Sorry, but this got sent directly to Soren rather than to the list.
Soren, The Pseudepigrapha weren't discovered as a unit and only get identified as such with publications like R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. There have been changes in evaluation of different Pseudepigrapha, but you probably need to look for treatments of individual books or parts of books. For example, for a discussion of the changes in the treatment over the years of the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) take a look at Burkett, The Son of Man Debate. For a discussion of the Pseudepigrapha in Christianity and a methodological discussion of appropriate ways to deal with their preservation in Christianity, look for Robert Kraft, The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity, in Reeves, Tracing the Threads (other essays in this collection might be of interest to you also). David Suter Saint Martin's College -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of S�ren Holst Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 7:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Megillot] reception history of Pseudepigrapha? Hope this is not TOO far off-topic: The thought occurred to me: Qumran finds have aroused considerable interest and even speculation among non-specialists. The same happened with cuneiform finds a goodish half-century earlier (Bibel-Babel controversy and all that). But how about the pseudepigrapha? Many (all?) of these were unknown to western scholarship, and certainly to the public, until some time in the 19th century. What was the reaction to their eventual publication? Has anything been written on their "reception history" in modern culture and scholarship? shavua tov Soren, Copenhagen _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot _______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
