62 armin d. baum
(171–303) literature. speyer classifies the attribution of the books of pupils to their philo-
sophical or medical teachers as a non-deceptive device but nevertheless as pseudepigra-
phy (34–35). and he holds the view that the early Jewish pseudepigraphical apocalypses
should not be regarded as deceptive forgeries if they were written under pneumatic
or charismatic inspiration (150–52). rather, speyer calls pseudepigraphical books that
claimed to have been received by inspiration “religious” or “mythical” pseudepigrapha.
If the revelatory claims had grown out of a genuine religious experience of inspira-
tion we are dealing with “genuine religious pseudepigraphy” (35–37). Irrespective of
such theories, speyer made a very strong case for the deceptive character of (almost all
cases of ) new testament and early Christian pseudepigraphy.
stemplinger, eduard. Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur. leipzig: teubner, 1912.
stemplinger shows that plagiarism had already been identified and criticized as intel-
lectual theft by ancient critics such as Porphyry and Clement alexandrinus (6–80). the
ancients considered a transparent mimesis of identifiable literary models legitimate but
regarded every kind of copying with the intention to deceive the hearers or readers as
plagiarism. to publish somebody else’s texts under one’s own name was deemed liter-
ary theft (81–170). In its third part stemplinger’s monograph offers a helpful overview
on the treatment of source texts by ancient authors (171–282).
syme, roland, ed. Pseudepigrapha I : Pseudopythagorica—Lettres de Platon—Littérature
pseudé pi graphi que juive. entretiens pour l’antiquité Classique 18. geneva: fondation
hardt, 1972.
this volume contains substantial contributions by leading scholars on the main aspects
of ancient pseudepigraphy, among others by M. hengel on “anonymität, Pseudepigra-
phie und ‘literarische fälschung’ in der jüdisch-hellenistischen literatur”: Writings such
as the early Jewish apocalypses or the Wisdom of solomon should not be classified as
literary forgeries because in both Palestinian and hellenistic Judaism the notions of
historicity and intellectual property were not fully developed.
theißen, gerd. Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments als literaturgeschichtliches Problem.
schriften der Philosophisch-historischen Klasse der heidelberger akademie der Wis-
senschaften 40. heidelberg: Winter, 2007, 148–63.
theißen accepts the conclusion that in early Christianity pseudepigraphical letters
where regarded as literary forgeries. at the same time he maintains that new testa-
ment pseudepigrapha were composed in good conscience and concludes: “early Chris-
tian pseudepigraphy is not a morally condemnable phenomenon.” how these seemingly
contradictory statements can be reconciled is not explained (cf. my review in Theologis-
che Beiträge 41 [2010]: 187–90).
thomassen, einar. “forgery in the new testament.” Pages 141–57 in The Invention of Sacred
Tradition. edited by J. r. lewis and o. hammer. Cambridge: Cambridge university
Press, 2007.
thomassen stresses that in the process of canonization, authorship was an important
criterion of canonicity. Because the church fathers regarded pseudepigraphy as fraud
they did not accept any books into the new testament canon that were thought to be
pseudepigraphical. thomassen presents three modern strategies to deal with the theo-
logical problem of pseudepigraphy but regards none of them as satisfactory.
tsuji, Manabu. “Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Zur strategie der Pastoralbriefe als
Pseudepigrapha.” NTS 56 (2010): 253–72.
tsuji argues that their forger composed the inauthentic Pastorals as personal let-
ters, because he suspected that it was easier to unmask inauthentic letters that were
addressed to extant Christian churches than to unmask personal letters that addressed
themselves to individuals who have already died.
Verhoef, eduard. “Pseudepigraphy and Canon.” BN 106 (2001): 90–98; and idem, “Pseudepi-
graphic Paulines in the new testament.” HTS 59 (2003): 991–1005.
the ancients regarded pseudepigraphy as literary forgery. only books that were consid-
ered to be authentic were received into the canon.