authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 59
Brazilian Kardecism (66–168) and on that basis analyses the claims of revelatory experi-
ences in pseudepigraphical ancient Jewish apocalypses (170–237): in automatic writing,
authorship is not really pseudonymous since “it is always the case that the identity of
the mechanical writer (i.e., the medium) is exhibited... none of this is to be found
in apocalyptic pseudepigraphy: much to the contrary, the identity of the mechanical
writer is absorbed into that of the portrayed hero” (295–99).
donelson, lewis r. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. hut 22.
tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 1986.
In this dissertation supervised by h. d. Betz, donelson interprets the Pastorals in com-
parison to other greco-roman pseudepigraphical letters: as a rule, ancient pseude-
pigrapha had the intention to deceive, including Pythagorean school productions and
early Jewish apocalypses. “no one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously
and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged.” Christians felt free
to employ pseudepigraphy because they shared Plato’s concept of the good and use-
ful lie (9–23). against the background of contemporary forged letters on ethical topics
ascribed to Plato, Crates, apollonius of tyana, heraclitus, and socrates, the extensive
and detailed use of deceptive means by the forger of the Pastorals becomes psycho-
logically comprehensible (23–42). the canonical and extra-canonical pseudepigrapha
which have been ascribed to the apostles and their co-workers was intended to deceive
their readers (42–53). the Pastorals have to be interpreted as sophisticated forgeries
whose author used the pseudepigraphical attribution to the apostle Paul in order to
create warrants for his ethic (54–66). If the deception of the Pastorals had been detected
their ethical system would have crumbled. nevertheless, even today the Pastorals retain
their right to be heard since the biblical canon is not normative but is rather just one
early Christian attempt to debate various theological and ethical convictions. further,
since all theology is human and flawed, the deceptive character of the Pastorals is not
by any means exceptional (199–202).
duff, Jeremy. “a reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in early Christianity.” d.Phil. thesis,
university of oxford, 1998.
In this unpublished dissertation supervised by C. rowland, duff first offers an exten-
sive overview of modern approaches to early-Christian pseudepigraphy (16–95) before
focusing on literary property in pagan literature (99–137), on authorship and author-
ity in Jewish literature (138–212), and on authorship and authority in early-Christian
texts (213–74). his main conclusion is that in early Christianity “the value of a text was
closely connected to its true authorship” and that pseudepigraphy was “generally seen
as a deceitful practice to be condemned.” therefore, “any texts judged pseudonymous
within the new testament originally set out deliberately to deceive their readers as to
their origins” (cf. TynBul 50 [1999]: 306–309).
frenschkowski, Marco. “Pseudepigraphie und Paulusschule: gedanken zur Verfasser-
schaft der deuteropaulinen, insbesondere der Pastoralbriefe.” Pages 239–72 in Das
Ende des Paulus: Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte. edited by
f. W. horn. BZnW 106. Berlin: de gruyter, 2001.
In antiquity pseudepigraphy was regarded as literary forgery and was condemned by its
readers. “It has to be stated emphatically that ancient Christians would have been just
as disturbed by the discovery that a number of allegedly authentic Pauline letters are
beyond doubt spurious as fundamentalist Christians are today” (249). yet, according to
frenschkowski, non-deceptive pseudepigraphy was practiced in apocalyptical groups
(252) and among the ancient schools (247–48).
frey, Jörg, Jens herzer, Martina Janßen, and Clare K. rothschild, eds. Pseudepigraphie und
Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Wunt 246. tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2009.
frey and herzer want to establish a more nuanced interpretation of the deceptiveness
of new testament pseudepigraphy. they propose that only some of the new testa-
ment pseudepigrapha be classified as literary forgeries and that others be regarded as
transparent literary fictions. herzer regards 1 timothy as an example of a non-deceptive