T H E RENAISSANCE OF PSEUDEPIGRAPHA STUDIES

TUE SBL PSEUDEPIGRAPHA PROJECT

JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH
‫ﻳﻀﻢ‬ , N.c.y U .S .A .

Study of the Old Testament ?seudepigrapha Is presently entering a

renaseent period. Of the new series which have heen developed,
those deserving special note are the Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti
Graece and the Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, both edited
by A. M. D e n i s and M. DE J0N G E . The rebirth of the discipline is
also reflected in the appearance of the R esent/ ‫ﻫﺄص‬/‫م‬ New organiza-
tions for the study of this literature have also evolved. A report on
one of these organizations, the SBL Pseudepigrapha Project, is the
purpose of the present essay 1).
The Project in Retrospect
Dean Walter H a r r e l s o n , in 1969 on behalf of the biblical faculty of
Vanderbilt University Divinity School, sought the counsel and
sponsorship of the Committee on Research and Publications of the
Society of Biblical Literature in the launching and oversight of a
pseudepigrapha project. The project was conceived as a means of
publishing on the one hand critical editions of the major pseud-
epigrapha and on the other an inexpensive English edition of all the
pseudepigrapha.
The first meeting of the Pseudepigrapha Project was held during the
1969 annual meeting of the SBL on 17 November 1969 in the Nova
Scotia Room of the Royal York Hotel in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Over forty persons were in attendance. The meeting was convened by
Professor H a r r e l s o n . He stated that the Vanderbilt faculty did not
wish to assume entire responsibility for the Project, but encouraged
leadership from a wide segment of the SBL.
‫ ) آ‬In addition to the recent but already indispensable works by G. D e l l i n g
(Bibliographie %ur jüdisch-hellenistischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur 1900-1965
[TU 106], Berlin 1‫ و‬6 ‫ ) و‬and A. M. D en is (Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs
d*Ancien Testament [SVTP 1], Leiden 1970), permit me ،٠ draw attention to an
informative article by R. A. K r a f t : ،Jewish Greek Scriptures and Related Topics:
Reports on Recent Discussions*, N T S 16 (1970), pp. 384-96.
Jeurnal for the Study of Judaism, II 7
108 JAMES H . CHARLESW ORTH

The publication of critical editions was discussed. Present and

forthcoming publications were announced, and it was discovered
that the following scholars were preparing editions: James H.
C h a r l e s w o r t h (The Odes of Solomon), Daniel j. H a r r i n g t o n
(Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum), Robert A. K r a f t
(ParaleipomenaJeremiou)y John L·. S h a r p e , ill (Apocalypsis Mosis), and
U l l e n o o r f f and K n i b b (Ethiopie Enoch).
Consideration of an English edition of the pseudepigrapha was the
next item on the agenda. Three related ^blications are in process:
c. B u r c h a r d of Gottingen is preparing a new edition of E.
K a u t z s c h ’s Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments;
Ktav Publishing House, Inc., is planning to republish M. R. J a m e s ’
The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament with a lenght^ introduction by
L. F e l d m a n ; and H. F. D. S p a r k s is editing a volume on the pseud-
epigrapha in English translation that is to be published by the Claren-
don Press. With the possible exception of S p a r k s ’ edition, none of
these ^blications fulfills the need of an inexpensive English edition
of the pseudepigrapha designed for the undergraduate or divinity
student.
An initial committee to explore further development of the pseud-
epigrapha project was named: James H. C h a r l e s w o r t h (secretary),
Walter H a r r e l s o n (chairman), Robert A. K r a f t , Harry M. O r l i n s k y ,
Michael E. S t o n e , and John S t r u g n e l l .
The second meeting of the Project was held during the 1970 annual
meeting of the SBL on 26 October 1970 in the Boston Room of the
New Yorker Hotel, New York, New York. Professor H a r r e l s o n
called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Thirty-three scholars were
in attendance.
C h a r l e s w o r t h reported the success of the discussion section on
the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, which had been sponsored by
the Project, chaired by him, and held the preceding afternoon. Eive
lectures were given during the sectional meeting. William E. S t i n e -
SPRING read a paper on ‫؛‬The Contribution of C. c. Torrey to Inter-
testamental Studies’. S t i n e s p r i n g cut behind the contemporary
tendency to see T o r r e y as an undisciplined eccentric to examine
some of his lasting contributions to intertestamental studies. Anitra B.
K o l e n k o w , in ،The Cloud and Water Vision and Interpretation of
II Baruch 53, 56-74’, argued that the vision is dependent on material
found in IV Ezra. John L. S h a r p e III, speaking on ‫؛‬The Apocalypse
of Moses’, concentrated on the Adam typology found therein and
 TH E SBL· PSEUDEPIGRATHA PROJECT 109

suggested that Paul was influeueed by this typology, especially 1 3 5‫־‬ 3‫ت‬
in which Adam is promised the resurrection and its benehts. John
P r i e s t , in ‘Wisdom in I Enoch’, criticized the tendency to read into
I Enoch a personification and hypostatization of wisdom. The
dominant theme to be read out of I Enoch is the connection between
wisdom and judgment, righteousness and unrighteousness, w. D.
D a v i e s , in ‘The Concept of Land in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigra-
pha’, argued that the Old Testament notions about the land persisted
in and were not transformed by the apocryphal writings.
The next item on the agenda consisted of reports on publications.
John S h a r p e reported on the Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece
(Leiden: E. j. brill). Editions that have already appeared are M. DE
J o n g e ’s Testamenta X I I Patriarcharum (1964), s. p. B r o c k ’s Testa-
mentum Iobi (1967), and j. c. P i c a r d ’s Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece
(1967). Works in progress include M. B l a c k and A. M. D e n i s ’
edition of the Greek Enoch, and S h a r p e ’s Apocalypsis Mosis.
William R . G o o d m a n , Jr. reviewed H a m m e r s h a i m b ’ s De gammel-
testamentlige Pseudepigrafer. This Danish translation of the pseudepigra-
pha is scheduled for completion in 1971 or 1972 with the ^b lication
of IV Maccabees, II Enoch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
the Syriac Baruch, and the Greek Baruch. The final volume will
include indices and probably a short introduction to the series.
Matthew B l a c k and James h l. C h a r l e s w o r t h reported on
Clarendon’s plans. They are publishing the latter’s edition of the ©des
of Solomon, S p a r k s ’ edition of texts, and a commentary on the New
English Bible Apocrypha.
The chairman, Walter H a r r e l s o n , stated that the National Endow-
ment for the Humanities has supported his travels to search for
manuscripts and to discuss with scholars and editors the present and
projected work on the psuedepigrapha. He suggested that George w.
M a c R a e and Bruce M . M e t z g e r should be added to the initial
committee, and that this group be designated the steering committee.
The members of the Project who were present unanimously agreed
with the suggestion.
The Steering Committee of the Pseudepigrapha Project held its
first meeting independent of the National Convention of the SBL in
room 1019 of the Hotel Biltmore in New York on 7 February 1971.
The express purpose was to prepare the agenda for the seminar at the
1971 SBL National in v e n tio n , review publication proposals from
E. j. Brill in Leiden, examine other publication ventures, and discuss
110 JAMES H . CHARLESW ORTH

a microfilming expedition to Ethiopia. The following members were

present: C h a r l e s w o r t h , H a r r e l s o n , K r a f t , M a c R a e , M e t z g e r ,
and O r l i n s k y . S t o n e could not attend because he was in Jerusalem;
S t r u g n e l l sent his regrets.

After some discussion the Committee agreed that the seminar

should concentrate on three main areas: the presentation of a critical
paper on one of the pseudepigrapha followed by a discussion on
related documents, a report on work in progress on the pseudepigra-
pha, and an examination of methodological approaches and problems
in working on the pseudepigrapha.
E. j. Brill of Leiden had written asking the Committee if it would
recommend an English translation of Albert-Marie D e n i s ’ Introduction
auxpseudêpigraphesgrecs dl*Ancien Testament (Leiden: E. j. Brill, 1970).
The Committee agreed to advise Brill that an English translation
would be appreciated by many students of the ^eudepigrapha.
P. R i e s s l e r ’ s Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel (Augsburg
1928, reprinted at Heidelberg in 1966) has proved most useful because
it is relatively inexpensive, and because it is a convenient collection
of most of the pseudepigrapha. We were asked to consider an English
translation of R i e s s l e r ’s collection. Many problems were voiced by
all the members present, especially the need to correct the translation
in light of recent critical texts. In essence this demanded doing the
work from the start; it would not be R iessler’s translation. This
issue remained open in our plans, although a collection of our own
appeared more ideal and practical.
Our attention turned to a discussion of critical texts. A. M. Denis
has suggested a Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Orientalin series to
(:(implement the Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece. The proposed
series would contain ‫ س‬edition of fragments and manuscripts in
Ethiopie, Slavonic, Armenian, Syriac, Arabic, Latin, Coptic, Hebrew,
Roumanian, and Georgian. The Cm m ittee gave general approval to
the idea of such a publication series.
H a r r e l s o n informed us of his plans for an expedition to Ethiopia to
microfilm the pseudepigrapha manuscripts in the monasteries. There
are hundreds of monasteries, some of which were founded soon after
the introduction of Christianity into Ethiopia. The initial reactions to
the project have been most encouraging, including those from Ethio-
pia, the Patriarch, the Department of Education, and from potential
backers, which for the moment must remain anonymous. The
 TH E SBL PSEUDEPIGRARHA PROJECT Ill

members unanimously encouraged H a r r e l s o n to Incorporate the

expedition into the ?seudepigrapha Project.
As with the meetings of the Pseudepigrapha Project, the meeting of
the Steering Committee ended on many pleasant notes and with
high optimism.

The Project in Prospect

Obviously I cannot speak so definitely here as I did in the former
section; readers of this Journal are well ac‫ ؟‬uainted with the para-
digmatic distinction between past and future. There are, nevertheless,
certain areas of endeavor into which the Project hopes to move. One
of these has taken definite shape (the 1971 seminar), two are develop-
ing in an encouraging manner (the expedition to Ethiopia and a
bibliography), and four others are still a long way from taking
definite shape (critical editions, English translation, commentaries, and
a concordance). Let us briefly look at each of these in the order in which
they have been mentioned.
The agenda has been organized for the Pseudepigrapha Seminar at
the 1971 Annual fleeting of the SBL, which is to be held on 30 Octo-
ber 1971 in Atlanta, Georgia. The three portions of the program are
as follows. Eirst, the main part of the program will be an analysis and
discussion of the Paraleipomena Jeremiou (PJ), by Robert A. K r a f t .
K r a f t ’s English translation of the text will be distributed to the
members of the seminar in advance of the meeting. K r a f t plans to
turn our attention to translation problems and textual studies. It is
hoped that other scholars will agree to prepare brief presentations to
stimulate discussion on the following four topics: 1. The relation
between PJ and other Jeremiah literature such as the texts edited by
A. M i n g a n a (Woodhrooke Studies I, Cambridge, 1927), and more
recently by κ. H . K u h n (،A Coptic Jeremiah A poc^phon’, Le Musêon
83 (1970), pp. 95-135; to be continued); 2. The relation between PJ
and other Baruch literature especially II Baruch; 3. The relationship
between PJ and other Jewish texts popular in early Christian circles,
such as foe Ascension of Isaiah; 4. The relationship between PJ and
the rabbinic literature, especially on topics such as the fall of the
Temple.
Second, James H. C h a r e e s w o r t h will briefly report on work in
progress on foe pseudepigrapha. l ie plans to review the most recent
publications in foe field, and distribute a list of persons involved in foe
Project, including their names, addresses, and areas of interest*
112 JAMES H . CHARLESW ORTH

Perhaps this information will help to organize work in progress by

informing seholars of others who are worlting on the same or related
texts.
Third, Walter H a r r e l s o n wili present his refleetions on some of the
methodologieal problems faced with work on the pseudepigrapha.
The expedition to Ethiopia, in order to identify and microfilm the
pseudepigrapha manuscripts in the monasteries, is in the first stages of
preparation, fanning, and organization. Initial plans and inquiries
have met with success; the projected expedition appears most pro-
mising. Walter H a r r e l s o n made his first visit to Ethiopia to discuss
the venture with the authorities involved during the fall of 1970. His
second trip was late in April 1971. High excitement and eager anticipa-
tion are generated when one recalls that the Book of Enoch is extant
in complete form only in Ethiopie, and other pseudepigrapha are
extant in Ethiopie versions which sometimes pre-date the extant
Greek fragments by centuries. Our enthusiasm is heightened by the
reminders that the Ethiopie translation of Enoch was not ‫؛‬discovered’
until 1773, and the news that Michael E. S t o n e and Bishop Norayr
B o ch arían have recently discovered several “previously unknown”
Armenian copies of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in the
Library of the Monastery of St. James in Jerusalem 1). Certainly it is
not unreasonable to hope that the expedition will discover copies or
fragments of some of the ‫؛‬lost’ pseudepigrapha.
The other project that has taken definite shape is the compilation of
a bibliography on the pseudepigrapha. D e l l i n c >’s Bibliographie is most
helpful and pinpoints the need for exhaustive and annotated bibliog-
raphies on all the pseudepigrapha. For the last year scholars at
Vanderbilt and Duke Universities have been working on this desidera-
turn.
Four other plans of the Project are still in the discussion stage. The
Project intends to encourage, supervise, or direct the publication of
critical editions of each of the major pseudepigrapha with an apparatus
criticus. As stated earlier, plans call for an inexpensive English transía-
tion of these texts for students. The Project hopes to supply two of the
most glaring desiderata: critical commentaries to each of the pseudepi-
grapha, and a concordance to all of the texts.
There are two final problems that foe members of the Project foel

l) M. £ ٠ S t o n e , The Testament ofL evi: A First Study of the Armenian M SS of the

Testaments of the X I I Patriarchs in the Convent of St. James, Jerusalem, Jerusalem ‫ ا‬96 ‫ﻣﻮ‬
 TH E SBL PSEUDEPIGRAPHA PROJECT 113

most keenly. What Is meant by ،^eudeplgt:apha’? Which books are

covered by this category? Certainly this is not the place to discuss these
perple^ng Issues. For the present some general comments must suffice.
There is wide agreement among scholars today that the name
،pseudepigrapha’ is inappropriate, yet it has been bequeathed to us
by our fcre£athers 1), especially K a u t z s c h and C h a r l e s . Critics who
wish to dispense with the term might make three points: 1) the Song
o£ Solomon and the Wisdom o£ Solomon are pseudepigraphical but
they are respectively in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha; 2)
pseudo-naming was probably not a criterion for the canon developed
by the Rabbis or by the Fathers; 3) the meanings £or ‘apocrypha’ in
modern European languages are mutually exclusive. These critics
follow the lead o£C. C. T 0R R E Y , who discarded the term (The Apocry-
phal Literature: A Brief Introduction; New !‫־‬laven: Yale University
Fress, 1945). Other critics equally sensitive to the £act that some books
in the pseudepigrapha are clearly not ^eudonymous (viz. Jubilees,
Eives o£ the Frophets) pre£er to keep the term as a literary category.
They can point to the convenience o£ custom 2), to the undeniable
£act that most o£ the texts in this catego^f are pseudepigraphical, and
to foe correlative £act that we continue to re£er to foe Book o£ Isaiah
and The Gospel According to John even though we are all convinced
that at least a good portion o£ each o£ them is £alsely attributed
respectively to the prophet and foe apostle.
Regardless o£ the answer given to the controversy summarized in
the preceding paragraph, another more important problem looms
large. The former question concerned nomenclature, the fclJowing
entails content. Which texts belong in the pseudepigrapha? An answer
to this question involves answers and commitments on many related
questions: What are the other literary categories? Are they closed or
open for the inclusion o£ other texts? What belongs in the Old
Testament Apocrypha? Should Illrd and IVth Maccabees, Psalm 151
(in some LXX MSS, but not in foe Vulgate), and Ilnd Esfoas (only in
‫ )أ‬The contemporary cu$tom in English-speaking, Protestant circles o f dis-
tinguishing between ‘Apocrypha* and ‘Pseudepigrapha’ can be clearly traced back
to j . A. F a b r i c i u s ’ tw o volumed Codex pseudepigraphus veteris testamemi, 2nd ed.
(Hamburg, 1722-23). F a b r i c i u s did not invent the term pseudepigrapha, but
apparently inherited it from the scholars o f the Reformation.
2) A. M. D e^ is, follow ing such a line o f reasoning, advises “ d’ailleurs les
grandes collections de £٠ Kautzsch et de R. H. Charles, par exemple, ont répandu
l’usage du terme, il est préférable de le garder. Reste ‫ ف‬savoir ce qu’il recouvre
pour notre propos.” Introduction auxpseudêpigraphesgrecs d'Ancien Testament (SVTP
1; Leiden 1970), p. xi.
114 CH ARLESW ORTH, TH E SBL PSEUDEPIGRAPHA PROJECT

the appendix to the Vulgate, not in LXX) be placed in the apocrypha

or pseudepigrapha? What about the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls?
Should The Damascus Document (CD) but not Jubilees and the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs be included in this category,
even though fragments of each of these works were found in the
caves near Khirbet Qumrân, and each of them contains ideas and
expressions that are impressively parallel to those found in the
^ rm rân sectarian documents? What about works ^eudonymously
attributed to Did Testament figures but clearly quasi gnostic?
These are demanding and perplexing questions. It is certain,
however, that the definition of pseudepigrapha reflected in the popular
editions published by K a u t z s c h and C h a r l e s is both inconsistent
and inaccurate. Inconsistent because they do not agree as to which
texts should be included. I n a c c u r a te because C h a r l e s ’ inclusion of
“The Fragments of a Zadokite Work” is questionable‫ ؛‬it now
apparently belongs in another category, namely the so-called Dead Sea
Scrolls. His acceptance of Pirkë Aboth is impossible; It clearly belongs
to the rabbinic literature. Most of all, however, these two Influential
anthologies err in not being inclusive enough. For example, they do
not contain such important works as the Testament of Job, the Lives
of the Prophets, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, The ()des of Solomon,
Joseph and Asenath, Jannes and Jambres, the five apocryphal Syriac
Psalms, the Testament of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and
the Paraleipomenajeremiou.
It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the Jewish
apocryphal literature written during or shortly after the intertestamen-
tal period. One of the many desiderata in this area of study is an
organization of the work. The Pseudepigrapha Pro}ect is in the process
of solving some problems; others because of their nature must wait at
least a decade (viz. a concordance to the critical texts). We are sobered
by the responsibilities and work that lie ahead, but we are also
encouraged by the new insights, relationships, and developments that
consistently appear while working on these texts. Certainly the
authors of these apocryphal writings were intermittendy inspired by
the Creator; their scholarly thoughts sparkle with creativity even
though these are usually buried beneath a thousand years of inherited
tradition.
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.