Talk:Pseudepigrapha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.

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— 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)