Talk:Pseudepigrapha/Archive 1

Definition and lead
There is no end of confusion in this entry. For a start, wouldn't the following make a more accurate opening paragraph? (please edit this draft):
 * Pseudepigrapha (Greek, "falsely inscribed") denotes a text or texts whose authorship, as claimed in or on the texts themselves, is false. Pseudepigraphy is the insertion of a false name of an author to works. James H. Charlesworth in his Anchor Bible Dictionary article on pseudepigraphy defines it as "the incorrect (i.e. false) attribution of authorship to famous persons." The spurious authority may not be famous: the authority of a modest eye-witness or a companion of a famous personnage are among the ''personas who may be created. Charlesworth adds "specialists ... employ it to describe a large number of noncanonical texts that were improperly attributed, either originally or subsequently, to a person mentioned in the Bible or to an author of one of the biblical books."


 * These are the basic and original meanings of the terms. The truth or value of the work itself is not an issue in pseudepigraphy: the text is not impugned, merely its authorship. Incorrect or even knowingly false ascriptions of authorship may be applied to texts without making them pseudepigraphical, unless the false attribution is inserted into the texts themselves. Thus, as Charlesworth points out, the Gospel of Matthew is technically pseudepigraphical.

--Wetman 09:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC); revised 03:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) and Wetman 19:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC).


 * I think this definition is too strict. James H. Charlesworth in his Anchor Bible Dictionary article on it defines it as "the incorrect (i.e. false) attribution of authorship to famous persons."  He also says "specialists ... employ it to describe a large number of noncanonical texts that were improperly attributed, either originally or subsequently, to a person mentioned in the Bible or to an author of one of the biblical books."  He thinks that the gospel of Matthew is "technically pseudepigraphical" -- and this work does not have any attribution of authorship into its text; that attribution is made editorially in the title (paratext).  Charlesworth goes on to catalog seven different literary categories of pseudepigraphy.  --scc 04:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me briefly list the different categories: (1) ghostwriting; (2) students writing texts they credit to their teachers (e.g. out of modesty); (3) appendixes to earlier works without clear change in attribution (Long Ending of Mark), [interpolations go here too I suppose]; (4) romances (historical novels) about a famous person, often told in the first person; (5) works vividly inspired by an OT figure (e.g. what Enoch told me in a dream); (6) anonymous works later attributed to someone else (e.g. "Paul"'s epistle to the Hebrews); and (7) forgery. These categories are not exclusive.  scc 04:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * James Charlesworth was correct in his definition&mdash; until he added "to famous persons", where he overstepped himself. The authority may be the authority of a modest eye-witness, a companion of a famous personnage. User:Stephen C. Carlson's types of pseudepigraphy are thought-provoking. No one usually thinks of interpolations in this context, but of course they are technically pseudepigraphy. The mis-ascribed author of a pseudepigraphical work lends spurious authority to a text that may not be spurious itself. The text is not impugned.


 * The re-revised opening text stands above, for additional suggestions. --Wetman 19:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I had been expecting to see the canonical gospels listed as part of pseudepigrapha and wound my way to this thread of discussion. The List of gospels page includes Pseudepigrapha as part of its related references. If the phrase 'famous persons' is disputed, I suggest that attribution of anonymous works to those who are widely known or presumed to have existed (their historicity is truly unimportant) qualifies, and that 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke', and 'John' should be treated as 'famous persons' for the purposes of explaining these gospels as themselves pseudepigrapha. Surely those reading this discussion understand that scholarship is broad which supports the anonymous character of these scriptures and the fact that attribution is without foundation.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

List
Is there a comprehensive list page for Pseudopigrapha? A partial list appears on the Biblical Apocrypha page. I don't think it would too unreasonable to make one, some of the boundaries are fuzzy (how do you treat later texts; are dubious texts not treated as canonical by anybody, forgeries, and pseudophigrapha all the same, etc.) but it is finite. Avraham 06:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A list with fuzzy edges is less than prefectly useful to the Wikipedia reader, though it does create a project for Wikipedia editors who find little to do. Such a list will be self-referential, one assumes from hints in the above suggestion, based on definitions arrived at by list-makers, who will argue over what not to include. Lists have the advantage of stripping nuance from the creation of pseudepigraphical texts, turning them into bulletable items without confusing historical context, which are then easily arbitrarily alphabetised. --Wetman 07:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the main title...
"Pseudepigraph" and not "Pseudepigrapha"? The former word doesn't even appear in the article. The generic term is "pseudepigrapha". I don't know how to change main titles, so if someone could do so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.43.40 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question, but the term "pseudepigraph" does appear to be used about as often as "pseudepigraphon" and far more often that the Latinized "pseudepigraphum". I don't know why the plural "pseudepigrapha" (most common of all) would be used with the Anglicized form of the word without either the Greek or Latinized ending, but this appears to be correct, though pseudographs also appears (about as often as pseudograph itself). Based on cursory searches of Google Books to which the external links above should lead. Perhaps this should be clarified in the intro? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-editing in opening section

 * "...text works that are considered to have a wrongly attributed authorship." "Text works" is a tautology: they need to be treated as synonyms. "Considered to have" never ever makes a blundering statement right: if the texts are not "wrongly attributed", then they are not pseudepigraphical, gnome sane? "A wrongly attributed authorship" is an inflation of "wrongly attributed". See how clarity of thought can be blurred by imprecise language. And pseudepigrapha is a category that is widely misapplied.--Wetman 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this article include non-Biblical pseudopigraphy? The only example I can think of is Pseudo-Geber, but there could be others. PatGallacher 15:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object to completely removing the third paragraph? It adds little to the article. MattMauler —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC).


 * I would support deleting it, but not on the basis that is adds little to the article but because a good chunk of it is unsourced. If properly sourced, a paragraph documenting the different theological/historical views would be useful, because some percentage of visitors will be doing research about whether their favorite holy book is pseudopigraphy. Without proper sources supporting both alleged opinions? Useless. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct. I should have said "adds little because it is mostly unsourced" (having no source at all or listing a personal blog as a source).  A paragraph on the topic would be useful, but it would require more detail than we see here.  It could be rewritten later. --MattMauler (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to future readers: Paragraph deleted. If you are searching the article history to see what was removed, look here. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

a quickly put together and somewhat biased page
I was looking along these lines in google today and this wiki page was about the third or fourth page along my google inquiry lines, as i read it it reiterated the previous four google search results and seems to be a quickly put together cut and paste of then without any real contribution of thought or personal explanation,. . perhaps it is just a beginning forethought with the understanding of the need for future contribution,. it also seems a little biased due to those limited web pages in the direction of modern Christian Biblical supremacy,. . such as the words, lying, dubious, and the lack of any mention of the current Pseuepigraphical books in the modern Bible, Daniel, Gospel of Matthew, etc. .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentluvsmary2 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking of 'bias', it's a little biased of you to call those works 'Pseuepigraphical' [sic] isn't it? Especially when a very common viewpoint is that they are 'canonical'. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

New Testament studies
I have changed 'pseudographical' to 'pseudepigraphical' in this section, working on the assumption that pseudographical is an error (it has a different meaning). It occurs four times, along with pseudepigraphical, but appears nowhere else in the article. I also amended a hanging sentence. Romit3 (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)