Talk:Pseudepigrapha

message: In the "New Testament studies" section, the text says:
"However, reputable biblical scholars, such as Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, have demonstrated that only seven of Paul's epistles are convincingly genuine."
Now, above all, Bart Ehrman has a reputation to be a fierce atheist. This may disqualify him as authority for some people, even though there are many NT scholars that question the authenticity of some of the "Pauline" letters. I suggest the word "reputable" be removed or the reference to Ehrman be replaced with  reference to another, less controversial, scholar. --2001:16B8:6698:6800:24FB:557:8F7F:1CA3 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputable NT scholar? 

message: The article is inconsistent in the capitalization of the pseudo- prefix on the names of the alleged authors.  Is there a standard form to use?  (Personally, I would prefer non-capitalised, to make it clear that it is a descriptor rather than part of the name, although I have seen Pseudo-Author (or even Pseudoauthor) used in textbooks). Iapetus (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pseudo-Author or Pseudo-Author? 

message: I noticed that  has been changing descriptions of some works of New Testament Apocrypha from being referred to as "forgery" and "spurious" to more straightforward descriptions of who wrote it. See the changes at Hippolytus of Rome, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. Bart Ehrman wrote a book arguing that forged is a more appropriate term than the nonjudgmental but descriptive pseudepigrapha, and that forgery was no more acceptable in ancient times than it is today, so I have used the term on Wikipedia, eg. at Gravi de pugna. What do others think about 's edits? Is there scholarship which disagrees with Ehrman on this point? Should I avoid saying "forged"?  thoughts? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How we talk about pseudepigrapha/forgeries 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pseudepigrapha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040414143530/http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/odes.htm to http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/odes.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110191417/http://ocp.stfx.ca/ to http://ocp.stfx.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the section “Islamic Ḥadīth” for two reasons.
# – it is not certain that they are pseudepigrapha – as mentioned in the section, there is disagreement on this issue
# – the section is too long and explanatory for a general article on pseudepigrapha – if it is reinstated it should be shortened to a paragraph with a  hatnote
If other editors agree that this is a significant addition to the article I am fine with it being reinstated in a shortened form – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Ḥadīth 

message: I believe the Islaamic Hadith does not have a category like this. Because from what I am understanding is that the author is falsely named. 
The worst rating in Hadith is "fabricated". And it has little to do with who wrote it down for every hadith in its lengthy version has a whole line of succession back to its original companion who taught it. 
What they are concerned with is the accuracy of the Hadith to its original saying. But also considers if the chain of people are broken and also the character of the person sharing the knowledge. 
Imaam Bukhari and Imaam Muslim who wrote the most accepted collections both explain how this works. 2600:1009:B12B:B831:0:1F:58A5:CF01 (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Islaamic Hadith.