Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (37 page)

2
. We have only one writing from our period in which a forger admits to what he did, the letter of “Mithridates” that indicates why he produced pseudepigraphic responses by the addressees of the letters of Brutus (assuming, with Calhoun, that this letter is not itself pseudepigraphic). Unfortunately Mithridates does not explain his motivation. See Robert Matthew Calhoun, “The Letter of Mithridates: A Neglected Item of Ancient Epistolary Theory,” in Jörg Frey et al., eds.,
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
, pp. 295–330.

3
. On the theoretical problem of establishing authorial intentions—which I am here differentiating from “motives,” although obviously some of the hypothetical issues are the same—see p. 30, n. 32.

4
. For the works of Salvian, see the edition in the
Sources Chrétienne
, 176, 220. The first English translation of
ad Ecclesiam
, with introduction, was published by A. Haefner, “A Unique Source for the Study of Ancient Pseudonymity,”
AThR
16 (1934): 8–15.

5
. I am using the translation of Haefner, “Unique Source”; see also Jeremiah F. O’Sullivan, tr.,
The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter
(Washington, DC: Catholic University Press of America, 1947).

6
. See the list of Gennadius,
Catalogus virorum illustrium
, 68, cited by O’Sullivan,
The Writings of Salvian
, pp. 5–6.

7
. E.g., Norbert Brox, “Quis ille auctor? Pseudonymität und Anonymität bei Salvian,”
VC
40 (1986): 55–65.

8
. Ibid.

9
. For the following objections, see David Lambert, “
The Pseudonymity of Salvian’s Timothy ad Ecclesiam,” StPatr
38, ed. Maurice Wiles et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), pp. 422–28.

10
. Ibid.

11
. On intention, see p. 30, n. 3.

12
. J. C. Fenton, “Pseudonymity in the New Testament,”
Theology
58 (1955): 55.

13
. See, e.g.,
In Hippocratis de natura hominis commentarium
, Book 2, Proem.

14
.
In Hipp. De nat. hom. Comm
. 1. 44, the fuller passage is conveniently quoted in Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, p. 224.

15
.
In Hipp. De nat. hom, Comm
. 2 pr. See Ann Ellis Hanson, “Galen: Author and Critic,” in Glenn W. Most, ed.,
Editing Texts, Texte edieren
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), pp. 22–53, esp. p. 33.

16
.
Mistaken Critic
, 30; translation of A. M. Harmon,
Lucian
, vol. 5; LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972).

17
. Olympiodorus,
Prolegomena;
for text, see Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, pp. 238–41.

18
. See Speyer,
Literarische Fälschung
, pp. 112, 333; C. W. Müller, “Die neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren über die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie,”
Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
112 (1969): 120–26.

19
. “Literary Frauds Among the Greeks,” pp. 52–74.

20
. Suetonius,
Galba
, 9.2

21
. Plutarch,
Alexander
, 17.2 (who does not label it a forgery).

22
.
Life of Julius
, 81; translation of J. C. Rolfe
Suetonius
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1951). See Wolfgang Speyer,
Bücherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike. Mit einem Ausblick auf Mittelalter und Neuzeit
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), pp. 71–72.

23
.
Life of Augustus
51; translation of Rolfe in the Loeb.

24
.
War
1.26.3. For a further example involving Antipater, see
War
1.32.6.

25
. See the discussion on p. 66.

26
. Among the significant studies, see esp. H. W. Parke,
Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity
, ed. by B. C. McGing (London: Routledge, 1988); and John J. Collins, “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition,”
ANRW
II. 20 (1987): 421–59. Useful translations are available in Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., OTP (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), vol. 1, pp. 317–472.

27
. See further pp. 508–19.

28
. For a full study of the patristic attestations, see the now classic study of Bard Thompson, “Patristic Use of the Sibylline Oracles,”
RR
16 (1952): 115–36.

29
.
Contra Celsum
7.56; Translation of Henry Chadwick,
Origen: Contra Celsum
(Cambridge: University Press, 1953).

30
. Actually the dates do not work; this must be Onias I (
Ant
. 12, 226f.). Josephus does not call the letter forged.

31
. See esp. the discussion of Alfons Fürst et al.,
Der apokryphe Briefwechsel zwischen Seneca und Paulus
, SAPERE XI (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).

32
. For an alternative explanation, that the correspondence is merely a rhetorical exercise from a Christian school, see above, p. 45, n. 35. For fuller discussion see pp. 520–27.

33
. For an English translation of the correspondence, see Ehrman and Pleše,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 413–17.

34
. Of even greater importance, as Maria Doerfler has reminded me: the letter serves to elevate the status of the Christian community in Edessa by connecting it directly to the earthly Jesus himself. See the study of the later
Doctrina
in Sidney Griffiths, “The
Doctrina Addai
as a Paradigm of Christian Thought in Edessa in the Fifth Century,”
Hugoye
6.2 (2003).

35
. For translations see Ehrman and Pleše,
Apocryphal Gospels
, pp. 419–557.

36
. Some have argued that the imperial rescripts designed to curtail and regulate the persecutions of Christians are best seen as apologetically driven forgeries by Christians (see Speyer,
Literarische Fälschung
, pp. 252–55). More recent scholars have found grounds for taking many of the rescripts as authentic. See Denis Minns, “The Rescript of Hadrian,” in Sara Parvis and Paul Foster, eds.,
Justin Martyr and His Worlds
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pp. 38–49; and Paul Keresztes, “The Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Christians,”
JEH
22 (1971): 1–18.

37
. Translation of W. H. S. Jones,
Pausanias: Description of Greece
. LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1918).

38
.
Lives
10, 8; translation of R. D. Hicks
Diogenes Laertius
.

39
.
De natura deorum
1.33; see also Sextus Empiricus, 599; Athenaeus,
Banq
. 8.354.

40
. W. Crönert,
Kolotes und Menedemos
(Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1965), pp. 16–24.

41
. Translations of Martial are from Walter C. A. Ker,
Martial: Epigrams
LCL, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1968).

42
. See also 7.72, quoted on p. 81.

43
. Translation of Vincent Hunink in Stephen Harris et al.,
Apuleius: Rhetorical Works
(New York: Oxford University, 2001), p. 105.

44
.
Life of Apollonius
, 7.35. Translation of F. C. Conybeare, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1912).

45
.
Adv. Rufin
. 2.24.

46
. “Fälschungen galten als literarische Kampfmittel und wurden mit Gegenfälschungen beantwortet.” “Anonymität und Pseudepigraphie im Urchristentum: Überlegungen zum literarischen und theologischen Problem der urchristlichen und gemeinantiken Pseudepigraphie,”
ZTK
66 (1969): 409.

47
.
Lives
2, 42.

48
. See the discussions on pp. 350–58 and 439–45.

49
. “Pseudonymity and the New Testament Canon,” in Jörg Frey et al., eds.,
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
, p. 359.

50
. Margaret MacDonald,
Colossians and Ephesians
, SP 17 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), p. 8.

51
.
Colossians
AB 34B (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 123.

52
. “Die Schüler brachten ja mehr oder weniger die Gedanken ihres Lehrers in schriftliche Form, während große Schulhäupter oftmals nur mündlich lehrten. Durch die Verfasserangabe wurde damit der geistige Autor benannt, auf den der Inhalt des Werkes letztlich zurückging. Eine solche Zuschreibung wurde vom antiken Menschen wohl nicht als Fälschung empfunden.”
Das Vermächtnis des Apostels: Die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie im Epheserbrief
, WUNT 2; 99 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), p. 9. For another recent representative of the view, see Angela Standhartinger,
Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs
(Leiden: Brill, 1999).

53
. The most recent example of a scholar who presents the view nonproblematically is Richard Pervo, in his otherwise interesting
The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), pp. 6–10.

54
. Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, pp. 51–57; Brox,
Falsche Verfasserangaben
, pp. 71–75. It appears even in studies of Pythagoras himself. Thus David R. Fideler, “Introduction,” in
The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library: An Anthology of Ancient Writings Which Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy
, compiled and translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1987):

These writings are attributed to original members of the Pythagorean school which in fact is actually not the case [i.e., they did not actually write them]. This does not mean that these writings are “forgeries” in the modern sense of the word, for it was a fairly common practice in antiquity to publish writings as pseudepigrapha, attributing them to earlier, more renowned individuals. It was probably out of reverence for their master—and also perhaps because they were discussing authoritative school traditions—that certain Pythagoreans who published writings attributed them directly to Pythagoras himself.

It is worth noting that, as with most New Testament scholars, Fideler does not mention any ancient reflections on the phenomenon that have led him to his conclusion, and cites not a single piece of evidence for it.

55
.
Epistle
33, 4. Translation of R. M. Gummere in LCL, 3 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1917–1925).

56
. Translation Rolfe in LCL.

57
. Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, p. 53.

58
. “Antike (Selbst-)Aussagen über Beweggründe zur Pseudepigraphie,” in
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen
, ed. Jörg Frey et al., p. 177.

59
. Unless he is referring to the Hellenistic revitalization of the school, on which see p. 111.

60
. Ed. ‘Amir al-Najjar (4 vols., Cairo: al-Hay’a al-Misriyya al-’Amma lil-Kitab, 2001), vol. 1, pp. 244–45.

61
. “Die Schriften und Fragmente des Pythagoras,”
RESupp
. 10 (1965): 843–64; see also idem,
Die Pythagoreer. Religiöse Bruderschaft und Schule der Wissenschaft
(Zurich: Artemis, 1979), 272–73.

62
. See Holger Thesleff,
An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period
(Åbo: Åbo Academi, 1961). For collection of these texts see Kenneth Guthrie and Thomas Taylor,
The Pythagorean Writings: Hellenistic Texts from the 1st Cent.
B.C
.–3d Cent.
A.D
., ed. Robert Navon (Kew Gardens, NY: Selene Books, 1986).

63
.
Life of Pythagoras
29. Translation mine.

64
. Ch. 31; translation of John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell,
Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), p. 203. The translators themselves point out that whereas the claim may have made sense in the early years of the Pythagorean movement (although even here there are questions), “it hardly makes much sense subsequent to the publication of the pseudo-Pythagorean writings.” One should press the question even harder: Does Iamblichus have any evidence (or rather is there any evidence) to support his claim? He certainly gives none. It looks instead to be his simple opinion of the matter.

65
. Olympiodorus,
Prolegomena
, 13; for Greek text and German translation, see Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, pp. 238–43.

66
. For example, by Mark Kiley,
Colossians as Pseudepigraphy
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), pp. 22–23.

67
. “Der einzige (!), der von einer solchen Praxis berichtet, ist wiederum Jamblichos. Bis dahin hören wir von keinem konkreten Fall, in dem ein Pythagoreer seine Entdeckungen dem Pythagoras zugeschrieben hätte, und wir haben auch keinerlei Hinweis darauf, daß es in seiner Schule solche Tendenzen gibt.”
Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus
(Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997), p. 91; exclamation point his.

68
. See esp. Thesleff,
Introduction
.

69
. “Anonymität und Pseudepigraphie,” pp. 414–15; see also Speyer,
Literarische Fälschung
, pp. 139–42, and Duff,
Reconsideration
, p. 78.

70
. See F. Jacoby,
FGrHist
275 T 11.

71
. See Livy 40.29; Pliny
Natural History
13.84–87; and Philostratus,
Life of Apollonius
, 8.19–20.

72
.
Quintilian Inst. Proem. 7
. Translation of H.E. Butler,
Quintilian I
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1920).

73
. Epictetus,
Discourses
. Translation of W. A. Oldfather in LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1926).