Apocalyptic Literature Annotated Bibliography
A variety of resources to help acquaint you with one of the most misunderstood yet important genres of literature for students of the Bible.
A variety of resources to help acquaint you with one of the most misunderstood yet important genres of literature for students of the Bible.
Scholars often claim that pseudepigraphy in the ancient world was not deception, but was a commonly accepted practice. To test that claim, one must examine attitudes toward pseudepigraphy in the Greco-Roman world, how known pseudepigraphs were handled and treated, why they were written, and how the early church treated them….
Earlier, I reviewed Greg Magee’s published dissertation, Portrait of an Apostle: A Case for Paul’s Authorship of Colossians and Ephesians (Wipf & Stock, 2013), 204 pages. You can catch up on the review here. I found this book very creative and well executed, so I decided to ask Greg to write a reply to my review, hoping that he could sharpen my thinking a bit on a topic he spent years studying. He graciously replied, and we hope the discussion between us is fruitful and stimulating….
If Colossians, Ephesians, or both are pseupigraphal writings, how would we know? There is one objective, historical test to which we might subject the documents. There are documents that are unanimously agreed to be Pauline pseudepigraphs, namely, Epistle to the Loadiceans (Ep. Lao.) and Third Corinthians (3 Cor.). An objective, historical test would be to compare the language and ideas of these two known pseudepigraphs….
From the volume Paul and Pseudepigraphy (PAST 8) (which I briefly summarize and evaluate here), one essay stood out as particularly important for contemporary debates over Pauline style. Many recent studies have emphasized the possible input of co-authors and the possible freedom of amanuenses, but many scholars still ignore these possibilities and argue for pseudonymity based on style. The argument is common with Ephesians/Colossians, as well as the Pastorals, and also 2 Thessalonians….
I just finished up my review of Paul and Pseudepigraphy (PAST 8). This volume wasn’t quite what I expected. As the editors note, the book is not comprehensive, nor does it solve any issues conclusively. The first section deals with critical/methodological issues, the second deals with debated Pauline letters, and the third with non-canonical pseudepigraphy to focus on reception history rather than authenticity. I was looking for a work that would give a lot of history of research and essays on…