Pseudepigrapha

A pseudepigraph is a falsely attributed work, a text whose claimed author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past. The name of the author to whom the work is falsely attributed is often prefixed with the particle "pseudo-", such as "pseudo-Aristotle" or "pseudo-Dionysius." These terms refer to the anonymous authors of works falsely attributed to Aristotle and Dionysius the Areopagite, respectively.
In biblical studies, the term pseudepigrapha can refer to an assorted collection of Jewish religious works thought to be written 300 BCE to 300 CE. They are distinguished by Protestants from the deuterocanonical books or Apocrypha, the books that appear in extant copies of the Septuagint in the fourth century or later and the Vulgate, but not in the Hebrew Bible or in Protestant Bibles. In Catholic usage, the Old Testament books accepted by the Catholic Church are referred to as the deuterocanonical books, and Catholic writers commonly reserve the word apocrypha for spurious or noncanonical writings rather than for the deuterocanon. In addition, two books considered canonical in the Orthodox Tewahedo churches, the Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, are noncanonical in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons and are classified by most scholars among the Old Testament pseudepigrapha.
Scholars also apply the term to some canonical works that claim authorship but whose authorship is doubted. For example, the Book of Daniel is widely considered to have been written in the 2nd century BCE, about 400 years after the prophet Daniel supposedly lived, and thus to be pseudepigraphic in that sense. A New Testament example often discussed is 2 Peter, which many scholars date to the early 2nd century. Early Christians, such as Origen, voiced doubts about its authorship.
The term has also been used by Quranist Muslims to describe hadiths. Quranists argue that most hadiths are later fabrications from the 8th and 9th centuries that were falsely attributed to Muhammad.

Etymology

The word pseudepigraph comes from pseudḗs "false" and ἐπιγραφή epigraphḗ "name", "inscription", or "ascription." When taken together it means "false superscription or title." See the related field epigraphy. The plural of "pseudepigraph" is "pseudepigrapha."

Naming

When a text is shown to have been falsely attributed to a particular author, and the true identity of the author is not known, the author can be referred to by a combination of pseudo- and the traditional author's name. For example, the Armenian History has been falsely attributed to a seventh century Armenian historian named Sebeos. It is therefore called Pseudo-Sebeos.

Levels of authenticity

Scholars have identified seven levels of authenticity in a hierarchy that ranges from literal authorship to outright forgery.

Literal authorship. A church leader writes a letter in his own hand.
Dictation. A church leader dictates a letter almost word for word to an amanuensis.
Delegated authorship. A church leader describes the basic content of an intended letter to a disciple or to an amanuensis.
Posthumous authorship. A church leader dies, and his disciples finish a letter that he had intended to write, then send it in his name.
Apprentice authorship. A church leader dies, and disciples who had been authorized to speak for him while he was alive continue to do so by writing letters in his name years or decades after his death.
Honorable pseudepigraphy. A church leader dies, and admirers seek to honor him by writing letters in his name as a tribute to his influence and in the sincere belief that they are responsible bearers of his tradition.
Forgery. A church leader obtains sufficient prominence that, either before or after his death, people seek to exploit his legacy by forging letters in his name and presenting him as a supporter of their own ideas.
Classical and biblical studies

Old Testament and intertestamental studies

In biblical studies, pseudepigrapha refers particularly to works that purport to be written by noted authorities in the Old or New Testaments or by persons involved in Jewish or Christian religious study or history. Such works can also be written about biblical matters in a way that appears as authoritative as texts included in the Judeo Christian scriptures. Eusebius indicates this usage dates back at least to Serapion of Antioch. Eusebius records of Serapion: "But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name, we as experienced persons reject."
Many such works were also called Apocrypha, which originally connoted "private" or "non public", that is, not endorsed for public reading in the liturgy. An example of a text that is both apocryphal and pseudepigraphical is the Odes of Solomon. It is considered pseudepigraphical because it was not written by Solomon. It is a collection of early Christian, first to second century, hymns and poems originally written not in Hebrew, and apocryphal because it was not accepted into the Tanakh or the New Testament.
There is a tendency not to use the word pseudepigrapha for works later than about 300 CE when referring to biblical matters. But late appearing compositions such as the Gospel of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, the herbal attributed to Pseudo-Apuleius, and the writings attributed to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite are classic cases of pseudepigraphy. In the fifth century the moralist Salvian published Contra avaritiam under the name Timothy. A letter survives in which he explained to his former pupil, Bishop Salonius, his motives for doing so.
The term pseudepigrapha is also commonly used to describe numerous works of Jewish religious literature written from about 300 BCE to 300 CE, including:

Many canonical books have been reevaluated by modern scholars, especially since the 19th century, as likely cases of pseudepigraphy. The Book of Daniel directly claims to be written by the prophet Daniel. Yet there are strong reasons to date its final composition centuries after Daniel's lifetime, including the absence of references to it before the 2nd century BCE and its pattern of accurate "predictions" up to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes that function as retrospective prophecy.

New Testament studies

Christian scholars traditionally maintained that nothing known to be pseudepigraphical was admitted to the New Testament canon.
The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the titling of the four Gospels as ancient, but not necessarily original to the authors themselves, and notes that the four Gospels were originally issued without author names and only later associated "according to" particular compilers, stating:

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles, which however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred texts. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenaeus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement, and St. Irenaeus employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies, whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy... become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was 'according to' this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications." It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.

Agnostic biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman argues that only seven of the Pauline epistles are convincingly genuine and that most of the remaining New Testament writings were written by unknown authors and not the well known figures to whom they were later ascribed. The earliest and best manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are anonymous. Acts, Hebrews, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John are also anonymous.
Dale Martin taught that the four canonical gospels are anonymous rather than pseudonymous because the texts themselves do not claim authorship. The names were supplied later by the tradition.