Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (38 page)

74
. On the practice of publishing a philosopher’s lecture notes, cf. Angela Standhartinger: “From antiquity too we know that much of what was published in the name of famous men had actually been written down by their students, whether in the form of notes taken at the actual event or as memories thereof after the fact. In the Pythagorean school and even more so in the Epicurean one, everything that was spoken or written by students counted as the intellectual property of the teacher and was frequently published under his name.” (“Es war also in der Antike bekannt, daß vieles von dem, was man unter dem Namen berühmter Männer lesen konnte, eigentlich von ihren Schülern und Schülerinnen aufgeschrieben worden war, sei es als Mitschrift, sei es als nachträgliche Erinnerung. In der pythagoräischen Schule und mehr noch in der epikureischen galt alles, was von den Schülerinnen und Schülern gesagt und aufgeschrieben wurde, als geistiges Eigentum des Lehrers und wurde unter dessen Namen an die Öffentlichkeit gebracht”;
Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs
, Leiden: Brill, 1999, p. 42). It is not clear where she derives her evidence that this was particularly common in Epicurean circles.

75
. The classic study, very much still worth reading, is L. O. Bröcker, “Die Methoden Galens in der literarischen Kritik,”
Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
40 (1885): 415–38. See as well A. Anastassiou and D. Irmer, eds.,
Testimonien zum Corpus Hippocraticum
. pt. 2,
Galen; vol. 1 Hippokrateszitate in den Kommentaren und im Glossar
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1997). Scholars today, as both Dale Martin and Zlatko Ple
š
e have reminded me, generally reject the authenticity of the entire Hippocratic corpus.

76
.
In Hipp. Acut. Comment
. 2, 55; Anastassiou and Irmer, pp. 1–3.

77
. Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, pp. 58–59.

78
. For example, Hindy Najman,
Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. 13.

79
.
Adv. Marc
. 4.5.

80
. Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, p. 60.

81
. Peter Pilhofer, “Justin und das Petrusevangelium,”
ZNW
81 (1990): 60–78; the attempted refutation by Thornton is far less persuasive; see Claus-Jürgen Thornton, “Justin und das Markusevangelium,”
ZNW
84 (1993): 93–110.

82
. See p. 62.

83
. See p. 54.

84
.
In Porphyr Isage
. Pr. 1: Translation mine; Greek text in Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, p. 214

85
.
Attic Nights
10.12.8. Translation of John C. Rolfe,
The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius
. LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978–1984).

86
.
Cons Evang
. 1.10.

87
. See pp. 94–96.

88
.
De adult libr. Orig. 2
. Scheck,
St. Pamphilus
, p. 125.

89
.
De adult libr. Orig. 12
. Scheck,
St. Pamphilus
, p. 133.

90
. Among many others, see, for example, Petr Pokorn
ý
, “Das theologische Problem der neutestamentlichen Pseudepigraphie,”
EvT
44 (1984): 486–96.

91
. My translation; see
The Apostolic Fathers
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2003).

92
. The author of the Muratorian Fragment refuses to accept the Shepherd as canon in part because it was written by Hermes, the brother of the bishop of Rome, Pius; Origen (
Comm. In Matt
ser. 47, on Matt 24:23–28) indicates that the time of canonical writings was from the beginning of creation (Genesis) to the most recent writings of the Apostles “post quos nullis scripturis ita credendum est sicut illis” (see Baum
Pseudepigraphie
, pp. 154–55). Cf. Augustine: “But the books of later authors are distinct from the excellence of the canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments, which has been confirmed from the times of the apostles through the successions of bishops and through the spread of the churches. It has been set on high, as if on a kind of throne, and every believing and pious intellect should be obedient to it.… But in the works of later authors, which are found in countless books but are in no way equal to the most sacred excellence of the canonical scriptures, the same truth is also found in some of them, but their authority is far from equal” (
Contra Faust
. XI, 5).

93
. “Die Geschichte der literarischen Leichtgläubigkeit ist noch nicht geschrieben.”
Literarische Fälschung
, p. 85.

94
. Raffaella Cribiore,
Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt
(Princeton: Princeton University, 2001), pp. 228–30.

95
. 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. Calhoun summarizes the importance (yet neglect) of this letter in clear terms: “For scholars of the NT and early Christian literature the remarks of Mithridates on the production of pseudepigraphic letters should hold a comparable importance to what Thucydides has to say about the composition of speeches in historical narrative, since both directly address at a theoretical level phenomena that actually occur in Christian texts” (pp. 321–22). Among other things, Calhoun argues that the letter of Mithridates itself is not forged.

96
. Translation of Calhoun, “The Letter,” p. 303.

97
.
BZ
13 (1969): 76–94; reprinted in Brox, ed.,
Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdischchristlichen Antike
, pp. 272–94.

98
. Lewis R. Donelson,
Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles
(Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986), pp. 24–25.

99
. Ich-Rede und Augenzeugenschaft veranlassen den Hörer unmittelbar zu dem Glauben, daß der Erzähler das, was er berichtet, selbst erlebt hat.… Die Ich-Rede und die Augenzeugenschaft sind für die Wundererzählung und die Lügenerzählung geradezu kennzeichnend. Nicht weniger oft begegnet die Ich-Rede in Fälschungen, und meist ist sie hier mit der Angabe eines vorgetäuschten Verfassernamens verbunden.
Literarische Fälschung
, p. 51.

100
. Translation of R. M. Frazer,
The Trojan War: The Chronicles of Dictys of Crete and Dares the Phrygian
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966).

101
. See Stefan Merkle, “The Truth and Nothing But the Truth: Dictys and Dares,” in G. Schmeling,
The Novel in the Ancient World
(Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 564–80.

102
. For translation, see Evan Sage and Alfred Schlesinger,
Livy History of Rome Book XL–XLII
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1938).

103
. Translation of J. K. Elliott,
The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

104
. See p. 99.

105
. Translation of William A. Falconer,
Cicero: De Senectute, De Amicitia, De Divinatione
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1935).

106
.
On Divination
, 2.85.

107
.
Bücherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike
.

108
. Translation of James Donaldson in
ANF
, vol. 7.

109
.
Nero
, 17; translation of J. C. Rolfe,
Suetonius: Lives of the Caesars
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1935).

110
. Translation of Wilfrid Parsons,
Augustine, Letters 1–82;
FC, vol. 12 (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press of America, 1951), p. 300.

111
. Translation of R. G. Bury,
Plato: Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1929).

112
.
Roman Antiquities
, 4.62.6. Translation of Earnest Cary, in LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1937–1950).

113
. On the theoretical problem of intent, see p. 30, n. 3.

114
. See p. 79.

115
. “Heiden, Juden und Christen haben sich derselben [schriftstellerischen Form] bedient, der eine mit größerer, der andere mit geringerer Gewandtheit, alle aber ohne den leisesten Skrupel zu empfinden; es schien dies ein bloßes Versteckspiel, bei dem man weder sich selbst noch anderen als wirklicher Fälscher vorkam.” J. Bernays,
Gesammelte Abhandlungen
1 (1885) p. 250, as cited in Speyer,
Literarische Fälschung
, pp. 5–6.

116
.
The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles
, 1921, p. 12.

117
. Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne M. Thompson,
Introducing the New Testament, Its Literature and Theology
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 560.

118
. See pp. 39–42.

119
. “The Problem of Pseudonymity,” in
The Living Word
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p. 84.

120
.
Jude, 2 Peter
WBC, 50 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), p. 134.

121
.
The First and Second Letters to Timothy
, AB 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001), p. 57.

122
. There is no need to provide an exhaustive list. Martina Janssen names the following as representative (from the late nineteenth to the late twentieth centuries): B. Hegermann, E. Reinmuth, Gerd Theissen, B. S. Easton, H. J. Holtzmann, H.-J. Klauck. A. Vögtle, and others. See Janssen,
Unter falschem Namen
, pp. 182–85.

123
. Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,”
JBL
, 91 (1972): 15–16.

124
. “Das Grundproblem dieser Annahme einer offenen Pseudepigraphie im Urchristentum ist, dass weder in den Texten selbst irgendwelche Signale an die impliziten Leser zu finden sind, die ein Bewusstsein für diese postulierte Form der Rede erkennen lassen, noch in den sonstigen Quellen Hinweise für eine solche Einstellung auf Seiten der Rezipient Innen begegnen.”
Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), p. 198.

125
. “Pseudonymity and NT Canon,” p. 356.

126
. “Jede Fälschung täuscht einen Sachverhalt vor, der den tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten nicht entspricht. Damit gehört die Fälschung in das Gebiet der Lüge und des Betruges.”
Literarische Fälschung
, p. 3.

127
.
Forgers and Critics
, p. 37.

128
. P. 11.

129
. See the informative discussion of Martina Janssen, “Antike (Selbst-)Aussagen über Beweggründe zur Pseudepigraphie,” who, obviously, is more interested in the related question of self-described motivation.

130
. “Pseudepigraphy in the Israelite Tradition,” in
Pseudepigrapha I: Pseudopythagorica, Lettres de Platon, Littérature pseudépigraphique juive
, ed. Kurt von Fritz (Vandoeuvres-Génève: Fondation Hardt pour l’Étude de l’Antiquité Classique, 1972), pp. 206–7.

131
. For an argument that nothing that corresponds to our sense of “fiction” existed in the ancient world, see Christopher Gill, “Plato on Falsehood–Not Fiction,” in Christopher Gill and T. P. Wiseman, eds.,
Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World
(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993), pp. 38–87. For further discussion, see pp. 533–34.

132
. “Prologue,” in Gill and Wiseman, eds.,
Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World
, p. xvi. Italics his.

133
. Even if Gill were right about ancient “fiction” (see note 131), my characterization would apply. There were some kinds of discourse that were adopted and accepted widely in antiquity—even if they involved narratives and discourses that were not factually true (e.g., epic poems, Platonic Dialogues, historians’ speeches, and the like)—because they (1) fulfilled a kind of contract between the author and reader to be what they were and not something else and (2) attempted to convey what was true: philosophical “truth,” a “true” representation of what a speaker would have said, a “true” conveyor of a culture’s heritage/tradition, etc. Lacking that implicit contract, a “forgery” was widely thought to violate cultural standards, even if the author was trying to convey something that in his view was “true” (e.g., how Paul would have responded if he were faced with Gnostic teachings). Moreover, his views were often rejected as “false” even if they were, in fact, “true” (i.e., the writing is rejected independently of the question of whether Paul really would have responded this way or not).

134
. There is, naturally, a sizeable literature. In addition to the essays in Gill and Wiseman,
Lies and Fiction
, the following are among the most useful for understanding key aspects of the Christian tradition: Franz Schindler, “Die Lüge in der patristischen Literatur,”
Beiträge zur Geschichte des christlichen Altertums und der byzantinischen Literatur
(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1969; originally published 1922); Gregor Müller,
Die Wahrhaftigkeitspflicht und die Problematik der Lüge: Ein Längsschnitt durch die Moraltheologie und Ethik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Tugendlehre des Thomas von Aquin und der modernen Lösungsversuche
(Freiburg: Herder, 1962; among other things, Müller acknowledges that “several fathers of this era consider permissible the ‘lie from necessity’” [“einige Väter dieser Epoche die ‘Notlüge’ für erlaubt halten”] and numbers among them Origen, Didymus, Chrysostom, Jon Cassian, Theodoret, and others); R. P. C. Hanson,
Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture
(Richmond: John Knox, 1959; Hanson includes comments on divine deception, esp. in Origen’s
Homilies
on Jeremiah; see XIX.15 and XX.3); Boniface Ramsey, “Two Traditions on Lying and Deception in the Ancient Church,”
Thom
. 49 (1985): 504–33; David Satran, “Pedagogy and Deceit in the Alexandrian Theological Tradition,” in
Origeniana Quinta
, ed. R. J. Daly (1992), pp. 119–24 (dealing with Philo, Clement of Alexandria, Origen); and the articles in
JECS
9 (2009). There is an extensive literature on Augustine in particular, all referred to and surpassed by Paul J. Griffiths,
Lying: An Augustinian Theology of Duplicity
(Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2004), a lucid, readable, intelligent, and helpful discussion, which embraces Augustine’s view that consciously duplicitous speech acts are never acceptable, no matter what, as rooted in Augustine’s understanding of the word in relationship to what it means to be human in relationship to God.