View source for Talk:Pseudepigrapha

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religious texts|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Archives}}

== Reputable NT scholar? ==

In the "New Testament studies" section, the text says:

"However, reputable biblical scholars, such as Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, have demonstrated that only seven of Paul's epistles are convincingly genuine."

Now, above all, Bart Ehrman has a reputation to be a fierce atheist. This may disqualify him as authority for some people, even though there are many NT scholars that question the authenticity of some of the "Pauline" letters. I suggest the word "reputable" be removed or the reference to Ehrman be replaced with  reference to another, less controversial, scholar. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:16B8:6698:6800:24FB:557:8F7F:1CA3|2001:16B8:6698:6800:24FB:557:8F7F:1CA3]] ([[User talk:2001:16B8:6698:6800:24FB:557:8F7F:1CA3|talk]]) 18:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not. [[Bart D. Ehrman]] is an expert on "[[textual criticism]] of the [[New Testament]], the [[historical Jesus]], the [[Origins of Christianity|origins]] and [[History of early Christianity|development of early Christianity]]." [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 19:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

== pseudo-Author or Pseudo-Author? ==

The article is inconsistent in the capitalization of the pseudo- prefix on the names of the alleged authors.  Is there a standard form to use?  (Personally, I would prefer non-capitalised, to make it clear that it is a descriptor rather than part of the name, although I have seen Pseudo-Author (or even Pseudoauthor) used in textbooks). [[User:Wardog|Iapetus]] ([[User talk:Wardog|talk]]) 10:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

== How we talk about pseudepigrapha/forgeries ==

I noticed that {{user|73.111.34.123}} has been changing descriptions of some works of New Testament Apocrypha from being referred to as "forgery" and "spurious" to more straightforward descriptions of who wrote it. See the changes at [[Special:Diff/789784739|Hippolytus of Rome]], [[Special:Diff/791375075|Acts of Paul and Thecla]], [[Special:Diff/793824801|Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul]]. [[Bart Ehrman]] wrote a book arguing that ''forged'' is a more appropriate term than the nonjudgmental but descriptive ''pseudepigrapha'', and that forgery was no more acceptable in ancient times than it is today,<ref>{{cite book | last=Ehrman | first=Bart D. | title=Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are | publisher=HarperCollins | year=2011 | isbn=978-0-06-207863-6 | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=hFNBDTS5HY0C}}</ref> so I have used the term on Wikipedia, eg. at [[Gravi de pugna]]. What do others think about {{u|73.111.34.123}}'s edits? Is there scholarship which disagrees with Ehrman on this point? Should I avoid saying "forged"? {{ping|73.111.34.123}} thoughts? [[User:Sondra.kinsey|Sondra.kinsey]] ([[User talk:Sondra.kinsey|talk]]) 13:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

:Robinson Crusoe was not written by Robinson Crusoe, as he didn't exist. The work, however, is not a forgery, it is simply fiction. I dislike this word pseudoepigram. It seems made up by one person, who is flogging it. I've been changing this to explain- like saying "the Apocalypse of Paul was written hundreds of years after his death by an unknown author". [[User:Billyshiverstick|Billyshiverstick]] ([[User talk:Billyshiverstick|talk]]) 04:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)   @[[User:Sondra.kinsey|Sondra.kinsey]]

::That's a slam dunk: it was written by Daniel Defoe. The cover of the book does not pretend otherwise. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  13:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

== pseudepigrapha = apocrypha  ==
A statement is made in the current vesion that some protestant scholars use pseudepigrapha to mean any apocrypha/deuterocanonical work.  I woud like to remove these entirey as, 1) there is no citation or evidence provided and, 2) it muddies the definition (if a small number of people mis-use a term, against its obvious meaning, why should that be mentioned?) I will clean up the lead as a start. [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]]) 09:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'm agreeing with you, and will add to this effort. Apochrypha are one thing. So-called pseudoepigrams are another. Sometimes they can refer to the same thing, but different aspects of it. I'm finding this pseudoepigram word sketchy. Why not just say: "Although the piece was written as if it were a memoir, the subject had been dead for X years before the piece was written". I get not using the word "forgery". It is more fiction, to me. Lots of books use the literature device of seeming as a memoir. Robinson Crusoe is not a forgery, lol. cheers [[User:Billyshiverstick|Billyshiverstick]] ([[User talk:Billyshiverstick|talk]]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Pseudepigrapha]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814931868|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040414143530/http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/odes.htm to http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/odes.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110191417/http://ocp.stfx.ca/ to http://ocp.stfx.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 19:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

== Islamic Ḥadīth ==

I removed the section “Islamic Ḥadīth” for two reasons.
# – it is not certain that they are pseudepigrapha – as mentioned in the section, there is disagreement on this issue
# – the section is too long and explanatory for a general article on pseudepigrapha – if it is reinstated it should be shortened to a paragraph with a <nowiki>{{main|Hadith}}</nowiki> hatnote

If other editors agree that this is a significant addition to the article I am fine with it being reinstated in a shortened form – thanks, [[User:Epinoia|Epinoia]] ([[User talk:Epinoia|talk]]) 19:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

== The Islaamic Hadith.  ==

I believe the Islaamic Hadith does not have a category like this. Because from what I am understanding is that the author is falsely named. 

The worst rating in Hadith is "fabricated". And it has little to do with who wrote it down for every hadith in its lengthy version has a whole line of succession back to its original companion who taught it. 

What they are concerned with is the accuracy of the Hadith to its original saying. But also considers if the chain of people are broken and also the character of the person sharing the knowledge. 

Imaam Bukhari and Imaam Muslim who wrote the most accepted collections both explain how this works. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1009:B12B:B831:0:1F:58A5:CF01|2600:1009:B12B:B831:0:1F:58A5:CF01]] ([[User talk:2600:1009:B12B:B831:0:1F:58A5:CF01|talk]]) 11:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)