudepigraphical letters were composed from the begin-
ning with a deceptive intent; several pseudepigraphical letters that started as exercises
in non-deceptive style were later regarded as authentic (45–48). Brox regards the ques-
tion as to how so many apostolic pseudepigrapha were accepted as authentic in the
Christian churches as unsettled (49–67). from the very beginning, the early church was
acquainted with a hellenistic concept of intellectual property and individual author-
ship (68–70). Whereas generally in greco-roman antiquity pseudepigrapha were often
unmasked and pseudepigraphy was criticized, pseudepigraphy could be approved
within philosophical or medical schools (71–80). ancient forgers justified the deception
of their readers with the platonic concept of the noble lie (81–105). While the pseudepi-
graphical author of the Pastorals was aware that he deceived and deluded his readers,
this is less clear with regard to 1 Peter (110–16). for modern readers, the main problem
with new testament pseudepigraphy results from their new understanding of the rela-
tionship between truth and history (117–19). among the early Christian canon criteria
the criterion of literary authenticity was of only secondary importance. Brox does not
regard it as possible to draw a coherent general conclusion but states that from an
ecclesiastical perspective deceptive pseudepigraphy and canonicity (as well as inspira-
tion and inerrancy, it seems) are compatible (120–30).
——, ed. Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch-christlichen Antike. Wege der
forschung 484. darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977.
In this volume, important publications from the last hundred years have been reprinted.
J. s. Candlish challenged the view that pseudepigraphy was an innocent literary device.
Christian pseudepigrapha were produced as pious frauds. Pseudepigrapha can be
regarded neither as inspired nor as canonical (7–42). a. Meyer concluded that early
Christian pseudepigrapha such as the Gospel of Peter or the Acts of Paul should not be
called forgeries but rather regarded as the result of an ancient kind of poetic creativity
(90–110). f. torm came to the conclusion that early Christian pseudepigraphy was not
a transparent and innocent literary device but was practiced according to the rule that
the positive end justified the deceptive means. ancient readers did not regard pseude-
pigraphy as a legitimate literary strategy (111–48).
Clarke, Kent d. “the Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical literature and Its Implica-
tions for Canon formation.” Pages 440–68 in The Canon Debate. edited by lee Martin
Mcdonald and James a. sanders. Peabody: hendrickson, 2002.
Clarke offers an extensive survey of the various arguments for and against the canonic-
ity of pseudepigrapha. he concludes that according to modern standards of authorship
the new testament canon contains forged letters but that it remains unclear whether
these were considered so according to ancient standards of authorship. Clarke cau-
tiously suspects that the value of the new testament canon for the church depends
more on its usefulness for faith and praxis than on authorship questions.
dobroruka, Vincente. “aspects of late second temple Jewish apocalyptic: a Cross-
Cultural Comparison.” d.Phil. thesis, university of oxford, 2005.
In this unpublished dissertation, supervised by C. rowland and M. goodman, dobro-
ruka offers a thorough description of automatic writing (psychography) in modern-day