Talk:Pseudepigrapha

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. --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 and development of early Christianity." 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). Iapetus (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How we talk about pseudepigrapha/forgeries

I noticed that 73.111.34.123 (talk · contribs) 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 Hippolytus of Rome, Acts of Paul and Thecla, 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, so I have used the term on Wikipedia, eg. at Gravi de pugna. What do others think about 73.111.34.123's edits? Is there scholarship which disagrees with Ehrman on this point? Should I avoid saying "forged"? @73.111.34.123: thoughts? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

References

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. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pseudepigrapha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Ḥadīth

I removed the section “Islamic Ḥadīth” for two reasons.

1. – it is not certain that they are pseudepigrapha – as mentioned in the section, there is disagreement on this issue
2. – 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 {{main|Hadith}} 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, 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. 2600:1009:B12B:B831:0:1F:58A5:CF01 (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

डा

बाईबल मूसाकी पुस्तकें 2409:40C1:5031:4CD1:1C46:366B:6F84:7018 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)