Talk:Modern pseudepigrapha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposed Template

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

NOTE:

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) )

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)