Are questions about pseudepigraphic works, such as Jubilees, on topic here?
5
-
1related: What about Gnostic texts?– Jack DouglasCommented Aug 11, 2015 at 8:49
-
2Also related: What texts are open for examination?– Susan ModCommented Aug 11, 2015 at 10:22
-
1And there is one "Jubilees" question on Main (but no related tag): "What kind of reception did Jubilees have in first century Judaism?"– DɑvïdCommented Aug 11, 2015 at 11:32
-
@Davïd it seems that the question you referenced refers to Jubilees in the context of a passage from Acts.– InkbugCommented Aug 11, 2015 at 12:42
-
@Inkbug - True, but the question is still explicitly about Jubilees, and the Acts 7 comment adds some background, but has no role in or bearning on the answer (and thus is merely "window dressing" for the question).– DɑvïdCommented Aug 11, 2015 at 13:15
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
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.
-
-
-
-
@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'.– TauCommented Sep 1, 2015 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.– TauCommented Sep 1, 2015 at 7:36