Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (7 page)

5
. See H. von Arnim,
Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1903); vol. 1, pp. 93–96.

6
. Some editors have proposed amending
so that the acrostic ends with
followed by Diogenes’ comments, “but he was not ashamed.” See Hicks,
Diogenes Laertius
ad loc.

7
. Wehrli,
Schule
, pp. 62–63.

8
. And one can think of other options. For example, it is possible that Dionysius knew that Heraclides was beginning a work on Sophocles; or, possibly—in a world of limited book distribution—he arranged for this work simply to fall into Heraclides’ hands; and so on.

9
. Galen,
In Hipp. Epid. II
comment II.

10
. See pp. 390–96 and the useful introduction in the first volume of Marcel Metzger’s important edition of the text in the Sources Chrétienne,
Les constitutions apostoliques
, SC 320 (Paris: Cerf, 2008).

11
.
Architecture
, book 7, preface 3. Translation of Frank Granger,
Vitruvius on Architecture, Books VI–X
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1934). For other discussions of plagiarism in antiquity, see, for example, Polybius
Histories
9.2.1–2 and Pliny,
Natural History
, Preface 20–23, and my discussion on pp. 52–55.

12
. Unless otherwise noted, English translations are my own. For a full translation, see James Donaldson, “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds.,
Ante-Nicene Fathers
, vol. 7; reprint edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004; American edition original, 1886). Hereafter
ANF
.

13
. Bruno Steimer,
Vertex Traditionis: Die Gattung der altchristlichen Kirchenordnungen
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), p. 133.

14
. Thus M. Metzger, “Les CA par contre ont été diffuses sous le nom de Clément,… Les CA sont donc un écrit pseudépigraphique,”
Les Constitutions Apostoliques
, vol. 1, pp. 33–34; similarly Bruno Steimer, “Clemens agiert als Sekretär der versammelten Apostel; … also hat ihm der CA-Kompilator eine Vermittelrolle zugewiesen”
Vertex Traditionis
, p. 130.

15
. For discussions of
in the context of letter writing and carrying, see the discussion on pp. 248–49 with reference to Silvanus’ alleged role in the letter of 1 Peter.

16
. This is a common view among the commentators on the Apostolic Constitutions, for example, Metzger,
Constitutions Apostoliques
, 1. 33–38; and Steimer,
Vertex Traditionis
, pp. 130–33. For an attempt to deny that the author intended to deceive his readers, see Joseph G. Mueller,
L’ancien testament dans l’ecclésiologie des Pères
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), pp. 77–84. Mueller’s arguments fail to convince. He claims, for example, that since the Apostolic Constitutions condemns the use of forgery to authenticate a perspective, it would not use precisely the means that it condemns. This overlooks the fact that forgers commonly practiced what they condemned, as we will see; in fact, they condemned what they practiced precisely in order to convince their readers that they were not doing what they condemned. Mueller also argues that the author could not have used documents known in the community (the Didascalia, the Didache, and the Apostolic Traditions, along with the fourth-century canons that appear in 8.47), while seriously maintaining that these derived from the apostles, when the readers would have recognized them for what they were. This objection assumes that we know precisely what we do not: who was in the author’s community and what texts they were familiar with, let alone whether he circulated his work in his own close-knit community.

17
. On the question of whether pseudepigraphic writings were considered a form of lying, see below pp. 128–32. For now, it is enough simply to note the derivation of pseudepigrapha—writings inscribed with a
—a “lie.”

18
. It is hard to imagine how someone could claim the author—the forger—was not trying to be taken seriously. Here is someone who insists that his own book be accepted as canonical.

19
. I will justify the use of the term
forgery
for the canonical pseudepigrapha below, pp. 28–32. For now it is enough to note that the books falsely claiming to be written by Peter (for example) inside the New Testament are no different, in extending that false claim, from books that falsely claim to be written by Peter outside the New Testament.

20
. See 3 Corinthians, where the same two are mentioned.

21
.
L’ancien testament
, pp. 79–80.

22
. “Indem der CA-Kompilator seine Fälschungkritik durch ein Echtheitskriterium ergänzt, vermeidet er es, sein eigenes Werk dem selbst formulierten Verdikt zu unterwerfen; das Echtheitskriterium liefert ihm ein probates Mittel, als Fälschung gegen Fälschung zu polemisieren.”
Vertex Traditionis
, p. 353.

23
. “The warning against pseudepigraphal writings, which appears twice in the Apostolic Constitutions, must be considered the strongest argument in favor of its authenticity.” (“Als stärkstes Argument der Authentizität ist die in der CA doppelt vorkommende Warnung vor pseudepigraphischen Schriften zu werten.”)
Vertex Traditionis
, pp. 132–33.

24
. Translation of Henry Percival from Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds.,
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
, Second Series, vol. 14. Reprint edition Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994; American edition original, 1900), p. 361. Hereafter
NPNF
.

25
. Translation mine. For the Greek text, see Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Ple
š
e,
Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 610.

26
. For an older, but still useful, if basic, study, see Gerard Vallée,
A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius
, Studies in Christianity and Judaism 1 (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University, 1981). More generally, see Jon Dechow,
Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity: Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen
, NAPSPMS 13 (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1988).

27
. “With Walter Bauer on the Tigris: Encratite Orthodoxy and Libertine Heresy in Syro-Mesopotamian Christianity,” in
Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity
, ed. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1986), pp. 287–307.

28
. “The Libertine Gnostic Sect of the Phibionites according to Epiphanius,”
VC
21 (1967): 103–19.

29
. For the link between charges of sexual deviance and heresy in ancient polemics, see the insightful analysis of Jennifer Knust,
Abandoned to Lust
(New York: Columbia University, 2005).

30
. On Fronto, see Minucius Felix,
Octavius
, 9.5; on Celsus, see Origen,
Contra Celsum
, 6.27; on Jewish apologia, see Josephus,
Contra Apionem
, 2.8; on pagan attacks on pagans, see the burlesque in
The Phoenician Miscellanies
. In general, see Stephen Benko, “The Charges of Immorality and Cannibalism,” in
Pagan Rome and the Early Christians
(Bloomington: Indiana University, 1984),
ch. 3
.

31
. See the now classic study of Frederik Wisse, “The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists,”
VC
25 (1971): 205–23.

32
. It appears, for example, as one of the thirty-five Gospel books in the Samaritan Chronicle II.

33
. Technically speaking, the Greater Questions of Mary would not be a forgery in the sense that I will be defining it presently, but a fabrication—a made-up narrative.

34
. For a fuller discussion, see pp. 156–71.

35
. Cited in Grafton,
Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 43; quoting from P. S. Allen et al., eds.,
Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1906–1958), 8:40.

36
. Grafton,
Forgers and Critics
, p. 44.

37
. Ibid., p. 45.

38
. “Oft aber waren Zeiten scharfsinniger Kritik auch reich an Fälschungen. Hilduin von St. Denis ist ähnlich wie Anastasios Sinaites Kritiker und Fälscher in einer Person,” Speyer,
Literarische Fälschung
, p. 85.

39
. Speyer,
Literarische Fälschung
, p. 200. See further H. Schrörs,
Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Reims
(Freiburg im Breisgau, 1884), pp. 398–400; Schrörs tries to exonerate Hincmar of the charge of forgery in pp. 507–12. But see B. Krusch, “Reimser Remigius Fälschungen,” in
Neues Archiv Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde
20 (1895): 531–37.

40
. Translation of David Magie in
The Historia Augusta
, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1921–32).

41
. Ronald Syme,
Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971),
ch. 1
.

42
. This is true even of the Apostolic Constitutions, as we will see later in
Chapter Twelve
.

M
any scholars, especially Neutestamentlers, object to the use of the term
forgery
for the phenomenon I have so far described: a book written with a false authorial claim.
¹
This is because of its negative connotations, sometimes asserted to be a modern and thus anachronistic imputation. I will deal with these objections in detail in
Chapter Four
. For now, it is enough to say that the terms used in antiquity were just as negative or even more so. What we call forgeries—books with false authorial claims—were typically called deceits, lies, and bastards.

Before discussing ancient terms, I need to clarify how I will be using modern ones. Those who object to the term
forgery
typically prefer to speak of pseudonymity or pseudepigraphy. Often these two terms are used synonymously, but that can lead to confusion, since other scholars, especially German and French, draw a clear distinction between them. Consider the differentiation of Eve-Marie Becker: “The terms pseudepigraphy and pseudonymity should not simply be used synonymously. In the case of pseudonymity, a fictitious author is chosen, in the case of pseudepigraphy, the work is ascribed to a real author.”
²