For over two millennia, scholars have puzzled over the strange abundance of what are dubbed pseudepigraphal works—texts written under the names of patriarchs, prophets, and apostles long after their historical lifetimes. From the Book of Enoch to the Apocalypse of Peter, such writings were often dismissed as forgeries or pious frauds, imaginative attempts to borrow authority by invoking sacred names.
A Conspiracy Larger than Time
When the Catholic canon (and later, the Protestant canon) was formalized between the 4th–6th centuries CE, a large body of writings that had circulated widely among Jewish and early Christian groups was excluded — not because they were unknown or rejected originally, but because they did not fit the emerging linear theology of apostolic succession and temporal revelation.
But what if this label—pseudo—tells us more about certain assumptions of time than about the texts themselves?
These texts — 1 Enoch, Jubilees, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Apocalypse of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul and Thecla, and many others — were read, quoted, and revered in early communities. Some were even included in early canonical lists (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus includes Hermas). But by the time canonization solidified under the Catholic hierarchy, the criterion had shifted: “Apostolic authorship” had to mean literal authorship within a narrow historical window (1st century CE). Thus, any writing whose “voice” or theology exceeded that frame was reclassified as pseudepigraphal — “falsely attributed.”
But here’s perhaps the greatest slight-of-hand ever wrought upon a world desperate for eternal truth: the entire edifice of Catholic order, from the early ecumenical councils to the patristic system of authority, was fundamentally built upon a Chronos model of reality.
In the earliest strata of the Christian movement — especially among apocalyptic, Johannine, and mystical circles — time was not linear.
It was participatory, elastic, aionios. Revelation was understood as a living event, continuously unfolding and re-entering itself. The nature, tone, and direction of the syntax and tense was carefully crafted around the Greek word aionios, not chronos. What happened?
When the Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451) debated creeds and canon, they were not just defining doctrine— they were stabilizing a timeline.
-
A historical Christ was fixed at one historical moment — the Incarnation — never to be repeated.
-
Apostolic succession was defined as a linear chain from those eyewitnesses.
-
Scripture was closed to future revelation.
-
Heresy became anything that destabilized that line or introduced recursive time (Gnostic cosmologies, mystical reinterpretations, etc.).
Thus the Church became the custodian of linear time: the manager of salvation history. The early Fathers — Origen, Augustine, Irenaeus, Athanasius — are intellectual architects of Chronos-reality. They systematized revelation as:
-
A beginning (Creation),
-
A middle (Incarnation),
-
An end (Judgment).
Augustine’s Confessions and City of God mark the decisive turn: Time becomes a one-way pilgrimage of the soul and of humanity, progressing from fall to redemption — never folding back. In this schema, anything cyclical or participatory (re-embodiment, eternal recurrence, prophetic simultaneity) was condemned as pagan or heretical. By structuring revelation as a timeline, the Church could place itself as the mediator between eras:
-
The past (apostolic revelation),
-
The present (sacramental administration),
-
The future (eschatological promise).
This gave ecclesiastical authority temporal sovereignty — the ability to define what counts as “orthodox history” and who is “within it.”
To challenge that structure (as mystics, Gnostics, and pseudepigraphal authors did) was to rupture time — to suggest revelation could recur, expand, or emerge anew — a direct threat to the linear order. From an Aonic perspective, revelation is not a once-for-all event but a field of recurrence—like a standing wave whose energy continually re-enters itself.
In such a field:
-
Prophets and seers participate non-sequentially.
-
Scripture is alive, not complete.
-
Authority arises from resonance, not chronology.
Thus, the Catholic chronos structure can be understood as a temporal crystallization — a solidified form of something originally fluid and self-referential. This would be the process by which something originally fluid, dynamic, and recursive in time — in this case, revelation or sacred experience — was frozen into a fixed, linear structure.
Think of it like water turning into ice:
-
Liquid water flows, moves, folds back on itself, fills every shape — this is like Aonic time, where events, readings, and participation are recursive and atemporal.
-
Ice maintains a rigid form. It can’t flow or fold; it preserves a shape but loses flexibility. This is like Chronos time as institutionalized by the Church: one past, one present, one future; events fixed in history; authority determined by sequential order.
In other words, temporal crystallization is the Church’s act of solidifying eternity into a measurable, linear timeline, converting living, participatory, or recursive revelation into a strict “then-happened, now-is, will-happen” sequence.
The Aonic fluidity is still “there” in the text, but the Church froze it externally so that it could be administered, canonized, and controlled.
By the time of the medieval scholastics, the Chronos framework was total:
-
Theology became history of salvation (historia salutis).
-
Mysticism was tolerated only as private, post-canonical experience.
-
The Church calendar itself became the embodiment of chronological control — the liturgical domestication of eternity.
If we were to summarize all this in one sentence:
The Catholic Order transformed the Aionic revelation — a living continuum and a living book — into a Chronos architecture of a death sleep: a linear, institutionalized timeline of divine events.
The Chronos Trap
Our reading of sacred literature has long been imprisoned by chronos—the Greek conception of time as linear, sequential, and measurable. Within this paradigm, every event must have a “before” and “after,” every author a fixed lifespan, every revelation a timestamp.
Yet the Hebrew language—the deep matrix out of which both Judaism and Christianity emerged—does not think this way. Its verbs are not primarily tenses (past, present, future) but aspects—incomplete and complete actions, cycles that open and close, often without a clear beginning or end. The text unfolds in recursive participation, not in chronological narration. Sayings are linked together like links in a chain spanning eternity.
This means that when later writers “speak” in the voices of Enoch, Isaiah, or Peter, they may not be fabricating at all. They may be entering a linguistic and spiritual structure that already transcends temporal individuality. Names in these texts hold meanings that are more integral to the eternal narrative than the name itself. They would speaking in the voices of “Dedicated” “He Liberates” or “Small Stone.”
Aonic Authorship: Writing from the Möbius of Being
In what we might call the Aonic perspective—time as aion, cyclical, recursive, and self-containing—authorship is not linear but participatory. Each writer enters a living current of voice. To “write as Enoch” or “as Peter” is to inhabit that fold of revelation where identity, time, and word coincide.
Under this view, authorship becomes a loop, not a line. The “author” and the “inspired figure” are not two separate points in time but two sides of the same fold. The prophetic voice is nonlocal—it appears wherever the same pattern of consciousness reemerges.
What modern scholarship calls “pseudepigraphy,” the ancients may have understood as recursion: the re-speaking of the Word through those attuned to its frequency.
Reinterpreting the Pseudepigrapha
Take the Apocalypse of Peter, one of the earliest Christian visions of the afterlife. The text’s voice is unambiguously Petrine, yet its imagery and theology point far beyond first-century Galilee. The author speaks from within Peter’s experience but also through a collective apostolic consciousness.
Likewise, in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, each patriarch’s speech contains moral and visionary insights clearly drawn from later centuries—yet the language remains anchored in the timeless moral continuum of Genesis.
Seen through the Aonic lens, these are not “false” attributions. They are temporal echoes—each instance of the same revelatory voice re-manifesting through time’s Möbius fold.
Prophecy as Nonlocal Correlation
Modern physics offers a faint analogy. Quantum entanglement—where two particles remain correlated across space and time—suggests that causality may not always flow forward. Similarly, prophetic speech functions as a nonlocal correlation between consciousness and revelation.
In the Aonic sense, a “prophet” does not predict the future; they participate in a timeless field of knowing where all moments coexist. The pseudepigrapha, then, are not errors of attribution but manifestations of this same nonlocal field—the “prophet” reappearing across history in self-similar form.
From Forgery to Fold
Revisiting the so-called pseudepigrapha through this framework requires humility. It means admitting that our obsession with authorship and chronology might itself be a hermeneutic distortion—a symptom of the chronos mind.
If language, especially Hebrew, encodes recursive ontology (events realized through speech, narrative, and participation), then authorship itself becomes an act of recursion. To write sacredly is not to invent; it is to re-enter the fold.
Thus, instead of “pseudepigrapha,” we might speak of Aonic Authorship:
writing from within the eternal loop of meaning,
where revelation speaks itself again and again through new vessels,
and time folds back into the voice of the One.
So the real question is, do you have the ear to hear it?