Talk:Modern pseudepigrapha

Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses as "Modern pseudepigrapha" is NPOV-vio

The articles for Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses have been edited a few times to put them in the Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, and the article Modern pseudepigrapha has been edited to include them (with the all-too-appropriate edit note, "removing NPOV", rather than "removing NPOV violation"). These edits are equivalent to a factual determination that the books were originally written in modern times, which is the equivalent of making the assertion that a church that accepts it is false - or, the equivalent of starting the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the assertion, "This is a false church". Neither statement would conform to a NPOV. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Modern pseudepigrapha article does not say the 14 or so works listed ARE pseudepigrapha. It says:

"The following is a list of works commonly alleged to be modern pseudepigrapha. Groups supporting the authenticity of these works would not agree with this classification."

In effect, the article casts suspicion on works without proving anything about them. Is the approach taken in this article acceptable in Wikipedia?

If the approach is acceptable, then the closely related and tricky question is how much alleging is required before it is considered "common"? This raises the spectre of internet polls "click here if you think ______ is authentic, and here if you allege that it is modern pseudepigrapha." This could be a very large can of worms.

These are not just academic questions. As noted above by Reaverdrop, some people assert that the important works he mentions are pseudepigrapha. Wanderer57 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

- - -

These three works Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses are being moved rapidly in and out of this article. As a matter of courtesy and to reduce confusion, I suggest the article be left with these three works NOT included, long enough to allow discussion of the issues I just raised. Wanderer57 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Template

I have created a template for category:Modern pseudepigrapha, Template:Modern pseudepigrapha,

Modern pseudepigrapha or modern apocrypha are terms sometimes used to refer to any book written in the style of the books of the Bible, and claiming to be of similar age (pseudepigrapha), but written in a much later (modern) period. They differ from apocrypha, books from that period but not accepted into the Biblical canon.

Articles in this category are commonly alleged to be modern pseudepigrapha. Groups supporting the authenticity of these works would not agree with this classification.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.65.22 (talk • contribs)

Regarding the new template, see Talk:Book_of_Mormon#.22Modern_pseudepigrapha.22_is_NPOV-vio. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(This template and the reply were moved to a new section to reduce confusion of having it in middle of previous section. Wanderer57 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC) )

How about renaming/moving to Modern apocrypha

Like the title says. I propose moving, because it seems like the main source for this is Goodspeed, and he uses that term more (plus it gets 4 times as many google hits). Also, I had concerns at the AfD about the accuracy of calling all of these pseudepigrapha. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Before deciding about moving, can we get "definitive definitions" (is that an oxymoron?) of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha? I'm still unclear if they are synonyms or not. It would be a shame to rethink this based on faulty terminology.

Pseudepigrapha, in some definitions at least, is associated specifically with the period of 400 years starting in 200 B.C. Wanderer57 22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Include Book of Mormon??

I agree with Mormon being in there. It is too blatant not to be and is regularly alleged to be a modern forgery. But then I personally would include the Quran too. Mike0001 12:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike: Until the meaning of modern pseudepigrapha becomes clearer, including the Book of Mormon in this list is a) further complicating the discussion and b) stirring up useless controversy. The Book of Mormon article talk page can be used to raise this question. Wanderer57 17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

untitled

Why is the Archo Volume on this page, it hasn't been determined the this is Modern pseudepigrapha.

A house built on sand?

Quoting from the article Pseudepigraph:

Pseudepigrapha are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded; a work, simply, "whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past."

This definition is self-contradictory IMO. The first part is "falsely attributed".

The second adds the further condition of (falsely) attributed to a figure from the past.

But it is worded so as to imply that they mean the same thing.

If this article "Modern pseudepigrapha" is to derive its meaning from another article that other article should make better sense. IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

PS In the midst of this confusing sentence the word "simply" simply does not apply. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lost Books of the Bible and Nazarene Gospel

According to Metzger & Coogan 1993, the "Lost Books of the Bible" and the "Nazarene Gospel" should be considered modern apocrypha. In neither case I'm sure which document they mean. Evidently, the latter appears to refer to the so-called Gospel of the Nazarenes, which is however attested by Jerome and in medieval sources, and therefore is not of modern origin. Similarly, the former appears to refer to The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, "a collection of 17th-century and 18th-century English translations of some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and New Testament Apocrypha, some of which were assembled in the 1820s, and then republished with the current title in 1926." Looking at the list of contents, each of these appear to be ancient or early medieval apocrypha. It's a mystery to me why Metzger & Coogan classified them as "modern", because these were all known to be ancient or early medieval in 1993. I think they made a mistake. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Split this page

This page contains various different things. Papyrus forgeries are not the same kind of thing as modern apocrypha. It ought to be Modern Apocrypha, and the other material hived off to something else. 2A00:23C6:320B:2D01:A4B0:D281:344B:A554 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)