60 armin d. baum
school pseudepigraphon (489–536). and frey claims that the attribution of 1 Peter was
a transparent fiction whereas 2 Peter must (pace r. Bauckham) be regarded as a liter-
ary forgery (683–732). the approach of the two main editors, however, is not shared by
all their co-authors. K. M. schmidt classifies 1 and 2 Peter as innocent pseudepigrapha
that were not intended to deceive anyone (625–44). and M. frenschkowski seems to be
inclined to regard all the new testament pseudepigrapha as forgeries (181–232) (cf. my
review in TLZ 135 [2010]: 1104–7).
Janßen, Martina. Unter falschem Namen: Eine kritische Forschungsbilanz frühchristlicher
Pseudepigraphie. arbeiten zur religion und geschichte des urchristentums 14. frank-
furt: lang, 2003.
Janßen concludes on the basis of a broad survey of mainly german research into
ancient pseudepigraphy (250) that the well-founded results of speyer, Brox, and oth-
ers have hardly been taken into account in the standard works and text books on new
testament Introduction. “only a small number of biblical scholars rigorously enquires
about the truthfulness of authorial attributions in the new testament. sometimes
such a question is even suspected of being uncritical ideology” (compare my review in
NovT 37 [2005]: 166–67).
Meade, david g. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Rela tionship of Author-
ship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Chri stian Tradition. Wunt 39. tübingen: Mohr
siebeck, 1986.
In this Ph.d. dissertation written under the supervision of J. d. g. dunn, Meade explains
the origin of early Jewish pseudepigrapha by means of the concept of Ver gegen wärtigung
(contemporizing). on the one hand, the prophets and their messages were regarded as
normative and canonical. on the other hand, later authors were faced with contempo-
rary theological challenges for which the normative traditions had no direct answers.
the strong need to address present questions with concrete and normative solutions
was met by means of the principle of contemporizing. the normative statements of
canonized authorities of the past were updated for the present situation by supplement-
ing them with new ideas that were in continuity and agreement with their canonical
origins. therefore, the names of particular persons that one attached to early Jewish
pseudepigrapha (such as First Enoch or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) did not
serve to identify their authors. rather, they merely identified the theological traditions
to which these particular writings or prophetic persons belonged (105). transmission of
those early Jewish writings from their Jewish context to the world of greek literature
resulted in a misunderstanding of the function of the names attached to these Jew-
ish books. the prophetic names were misinterpreted as indications of authorship, and
since these books could obviously not have been written by these particular authors,
the relevant books were considered literary forgeries (199).
Mülke, Markus. Der Autor und sein Text: Die Verfälschung des Originals im Urteil antiker
Autoren. untersuchungen zur antiken literatur und geschichte 93. Berlin: de gruyter,
2008.
according to Mülke, ancient texts were falsified by transpositions, interpolations, dele-
tions, and the alteration of the original wording. In five chapters Mülke deals with the
means by which ancient authors protected their work (11–82), their attitude toward
works in progress (83–94), falsification in epitomes and florilegia (95–108), the role of
the translator as falsifier or new author (109–201), and comprehensive recensions of
complete works (202–260). the conviction that the content and wording of an inde-
pendent and original piece of work must not be altered was already prevalent among
ancient authors. Interpolators were regarded as deceivers and forgers. after the author’s
official publication of his work unauthorized revisions by others were considered ille-
gitimate. there are no indications of a limited awareness of literary property in any
period of greek and latin literature (cf. my review in BBR 19 [2009]: 461–63).