Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (24 page)

28.
E.g., Norbert Brox, ed.,
Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch-christlichen Antike
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977); and especially Martina Janssen, ed.,
Unter falschem Namen: Eine kritische Forschungsbilanz frühchristlicher Pseudepigraphie
(Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2003). See also Herzer, Janssen and Rothschild, eds.,
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
.

29.
E.g., on much broader issues: Archer Taylor and Fredric John Mosher,
The Bibliographical History of Anonyma and Pseudonyma
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); and Edmund Kerchever Chambers,
The History and Motives of Literary Forgeries
, Burt Franklin Research & Source Works Series 508 (Oxford: B. H. Blackwell, 1891; Repr., New York: Burt Franklin, 1970). Those dealing with pagan and early Christian materials in particular, in addition to Speyer,
Literarische Fälschung:
Josef A. Sint,
Pseudonymität im Altertum: Ihre Formen und ihre Gründe
(Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1960); Norbert Brox,
Falsche Verfasserangaben: zur Erklärung der frühchristlichen Pseudepigraphie
(Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 79; Stuttgart: KBW, 1975); and Jeremy N. Duff, “A Reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in Early Christianity” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 1998).

30.
Ephesians
. WBC, 42 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), p. lxxi.

31.
Ibid., p. lxx.

32.
See further the discussion on pp. 128–32 below. A harsh opponent of these views, Armin Baum
(Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung
, p. 22) cites as examples of denying an ancient notion of literary property: F. Schmidt (“to some extent”) in “‘Traqué comme un loup.’ A propos du débat actuel sur l’apocalyptique juive,”
ASSR
27 (1982): pp. 9–11; M. Casey,
Is John’s Gospel True?
(London: Rout-ledge, 1996), pp. 140–77, esp. p. 143, for the Jewish world; K.–H. Ohlig,
Die Theologische Begründung des neutestamentlichen Kanons in der alten Kirche
. KBANT (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1972) p. 91, for the early Christians.

33.
Speyer,
Literarische Fälschung
, pp. 112–28; Brox,
Falsche Verfasserangaben
, pp. 62–80; Grafton,
Forgers and Critics
, pp. 3–35; Duff, “Reconsideration,” pp. 99–137; Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, pp. 21–24 and passim.

34.
As a side note: if intellectual property had been unknown, plagiarism would not have been an issue. As we have seen, it was a very serious issue indeed among ancient authors.

35.
Es verhielt sich innerhalb des Judentums und des Christentums wie in der griechisch-römischen Welt. Entweder glaubte man an die Echtheit einer pseudonymen Schrift und konnte sie dann sehr hochschätzen, oder man nahm die Unechtheit an, und dann war die betreffende Schrift schon wegen ihrer Pseudonymität jedenfalls etwas anrüchig. Daß man in jener Zeit jemals auf religiösem Gebiet die Pseudonymität als eine literarische Form aufgefasst und ihre Berechtigung geradezu anerkannt hat, ist eine moderne Erfindung.… Torm, “Die Psychologie,” reprinted in Brox,
Pseudepigraphie in … Antike
, p. 119. Emphasis his.

36.
“… ein umfangreicheres Schrifttum … das keinen anderen Zweck verfolgte, als nach philologisch-historischer Methode die unechten Werke aus dem Nachlaß berühmter Schriftsteller auszusondern.”
Literarische Fälschung
, p. 113.

37.
According to Diogenes Laertius,
Lives
8, 8.

38.
Thus Johannes Philoponus,
Commentary on Aristotle’s ‘De Anima’
1, 5.

39.
See Carl Werner Müller, “Die neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren über die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie,”
Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
, NF 112 (1969): 120–26; reprinted in Brox,
Pseudepigraphie in der heidnischen und jüdisch-christlichen Antike
, pp. 264–71.

40.
Inst. Or. 1, 4, 3. Translation of John Selby Watson at
http://honeyl.public.iastate.edu/quintilian/
.

41.
Thus Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, p. 23, referencing Blum,
Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen
(Frankfurt: Buchhändler-Vereinigung, 1977), 27–244; Y. L. Too,
The Idea of Ancient Literary Criticism
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 115–50, esp. 126–34; and R. M. Grant,
Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature
(Louisville: Westminster, 1993), pp. 15–32. On the work of the Alexandrians’ editing practices, see Franco Montanari, “Zenodotus, Aristarchus and the Ekdosis of Homer,” in
Editing Texts
, ed. Glenn W. Most (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), pp. 1–21.

42.
Translation of J. C. Rolfe in the 1927 LCL edition.

43.
See L. O. Bröcker, “Die Methoden Galens in der literarischen Kritik,”
Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
40 (1885): 415–38. This is a learned classic, a careful exposition of the ways Galen engages in “criticism” in all its respects: lower criticism (textual); middle criticism (the detection of interpolations in authentic texts); negative higher criticism (establishing nonauthentic works, which Galen calls
); and positive higher criticism (establishing authenticity of disputed works; Galen calls the authentic works
).

44.
Ad Thess. Sec
. 2, 4, 1 (CSEL 81, 3, 239).

45.
Translation of Walter C. A. Ker,
Martial: Epigrams
LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1968).

46.
Translation of P. N. Singer,
Galen: Selected Works
(Oxford: University Press, 1997), p. 3.

47.
See Ronald F. Kotrc and K. R. Walters, “A Bibliography of the Galenic Corpus,”
Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia
Series 5. 1 (1979): 256–304.

48.
See p. 64.

49.
Apol. Ad Const
. 19; translation of Archibald Robinson in
NPNF
, second series, vol. 4.

50.
Translation of W. H. Fremantle in
NPNF
, 2nd series, vol. 3.

51.
Augustine,
Epist
59, 1, 2.

52.
See p. 61.

53.
Translation of Frank Cole Babbitt,
Plutarch’s Moralia
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927).

54.
See p. 62.

55.
See p. 63.

56.
Origen,
Contra Celsum
, 7.56. See pp. 508–19.

57.
See pp. 81 and 64.

58.
See pp. 94–96.

59.
Jewish War
, 1. 26. 3; translation of Thackeray as taken from Henry Leeming,
Josephus’ Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.A. Me
š
č
erskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript Translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina
(Leiden: Brill, 2003).

60.
Controv
. 1 Praef 11; Translation of Winterbottom from LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974).

61.
Translation of Stephen MacKenna,
Plotinus: The Enneads
,
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plotenn/enn001.htm
.

62.
Strom
. 1.21. Translation of Ferguson,
Clement
, 119–20.

63.
Contra Faust
. 33.6; trans. by Roland Teske,
Answer to Faustus, a Manichean
(The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, I/10) (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2007). All subsequent quotations of the work will be from this translation.

64.
Baum,
Pseudepigraphie
, passim.

65.
One of the chief witnesses he appeals to for this view is Porphyry, in an obscure but oft-mentioned passage that discusses the writings of Pythagoras. As I will show in
Chapter 5
, however, Baum completely misconstrues Porphyry’s comments.

66.
Elsewhere, Origen does indicate that Paul wrote Hebrews (
To Africanus
, 9; and possibly
De Principiis
3.1.10, etc., although this is only in Rufinus’ Latin, not the Greek; see also, though,
On Prayer
, 17;
Commentary on John
2.6; 10.11). The easiest solution to these discrepancies is simply to suppose that he changed his mind on the question. It should be noted that elsewhere Origen shows an interest in knowing who actual authors were. With respect to the Petrine epistles, for example, he says that Peter “left us one acknowledged epistle, possibly two—though this is doubtful.” With respect to the writings of John he says, “In addition, he left an epistle of very few lines, and possibly two more, though their authenticity is denied by some”
(Eusebius,
H.E
. 6.25.8, 10).

67.
See Vessey, “Forging,” p. 507, n. 30.

68.
Translations of Thomas Halton,
Saint Jerome: On Illustrious Men
(FC 100; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 84, 48. All subsequent translations of this work will be taken from this edition.

69.
Translation Dominic J. Unger and John J. Dillon,
St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies
, Vol. I (ACW 55; New York, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992), p. 76.

70.
I do not find persuasive the attempt of A. Sundberg and M. Hahneman to redate the Muratorian Fragment from the late second to the fourth century (see A. C. Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List,”
HTR
66 [1973]: 1–41; and Geoffrey Mark Hahneman,
The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon
, Oxford: Clarendon, 1992). For incisive critiques, see Henne, “La datation du Canon de Muratori,”
RB
100 (1993): 54–75; C. E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,”
WTJ
57 (1995): 437–52; J.–D. Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon. À propos de la these de Sundberg et Hahneman,”
Cristianesimo nella storia
15 (1994): 609–34; and especially Joseph Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in J.–M. Auwers and H. J. De Jonge, eds.,
The Biblical Canon
(Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 487–556.

71.
Translation of S. D. F. Salmond in
NPNF
, series 1, vol. 6.

Motives, Techniques, Intentions, Justifications, and Criteria of Detection

T
he discussion of the previous chapter leads to an obvious question: If literary forgery was extensively condemned in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, why was it, at the same time, so widely practiced? This question takes us directly to the matter of motivation: What drove so many authors to make false authorial claims? Wolfgang Speyer in particular has recognized motivation as a fundamental aspect of the broader phenomenon: “Failing to develop the intentions of forgers would be equivalent to failing to understand their forgeries. Motive alone explains the forgery.”
¹