The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?

Abstract

The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? by James R. Davila. JSJSup 105. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Pp. vi + 278. $142.00 (hardcover). ISBN 9004137521. This innovative work by James Davila focuses on the tricky problem of the religious origins of Old Testament It provides scholars and students of pseudepigraphic literature not only with new, well-thought-out methodology in order to approach these texts but also important case studies. However, the interest of this book exceeds the scope of the pseudepigraphic corpus. Indeed, it offers important insight into the difficult (and occasionally painful) question of how to categorize late antique religious forms of identity and community. The issue of the provenance has been addressed in the past, example by Marinus De Jonge and Robert Kraft. Elaborating on his predecessors' works, Davila questions two widespread assumptions: (1) that lack of explicitly (e.g., references to Christ) in an OT pseudepigraphon indicates that it is Jewish; and (2) that that can be removed from an OT pseudepigraphon without damage to the sense should lead us to consider them interpolations in work. According to Davila, who follows Kraft's line of argument, the study of the origin of these pseudepigraphic works should begin with the earliest physical evidence these works, namely, the earliest manuscripts and quotations (as Davila rightfully adds). Elaborating on these insights, in the first part of the book Davila offers carefully thought out methodology aiming to identify the possible religious origins of OT pseudepigrapha. This methodology is largely based on the recognition of the presence of what he labels features as well as rejection of the lack of such signature as relevant criterion of identification. In the second part, he implements this methodology to examine number of these pseudepigrapha. Some readers will perhaps be tempted to understand Davila's book as an attempt to identify as certain amount of pseudepigrapha that are usually considered Jewish. Indeed, according to Davila, pseudepigraphon should be studied primarily in the light of the earliest context in which it is found, and since the earliest evidence in most cases is found in manuscripts, several of these pseudepigrapha, according to Davila, prove to be Christian. As he points out in footnote, his working hypothesis may appear to conceal a form of hegemony and [a] expropriation of traditions (6 n. 10, quoting Ross Kraemer's When Aseneth Met Joseph [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998]). Yet Davila's intellectual rigor should allay anyone's suspicions of hidden agenda. First of all, he does not suggest taking the earliest evidence these pseudepigrapha as proof of their origins but rather as the starting point from which to work backwards. second, by laving out new methodology in order to identify the religious origins of pseudepigraphon, he in fact contributes to healthy reassessment of our textual evidence early Judaism-a central assumption behind his work is that for the purpose of reconstructing ancient false negative is less harmful than false positive (7). Needless to say, the use of categories such as Jewish and Christian in late antique context poses many problems that are addressed in ch. 1. This chapter is probably the most important one from methodological point of view. It consists of discussion of the different religious categories of late antiquity that should be of interest not only to the students of pseudepigraphic literature but also to historians of religion. The questions raised in this chapter focus on number of issues: What kind of reality do Judaism and Christianity cover during this period, given the multiplicity in their forms? …