- NOCQUET Dany, ROHMER Céline - Avant-propos
- AMSLER Frédéric - Pseudépigraphie et littérature apocryphe. Retour sur une pratique ancienne à la lumière de la mémoire culturelle
- ANTHONIOZ Stéphanie - Aux sources de la pseudépigraphie. Le cas de Jérémie
- NICOLET-ANDERSON Valérie - « Je me suis fait tout à tous pour en sauver sûrement quelques-uns » : la pseudépigraphie paulinienne comme incarnation de 1 Co 9,22
- DI PEDE Elena - Quelques effets narratifs de la pseudépigraphie jérémienne
- LUCIANI Didier, WÉNIN André - Votre psaume : avec ou sans David ?
- VIALLE Catherine - La pseudépigraphie dans le livre de Qohéleth. Étude de l’attribution explicite à un certain Qohéleth et implicite à Salomon
- HAMIDOVIC David - Dispute mémorielle autour du mont Sinaï dans le livre des Jubilés
- DE MARTIN DE VIVIES Pierre - La figure d’Hénoch
- ROHMER Céline - La singularité anonyme comme indice pragmatique. Remarques sur la figure du scribe devenu disciple (Mt 13,52)
- GIGNAC Alain - Les lettres catholiques comme discours articulés sur les mises en scène de Actes 15 et Galates 2. Hypothèse de travail pour comprendre la pseudépigraphie dans une perspective narratologique et canonique
- BURNET Régis - La Deuxième épître aux Thessaloniciens de Paul est-elle la même que la Deuxième aux Thessaloniciens de Pseudo-Paul ? Réflexions sur le verdict de pseudépigraphie
- BUTTICAZ Simon - Mémoire, fiction auctoriale et construction de l’autorité : l’exemple de la Deuxième lettre de Pierre
- ROUQUETTE Maïeul - Mémoire apostolique et pseudépigraphie. Une comparaison des Actes de Barnabé et des Actes de Tite
Pseudepigraphy is a complex concept that continues to provoke discussion amongst scholars as to whether or not it contains an element of deception. Maurice Halbwachs’ cultural memory approach supports the hypothesis that in first century Christianity pseudepigraphy is not an intent to deceive, but a deliberate choice made by a group whose identity became more important than the actual eyewitness testimony, because the historical memory of Jesus of Nazareth had faded with time, sustained by a doctrine that needed to be established in written form, and that was legitimated through the use of pseudonyms.
The subject of this communication is the notion of pseudepigraphy as biblical writing and not rewriting. Why did the very complex book of Jeremiah develop by integrating material we could call pseudepigraphic whereas other material was separated from the book and in time became pseudepigrapha? The book of Jeremiah is here analysed according to its different literary forms and structures with special attention to the notion of the book within the book.
Starting with Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 9:22, “I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some”, this article analyses Paul’s rhetoric in the authentic letters and also in the pseudepigraphic literature connected with Paul. I aim to show that a dialogue with Kierkegaard’s Point of View of My Work as an Author can be helpful in reflecting on the ways in which the pauline mission, as well as the mission of the pauline circles, can be understood as indirect communication rather than a purely utilitarian strategy.
In the Greek version of the LXX the book of Jeremiah consists not only of the book in his name, but also the book of Lamentations and two deuterocanonicals, the book of Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah. This is a difficult point for textual tradition and its transmission, but this trilogy following and even completing JrLXX leads to particular hermeneutics, specific to Greek tradition. In this short communication the author explores the narrative effects of the positioning of the book of Jeremiah in the LXX tradition.
Thirteen psalms are preceded by a short biography that links them not only to David, but more exactly to an event in his life. Psalm 3 is the first. The authors try and answer this simple question: does attributing the psalm to David change its comprehension and interpretation, and if so, how?
Here the author examines the way in which attributing the book of Ecclesiastes to both Kohelet and to King Solomon functions for the paratext, both in the Massoretic Text and in the Septuagint. By characterising Kohelet inside the book of Kohelet and Solomon in the Old Testament, the author studies how the identification of Kohelet to Solomon functions as a key to reading the book of Ecclesiastes and what the impact of attributing this book is on the characterisation of Solomon.
The theophany of Sinai presented at the beginning of Jubilees and recalled briefly at the end masks the fact that the revelation on Mount Sinai is outshone. Indeed, this work seems to place the Jubilees in the footsteps of the Mosaic Torah with the memory of the revelation on Mount Sinai. But between these passages, i.e. some 49 chapters, Jubilees claims a revelatory authority superior to the Mosaic Torah. Jubilees plays on the memory of Mount Sinai which it cannot discard while still belittling it to the benefit of a new history of revelation. The author suggests the pivot is no longer the Sinai revelation but the heavenly source of the revelation, the heavenly tablets, which precede it.
The character of Enoch is not just a front man useful for ensuring the authority of the authors of the Enoch literature. In the Ethiopian Book of Enoch a true character is built up with complex profile: visionary scribe, patriarch, heavenly traveller, but also someone just, able to assume a prominent place both on earth and in the world above
The RRENAB Symposium on pseudepigraphy had several workshops. This article stems from one on the figure of the scribe who became a disciple, as described in Matt 13.52. Historico-critical research has often considered this final mashal as a hermeneutical principle of the matthean redactor. Some exegetes even detected autobiographical traits. It is not strictly a pseudepigraphical phenomenon but also a narrative trickery playing with an anonymous figure and its recipient. The author suggests rereading from a pragmatic point of view this scribe’s characteristics to identify the instructions for interpretation left in the text for the reader.
The author looks at the pseudepigraphy of the so called “Catholic Epistles” (CE) from a synchronic and literary angle, reformulating Robert Wall’s insight into a canonical structuration of NT letters: these epistolary discourses would echo the mise en scène of Acts 15 and Gal 2, establishing a dialogue between the characters Peter, James, John and Paul. In other words, the CE would be an answer to the Pauline Epistles (PE). The hypothesis is built on some understanding of narratology, pseudepigraphy, canon, and collection as described, and opens new ways to look at the relationship between the two letters corpus of the NT and eventually renew NT theology. In conclusion, some methodological reflection is proposed for the analysis of the triangular relationship, Acts/PE/CE.
Do the interpreters of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians read the same letter if they think Paul wrote it or not? Probably not. The author shows here how two interpretations are possible. As in Borges’ famous novel: the two texts differ even though they are “verbally identical”. This makes the interpreter very attentive to the centrality of the authorial instance in the interpretation process.
Memory is regularly mobilised in the pseudepigrapha of the New Testament, as Jean-Daniel Kaestli emphasised in a now classic study (1993). Since then, however, biblical scholars have perceived the heuristic nature of the works conducted in human and social sciences on the collective memory and have gradually applied these theories and methods to the study of the origins of Christianity. This is what we propose to develop in this article. Precisely: in the light of the second letter of Peter, we want to show not only how an apostolic memory is constructed through discourse in the first half of the 2nd century, but also its argumentative function in a troubled context of communication and its relations with other competing memories of the origins.
The Acts of Barnabas and the Acts of Titus are two almost contemporary witnesses to one and the same process: the construction of a memory of the origins of a Church founded on an apostolic figure or one with apostolic traits. And both these texts use pseudepigraphy. Does this indicate that all other literary processes used in both texts are identical? The author shows that this is not the case and explains the irrelevance of the pseudepigraphical parameter in the analysis.