Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. INTRODUCTION
One of those many voices was heard here in Leuven, eleven years ago,
during the 50th colloquium which dealt with TheBiblicalCanons. Sur-
prisingly, very few of the papers at that conference mentioned noncanon-
ical texts at all. The main exception was Marinus de Jonge. In the Dutch
seminar he discussed how some “Old Testament pseudepigrapha” were
used in the early Christian church as witnesses to the authority of the Old
Testament. In the English published edition of his paper he added an
introduction and appendix explaining why the term “pseudepigrapha of
the Old Testament” is not very useful9.
This reminds us that “Old Testament pseudepigrapha” is not an onto-
logical category, but a heuristic one. Indeed, Reed repeatedly raises the
issue of the past and present heurism of the concept and category of “Old
Testament pseudepigrapha”. Therefore, this colloquium “Old Testament
pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures” attempts to address the concept and
category as it has developed from Fabricius to our present time in a con-
structive manner. I will discuss briefly, based on the work of some who
are present in this colloquium, the problems of the category. But after
that, we will have to move forward, regardless of the terminology we use.
9. M. DE JONGE, The Authority of the “Old Testament” in the Early Church: The
Witnessofthe“PseudepigraphaoftheOldTestament”, in J.-M. AUWERS – H.J. DE JONGE
(eds.), TheBiblicalCanons(BETL, 163), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 459-486.
10. STUCKENBRUCK, ApocryphaandPseudepigrapha (n. 4).
11. J.H. CHARLESWORTH, TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha,2 vols., New York, Dou-
bleday, 1983-1985.
15. Discussed in W. RORDORF, Terra Incognita: Recent Research on the Christian
ApocryphalLiterature,especiallyonSomeActsofApostles, in E.A. LIVINGSTONE(eds.),
BibliaetApocrypha,Orientalia,Ascetica(Studia Patristica, 25), Leuven, Peeters, 1993,
142-158, esp. pp. 144-145.
16. PICARD, L’apocrypheàl’étroit (n. 3), p. 91.
17. KAUTZSCH (ed.), Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments.
1. Band:DieApokryphen (n. 5), p. xiv.
18. MOTP (n. 5), p. xxviii, “with a few exceptions to be noted, we are limiting the
corpus to texts for which a reasonable – if not necessarily conclusive – case can be made
for a date of composition before the rise of Islam in the early seventh century C.E.”. For
those exceptions, including the Cave of Treasures, the Palaea Historica, as well as
Hebrew and Aramaic texts published by Moses Gaster, see MOTP, p. xxx.
19. CHARLES, APOT(n. 5), p. 2.iv argues that though it cannot be rightly designated a
pseudepigraph, it was used by Jewish readers in the period covered by the book.
20. M.J. BERNSTEIN, PseudepigraphyintheQumranScrolls:CategoriesandFunctions,
in E.G. CHAZON – M.E. STONE (eds.),PseudepigraphicPerspectives:TheApocryphaand
PseudepigraphainLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls(STDJ, 31), Leiden, Brill, 1999, 1-26.
21. D.E. AUNE, Reconceptualizing the Phenomenon of Ancient Pseudepigraphy: An
Epilogue, in J. FREY, etal. (eds.), PseudepigraphieundVerfasserfiktioninfrühchristlichen
Briefen(WUNT, 246), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009, 789-824, p. 794.
some texts switch from one person to another, or employ the first person
as a literary device. Moreover, authorial ascription could also be intended
in works composed in the third person26. Tigchelaar pointed at the strong
correlation between pseudepigraphic texts with a first person voice and
the Aramaic language, and suggested that the specific voice of books
would be related to genre and language27.
Second, Foucault’s famous notion of “author function” forces us to not
only discuss the relationship between producer of texts and authors as
appearing in texts, but also to relate the function of the author to the entire
universe of discourses in a cultural system. One of the many possible
forms of author function described by Foucault, namely that one can be
“the author of a theory, tradition, or discipline in which other books and
authors will in their turn find a place” has been taken up and adjusted by
Najman into a concept of “discourses that are linked to their founders”28.
In more literary terms: the “author function” as present in a text is one of
the features of the genre, which may explain why some texts are anony-
mous and other ones pseudepigraphs. Or, as I put it earlier, “the phenom-
enon of pseudepigraphy is part of a larger phenomenon of parascriptural
literature, where new texts contribute to a discourse that has been initi-
ated by already existing texts”29.
Finally, a literary approach of the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy would
also require a neutral literary terminology, rather than one with negative
overtones. Interestingly, the title of the 2009 volume Pseudepigraphieund
Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen, presents both perspectives.
Alongside the ethically laden “pseudepigraphy” the editors also present
the neutral Verfasserfiktionor “author fiction”. Another suggestion for
a new terminology comes from I. Howard Marshall who suggests “all-
onymity”, expressing that the writer takes the name of another person30.
38. H. ATTRIDGE, et al., Qumran Cave 4 VIII Parabiblical Texts. Part 1 (DJD, 13),
Oxford, Clarendon, 1994; M. BROSHI, et al., Qumran Cave 4 XIV Parabiblical Texts.
Part 2 (DJD, 19), Oxford, Clarendon, 1995; G. BROOKE, et al., Qumran Cave 4 XVII
ParabiblicalTexts. Part 3(DJD, 22), Oxford, Clarendon, 1996; D. DIMANT, QumranCave
4XXIParabiblicalTexts. Part 4:Pseudo-PropheticTexts(DJD, 30), Oxford, Clarendon,
2001; É. PUECH, Qumrân Grotte 4 XXII Textes araméens. Première partie (DJD, 31),
Oxford, Clarendon, 2001; ID., QumrânGrotte4XXVIITextesaraméens.Deuxième partie
(DJD, 37), Oxford, Clarendon, 2009.
39. D.K. FALK, TheParabiblicalTexts:StrategiesforExtendingtheScripturesamong
theDeadSeaScrolls,London, T&T Clark, 2007.
40. TIGCHELAAR, FormsofPseudepigraphy(n. 23).
41. See, e.g., E. TOV, From4QReworkedPentateuchto4QPentateuch(?), in M. POPO-
VIĆ (ed.),AuthoritativeScripturesinAncientJudaism(SupplJSJ, 141), Leiden, Brill, 2010,
73-91.
and the narrative frameworks change42. Though both of these works have
been referred to as pseudepigraphic, Hindy Najman has pointed out that
the figure of Moses is largely missing from the TempleScroll, and that
in both texts authorization is not accomplished through attribution of
authorship to Moses, but by describing the revelation in authorized forms.
By rewriting in different ways existing texts, the new texts affirm the
authority of the earlier ones, but also provide new interpretive contexts
for the older scriptures43.
From a literary view, it seems that such rewritten texts generally adopt
the literary forms of the older texts, including the narrative choice. This
may explain the third person narrative in the ApocryphonofJoshua, the
first person voice in the Pseudo-Ezekiel texts, and the anonymous first
person voice in sapiential literature. The difference in perspective in the
TempleScrolland Jubileesare explained by Samely as examples of the
replacement of the perspective of the third person anonymous narrator
by that of a scriptural character.
The second group, in which new texts are ascribed to scriptural fig-
ures, most often use first person narratives. This is the typical form of
pseudepigraphy as found in 1Enochor the second part of Daniel. In the
history of scholarship, 1Enochhas become paradigmatic for understand-
ing apocalyptic pseudepigraphy: apocalyptic prophecy was placed in the
mouth of an ancient figure, which also enabled the device of exeventu
prophecy. However, this kind of ex eventu prophecy is not found in
the earliest Enochic writings. Instead, the attribution to Enoch of those
writings describing Enoch’s contacts with angels and otherworldly tours
to Enoch may have been triggered by the terse comments on Enoch in
Genesis, or go back to earlier traditions. The use of the first person in the
early Enochic writings, the BookofWatchers(though not in all sections!)
and the AstronomicalBook, may be seen as part of the pseudepigraphic
device. But it may also go back to the literary forms used by the author:
the journey reports follow patterns of Ezek 40–48 and of Zechariah’s
night visions in chs. 1–6 which also use first person voice. George Nick-
elsburg argued that the first collection of 1Enochwas organized accord-
ing to the testament genre44.
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the majority of those new texts ascribed
to scriptural figures are written in Aramaic, and I have wondered whether
VI. PROVENANCE
49. Some of the texts included in Charlesworth’s edition have also been incorporated
in MOTPbecause of new manuscript finds. Cf. MOTP (n. 5), p. xxix.