authorship and pseudepigraphy in early christian literature 61
najman, hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple
Judaism. JsJsup 77. leiden: Brill, 2003.
according to najman, some writers of the second temple Period were unaware of the
concept of “authentic attribution.” therefore terms like (deceptive) “pseudepigraphy”
do not do justice to the literature of early Judaism. the ascription of a text to enoch,
Moses, or solomon was not intended to imply that it was written by these figures.
rather, the meaning of such ascriptions is comparable to our modern slogan “back to
freud” and urges a return to the authentic teaching of freud or Moses (compare my
review in TLZ 129 [2004]: 766–67).
riedl, hermann Josef. Anamnese und Apostolizität: Der Zweite Petrusbrief und das theologis-
che Problem neutestamentlicher Pseudepigraphie. rst 64. frankfurt: lang, 2005.
riedl seeks to demonstrate that pseudepigraphy and canonicity are compatible since
new testament pseudepigraphy was non-deceptive. riedl does not discuss any ancient
source texts on pseudonymity but takes as his starting point the thesis that by remem-
brance (anamnesis) ancient (and modern) Jews could become contemporaneous with
any era of their national history (206). By composing an anamnetical letter under Peter’s
name in a time of theological crisis, the pseudo-Petrine author wanted to bring to mind
Peter’s message of Jesus without deceiving anybody (238–39). riedl admits, however,
that old testament and early Jewish anamnesis was never drafted under someone else’s
name (229–30) (compare my review in JETh 22 [2008]: 205–8).
schickert, Katharina, Der Schutz literarischer Urheberschaft im Rom der klassischen Antike.
tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2005.
although extensive intellectual property rights were unknown in ancient rome, literary
property was protected by moral concepts that were perceived as binding. “It was very
important to the writers that they be identified as the authors of their works and that
no one else claimed the authorship of their books” (134).
schmidt, Karl Matthias. Mahnung und Erinnerung im Maskenspiel: Epistolographie, Rheto-
rik und Narrativik der pseudepigraphen Petrusbriefe. hBs 38. freiburg: herder, 2003.
schmidt wants to leave open the question as to whether new testament pseudepigrapha
should be classified as forgeries, at least to a certain degree. second thessalonians can
safely be identified as a forgery, whereas it is at least possible to interpret the attribu-
tion of the two Petrine epistles to the apostle Peter as a transparent fiction that was not
intended to deceive and did not deceive its readers.
sint, Josef a. Pseudonymität im Altertum: Ihre Formen und ihre Gründe. Com menta tiones
aenipontanae 15. Innsbruck: universitätsverlag, 1960.
In this theological dissertation supervised by P. gächter, sint attempts to present a
rather comprehensive survey of pseudepigraphy in antiquity and concludes that while
some ancient pseudepigrapha were indeed literary forgeries, in many other cases a
deceptive intention was not involved. the pseudepigraphical letters of famous men
were forged, while secondary pseudepigraphy, rhetorical school exercises, and religious,
ecstatic, and mantic texts (including the Book of daniel) should not be classified as
literary forgeries. the deceptive or non-deceptive character of much hellenistic Jew-
ish literature remains difficult to assess, but pseudepigraphical apocalypses and Jewish
propaganda literature should not be labeled pious fraud. sint does not deal with new
testament pseudepigraphy.
speyer, Wolfgang. Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein
Versuch ihrer Deu tung. handbuch der altertumswissenschaft I/2. Munich: Beck, 1971.
speyer’s landmark book is an exemplary and indispensable study on ancient pseude-
pigraphy. It defines literary forgery in contrast to related literary phenomena (13–31),
describes non-deceptive forms of pseudepigraphy (32–44) and the means by which
authors made their pseudepigraphical books appear authentic (44–84). further, speyer
extensively analyses forgeries in greco-roman (111–49), Jewish (150–68), and Christian