8

Are questions about pseudepigraphic works, such as Jubilees, on topic here?

||||||
9

In the spirit of how SE communities are defined and the answers to the previous related questions, I feel pseudepigraphic/apocryphal works should be considered on topic. Experts in these texts are almost universally experts in canonical texts as well, so the expert this site aims to appeal to would include experts of pseudepigraphic/apocryphal Judeo-Christian works.

||||||
  • Here's my take on this question. – Dan Aug 12 '15 at 3:02
  • @Dan I take that to mean the pseudepigrapha is on topic? – Inkbug Aug 12 '15 at 4:42
  • That's how I take it – Dan Aug 12 '15 at 4:45
  • @ThaddeusB Your answer is somewhat the gist of what has been discussed in previous questions on this topic. What we can ALL agree on is 1)Primary Texts(both Hebrew and NT), 2)Secondary Texts(Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wis. of Solomon, Baruch, Sirach, etc.) which are canon for some traditions, but not others. These are 'mistakenly'(IMO) called pseudopigrapha.Then there is Jubilees, Enoch, and other writings rightfully called "pseudopigrapha"; they mostly were written during the 2nd century BC and although scraps were found in Qumran, they lacked they authorship and 'authority'. – Tau Sep 1 '15 at 7:19
  • @ThaddeusB (cont.) There are certainly portions of them that are "inspired"; both Jude and Peter made reference to them. But as primary sources become problematic, which is why Jerome (and future councils) excluded them. I favor Dan's answer; although he has a 'keen scalpel' in defining these texts, the point being the further down the list from primary texts you get, the less "serious" you can be about them. As a point of comparison for reference, or to support primary texts-great; but on their own merit they lack 'canonicity', which allows a wide variance of interpretation. – Tau Sep 1 '15 at 7:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .