Talk:Testament of Solomon

message: The purpose of talking on this page and adding other contributions to this topic on Wikipedia is in order to expand discussion and research about the Testament of Solomon. Prior to its most recent additions, there was little information in regards to the Testament and its important relationship with Western religion and magic. Though I did not add much more I hope it is enough to extend further scholarly research about this topic. .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBader805 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Along with the negative presentation she is given in the Bible, the Testament of Solomon presents the Queen of Sheba as a witch, indicating that the author had an awareness of Jewish tradition, which had argued the same.
Where is the Queen of Sheba given a negative presentation in the Bible? Edgar (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative presentation of the Queen of Sheba? 

message: The first sentence reads "The Testament of Solomon is a Old Testament pseudepigraphical work ascribed to King Solomon." in addition to the grammatical use of "an" before the word 'Old", I believe this is an incorrect statement. There is an Old Testament book called "Song Of Solomon" or "Song of Songs", but this book is not part of any Bible canon that I am aware of. Also, in the 'Dating and Authorship' section, it is written that " its original publication dates sometime between the 1st and 5th centuries". I do not believe any of the Old Testament books are this new. Can we re-word the sentence, and maybe use the word Apocryphal? Wcichello (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to but found that James H. Charlesworth includes it in his book The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: v. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments.[ So if he does, I guess we should. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And pseudepigrapha are almost never accepted as part of a canon (the Book of Enoch's inclusion in the Ethiopian canon is a rare exception that is excusable on the grounds of historical interest given that it's probably quoted in Jude).  Since it was claimed to be by Solomon and the one possible Christian element was probably a later interpolation anyway, the author intended for it to pass off as a "lost" book of the Old Testament.  All of this information is easily sourcable, but I just woke up.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Charlesworth is not a source in the article, nor is his claim even remotely correct (the Old Testament itself is cited as a source for another part of the article, so if we can use it as the source, I think the fact that it does NOT contain The Testament of Solomon is kind of definitive). This misinformation really needs to go. Removing it now. Merennulli (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Old Testament pseudepigrapha" does not mean "pseudepigrapha that is in the canonical Old Testament," it means "pseudepigrapha that presents itself as part of the Old Testament." Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Using those three words in that order does grammatically mean "pseudepigrapha that is in the canonical Old Testament." If you want to phrase it differently to mean "pseudepigrapha that presents itself as part of the Old Testament" please do so instead of simply reverting the change. I've looked through the other books referenced from pseudepigrapha, and the wording in my edit is consistent with how others are worded, whereas what you reverted to is not. See 2 Baruch for an example of how another article addresses this distinction clearly without the incorrect and misleading phrasing I removed in my now-reverted edit. Merennulli (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Testament?