Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ancient Attribution: Humble Anonymity or Pseudepigrapha‎
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 1 of 21 (254515)
10-24-2005 5:19 PM


In the “The Flood and Meat Eating” thread of the BA&I forum, Lam made the comment: ””but it was common practice in ancient times and up to the Renaissance for authors of ”certain works to not identify themselves or to sign their works. People back then believed ”that anything they did was for the glory of god and thus was expected to be humble ”enough to not claim their own work.
Do we have evidence that this was the practice of the OT or NT authors?”
Pseudepigraphy In Rabbinic Literature seems to show otherwise in the rabbinic era.”
First we should note that in the Mishnah, the ascription of a statement to a particular ”named sage marks that statement as a minority opinion.25 Rulings cited as the opinion of ””"the sages" in general are more authoritative.26 But rulings cited anonymously are ”understood to be the ruling of the Mishnah itself and are the most authoritative.27 Thus, in ”the Mishnah, anonymity confers authority, contrary to what we find in pseudepigraphy ”where false attribution to some specific, well-known and highly respected personality is ”generally used to increase the authority of a literary work, statement or idea.
Pseudepigrapha:
Writings ascribed to some other than their real author, generally with a view to giving ”them an enhanced authority. The term is used especially of the pseudonymous Jewish ”works dating from the centuries immediately before and after the beginning of the ”Christian era which were not included in the Greek Canon of the Old Testament. Among ”these writings are the "Book of Enoch", The Assumption of Moses", the later "Books of ”Baruch" and the "Psalms of Solomon".”
”1) Some New Testament scholars contend that Paul did not write the letter to the ”Collossians but that it was rather written pseudonomously and credited to Paul ””(Pseudepigraphy) to give it more importance.

”2) The word Pseudepigraphy from the Greek literally means ”false writing’ and we take it ”to mean falsely attributed writing.

”3) Pseudepigrapha is not unique to the New Testament. In the Old Testament the Books ”of Moses were not written by Moses but in his name as the great lawgiver.


This concept is important to us because many of the letters in the NT were written by ”other than the one to whom authorship is ascribed. This does not diminish the validity of ”the lesson. In fact they are wrongly attributed to increase the authority of the lesson.

These two excerpts do not seem to support the idea of humble anonymity.”
I realize that the Hebrew Bible is a compilation of various types of writings as is the NT. ”I am not saying that anonymous or pseudepigrapha are they only types.”
What I’m proposing is that the anonymous writings in the Hebrew Bible and New ”Testament do not seem to be anonymous due to human humility, but that anonymity and ”false attribution added authority.”

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 10-25-2005 10:39 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 10-31-2005 4:36 AM purpledawn has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 21 (254520)
10-24-2005 5:35 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 3 of 21 (254684)
10-25-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
10-24-2005 5:19 PM


Bump for Discussion
I need some discussion this week.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 10-24-2005 5:19 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 4 of 21 (255387)
10-28-2005 5:51 PM


Book of James (Pseudepigraphal)
The Book of James is not considered to be written by James, the brother of Jesus, but is not considered to be written to deceive readers and present views contrary to the views of James himself.
Now a pseudepigraphal work may be a forgery, the intention being to deceive the readers into accepting views which the person credited the work would never have held. Thus in the New Testament, II Thessalonians, the Pastoral Epistles and I & II Peter are rightly called forgeries for they advocated views which were never held by the persons the writings were attributed to. However a pseudepigraphal document may also have been written by a disciple of the person attributed as the writer. The use of the teacher's name is then a way to tell the readers that the writings originate from his school. Indeed some scholars have suggested that the epistle of James could be a collection of traditional teachings attributed to James and the Jerusalem Church.
It is interesting to note that the author of James does not seem to share Paul's teachings, which would fit since James and the members of the Jerusalem Church remained Jewish in every sense of the word. Therefore a writer passing on the teachings of James would conflict with Paul's teachings. The book of James seems to uphold the Mosaic Laws.
So the author of this book does not seem to remain anonymous due to deference to God, but to pass on the teachings of his teacher.

"I refuse to think of them as chin hairs. I think of them as stray eyebrows." -Janette Barber-

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 4:21 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 21 (255748)
10-31-2005 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
10-24-2005 5:19 PM


Old Testament as Pseudopigrapha
Hi PD,
A comment on another thread led me to thinking about which books of the Old testament do we actually know the author of.
On another thread it was mentioned that David wrote the Psalms, or at least almost all the Psalms as Solomon was said to have written some (72 and 127), Hezikiah wrote about a dozen, Heman wrote Pslam 88, Ethan Psalm 89, Asaph wrote about a dozen too.
Anyway, it was the David comment that got me to thinking about authorship. Now, a great many people do not think that David wrote the Psalms alloted to him, a lot of people are not even convinced that there ever was a historical King David. So, *if* there wasn't an historical David then wouldn't David's Psalms be pseudopigraphic? (This would go for Moses' books too although the Bible never claims Moses wrote any books)
This led to another thought, technically speaking, we do not know who wrote any of the Old Testament books, so is it possible that the entire Old Testament is pseudopigraphic?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 10-24-2005 5:19 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2005 6:51 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 11 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 4:27 PM Brian has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 6 of 21 (255754)
10-31-2005 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
10-31-2005 4:36 AM


Re: Old Testament as Pseudopigrapha
quote:
So, *if* there wasn't an historical David then wouldn't David's Psalms be pseudopigraphic?
Or would they be pseudonymous pseudopigrapha? Writings falsely attributed to a fictious name/person?
Seriously though, the name of the author of the songs could have been a David, just not King David. So I would still see it as a false attribution, if King David did not exist.
Although I'm not sure why songs would need authority behind them.

Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 10-31-2005 4:36 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-31-2005 7:45 AM purpledawn has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 21 (255764)
10-31-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by purpledawn
10-31-2005 6:51 AM


Re: Old Testament as Pseudopigrapha
There was yet another form of attribution that I don't think you've touched on yet, that might apply to the Psalms, and that is "In the Style of..." attribution.
This is particularly seen in the Talmud where arguments are presented under the name of a long dead Rabbi. It is the author saying, "If so and so had lived he would have reasoned thusly". This was done often and accepted as valid as long as the logic and style actually reflected the person that it was attributd to.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2005 6:51 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2005 10:03 AM jar has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 8 of 21 (255777)
10-31-2005 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
10-31-2005 7:45 AM


Re: Old Testament as Pseudopigrapha
quote:
"In the Style of..." attribution
Were these ever presented in written form or were they usually oral presentations?

Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-31-2005 7:45 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 11-12-2005 11:27 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 21 (259079)
11-12-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by purpledawn
10-31-2005 10:03 AM


Re: Old Testament as Pseudopigrapha
For a long, long time, the Talmud was only an Oral Only Tradition by custom. This is hard to fathom today simply due to the volume, the size of the Talmudic discourses and the exactitude of the arguments presented.
Eventually, it simply became necessary to write them down. There was just way too much for one person, or even a group of specialists to remember.
However, in the process of transformation from oral to written, the portions of attribution were never noted. The clues to spot such points of attribution must be garnered from the content. When we find a Rabbi arguing about and issue that would not have been possible while he was alive, for example relating to new inventions made long after the rabbi would have died, it's pretty obvious that it is an attribution.
It is also important to remember that the Talmudic tradition continues even today. It is very much alive in the daily life of every Rabbi and Jew. One of the biggest differences between a Priest and a Rabbi is that the Rabbi is not the religious head of a religious community. Unlike the Priest in a Christian community, the Rabbi does not lead the services. Instead, he is an arbiter, a mentor and judge.
The members of the community come to the Rabbi for advice related to their daily lives, issues from contracts to behavior. When these come up, the Rabbi responds in a Talmudic manner, using argument by attribution. The difference is only in presentation. In the past the Rabbi would repond "Rabbi so and so said...about that." while today he would likely say "Rabbi so and so would have said...about that."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2005 10:03 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 21 (275056)
01-02-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by purpledawn
10-28-2005 5:51 PM


Re: Book of James (Pseudepigraphal)
quote:
The Book of James is not considered to be written by James, the brother of Jesus, but is not considered to be written to deceive readers and present views contrary to the views of James himself.
AFAIK, James, the author of James, is traditionally viewed to be the brother of Jesus. It's a minority view among Evangelical scholars that this is not the case.
quote:
It is interesting to note that the author of James does not seem to share Paul's teachings, which would fit since James and the members of the Jerusalem Church remained Jewish in every sense of the word. Therefore a writer passing on the teachings of James would conflict with Paul's teachings.
First of all this assertion is conjecture, though I admit it is plausible. But even if James has different theological views than Paul, it does not logically follow that the teaching in the book James conflicts with the teaching in the books written by Paul. Keep in mind that the Early Christians usually viewed both as inspired and the same with the Nicaean council. Evidently they viewed the writings of both as compatible and not logically inconsistent.
quote:
So the author of this book does not seem to remain anonymous due to deference to God, but to pass on the teachings of his teacher.
He's not anonymous. He calls himself James in verse 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by purpledawn, posted 10-28-2005 5:51 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ramoss, posted 01-02-2006 6:28 PM idontlikeforms has replied
 Message 18 by purpledawn, posted 01-04-2006 3:18 AM idontlikeforms has not replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 21 (275061)
01-02-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
10-31-2005 4:36 AM


Re: Old Testament as Pseudopigrapha
quote:
This would go for Moses' books too although the Bible never claims Moses wrote any books
This is incorrect. Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch is refered to by plenty of other Biblical authors, even in the Penteteuch itself. Exodus 17:14; 24:4-7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24, Joshua 1:7-8; 8:32-34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11-13, Matthew 8:4; 19:7-8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46-47; 7:19, John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.
quote:
This led to another thought, technically speaking, we do not know who wrote any of the Old Testament books, so is it possible that the entire Old Testament is pseudopigraphic?
Of course we do. Most of the books give the authors' names.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 10-31-2005 4:36 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 01-02-2006 4:40 PM idontlikeforms has not replied
 Message 16 by Discreet Label, posted 01-03-2006 7:05 PM idontlikeforms has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 12 of 21 (275066)
01-02-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by idontlikeforms
01-02-2006 4:27 PM


Re: Old Testament as Pseudopigrapha
Hi,
I'm going off line very shortly, thanks for the reply, I'll answer tomorrow.
However, before I go:
Of course we do. Most of the books give the authors' names.
Well, you did say that you have no formal training in biblical studies.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 4:27 PM idontlikeforms has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 13 of 21 (275107)
01-02-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by idontlikeforms
01-02-2006 4:21 PM


Re: Book of James (Pseudepigraphal)
quote:
AFAIK, James, the author of James, is traditionally viewed to be the brother of Jesus. It's a minority view among Evangelical scholars that this is not the case.
From Epistle of James
quote:
Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):
1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."
2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.
3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?
4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).
5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.
There are a number of other opinions that back up the concept that James was not written by the 'James, brother of Jesus'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 4:21 PM idontlikeforms has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-03-2006 12:59 AM ramoss has not replied

  
idontlikeforms
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 21 (275214)
01-03-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ramoss
01-02-2006 6:28 PM


Re: Book of James (Pseudepigraphal)
First of all let me just say that James being written by James the brother of Jesus is in no way an article of faith to me. I do not view it is mandatory that he was the author for it to be authoritative. But I do not see anything compelling in this citation to force me to abandon the traditional view.
quote:
Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):
1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."
This is just wild conjecture. We haven't got a clue whether James was profficient in Greek or not.
quote:
2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.
I don't see why not. James rigid adherence to the Law does not mean he by neccessity viewed practicing Christianity without it as heretical.
quote:
3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?
Sure. Why does he have to mention Jesus?
quote:
4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).
Here's James 2:14.
quote:
What good is it, my brothers,
if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him?
I'm assuming the implication is that he thinks James is saying faith doesn't save. But it seems to me that James is simply pointing out that one can say they have faith but if there is never any fruit from it, than perhaps they really don't. Grammatically, his interpretation of the passage makes sense. But doesn't mine also? See the next few verses after this too and you'll see James expounding on what he's getting at in the passage above.
quote:
5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.
But what are the reasons for that? Look this guy has a well thought out logical argument, it's just not compelling. Nothing he says compels me to seriously consider that perhaps Jesus' brother didn't write James. I read the other citations on the website you provided too and it's the same for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ramoss, posted 01-02-2006 6:28 PM ramoss has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 21 (275221)
01-03-2006 1:17 AM


more recent scholarship
I don't have time to really engage this thread, but more recent scholarship indicates that in fact, people in Palestine were more literate in several languages than was once suppossed. Jesus is in this view was a little more cosmopolitan, as his some of his followers, and not quite the ignorant country bumpkins some scholars assumed.
Basically, the idea is small business people had to know several languages and cultures quite well to thrive.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024