Here are a couple of sources that discuss the classification of certain "Pauline" epistles as pseudepigrapha:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Testament
https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/1505751/TOC
Here are a couple of sources that discuss the classification of certain "Pauline" epistles as pseudepigrapha:
As terminology regarding classifying books in the Hebrew and Christian scripture it is true its use is to define books not in the Hebrew or most Christian canons whose authorship is attributed to important scriptural figures. It's useful in that context for categorizing these texts separately compared to other categories such as canonical and apocryphal texts as those accepted as canonical in the case of the former, and those not accepted as canonical but included as having scriptural value in the case of the latter. In this usage the purpose of the term is to keep one class of texts separate from canonical texts. It's not the only use of the term and it's not how the OP is using the term as we are discussing a text included in Mormon canon.
Honorentheos, you make worthwhile observations here and an interesting one about the different take on authority for fundamentalists and progressives. I was unsure just why I kept having the urge to post some sort of on the other hand take. I decided part of the urge was defense of Shulems comment about lying. It may be he is oversimplifying but he does have a point.honorentheos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 6:56 pmAs terminology regarding classifying books in the Hebrew and Christian scripture it is true its use is to define books not in the Hebrew or most Christian canons whose authorship is attributed to important scriptural figures. It's useful in that context for categorizing these texts separately compared to other categories such as canonical and apocryphal texts as those accepted as canonical in the case of the former, and those not accepted as canonical but included as having scriptural value in the case of the latter. In this usage the purpose of the term is to keep one class of texts separate from canonical texts. It's not the only use of the term and it's not how the OP is using the term as we are discussing a text included in Mormon canon.
It's use in both the OP and as I'm using it is the general definition referring to texts whose authorship is presented as coming from a historic important figure to give it weight rather than presented under it's true authorship. This is useful for examining the relationship between belief in the value of scripture and authority. And major sections of the Bible are pseudepigraphical in that their claimed author did not author the texts but they are presented that way to give them authority the actual author couldn't command.
The books of the Pentateuch are generally understood to have not been written by Moses but represent a combination of sources compiled into their canonized form and attributes to Moses. The priestly authors who amended and concatenated the material passed it off as Moses' own words roughly during the period of the Babylonian captivity and the subsequent second temple period.
Isaiah is generally understood to be the work of two or possibly three authors, that latter presented as the words of Isaiah to give them prophetic weight.
The Psalms are the work of various writers and not King David.
As Bret notes above, New Testament scholars are generally in agreement that many of the letters of Paul are pseudepigraphical. Revelations was not written by John the apostle, and the Gospels are of unknown actual authorship but attributed to people whose claimed proximity to Jesus is meant to give them authority and weight.
Asserting that the traditional claimed authors of scripture are literally the author of scripture is one of the more clean differentiators between fundamentalist and progressive religions. And it tells you something about the believers in each and where they see authority deriving from. Fundamentalist authority derives from the source while progressive authority derives from the perceived value. The first gives a source absolute authority while the latter requires agreement.
In that sense it is interesting to see Mormonism grapple with the topic as the literal authorship claims of their scripture are challenged. And this relationship between fundy/progressive is not isolated to believers. In this thread Shulem presented the critical fundamentalist view that the authority of the Book of Abraham is black or white. Disprove the book is of ancient origin, the argument is won.
huckelberry wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:36 amI decided part of the urge was defense of Shulems comment about lying. It may be he is oversimplifying but he does have a point.
<snip>
Quite different is the presentation of the book of Abraham. It is clearly presented as written by Abraham and it was not.
Shulem wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 2:23 amhuckelberry wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:36 amI decided part of the urge was defense of Shulems comment about lying. It may be he is oversimplifying but he does have a point.
<snip>
Quite different is the presentation of the book of Abraham. It is clearly presented as written by Abraham and it was not.
Unlike the author of Hebrews, the author of the Book of Abraham makes it abundantly clear who is doing the talking:
- "I, Abraham"
- "And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham"
- "So I, Abraham, departed as the Lord had said unto me"
- "I, Abraham, was sixty and two years old"
- "And I, Abraham, arose from the place"
- "And I, Abraham, journeyed"
- "I, Abraham, concluded to go down into Egypt"
- "I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife"
- "And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim"
- "I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time"
honorentheos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 6:56 pm
Asserting that the traditional claimed authors of scripture are literally the author of scripture is one of the more clean differentiators between fundamentalist and progressive religions. And it tells you something about the believers in each and where they see authority deriving from. Fundamentalist authority derives from the source while progressive authority derives from the perceived value. The first gives a source absolute authority while the latter requires agreement.
In that sense it is interesting to see Mormonism grapple with the topic as the literal authorship claims of their scripture are challenged. And this relationship between fundy/progressive is not isolated to believers. In this thread Shulem presented the critical fundamentalist view that the authority of the Book of Abraham is black or white. Disprove the book is of ancient origin, the argument is won.
That isn't really my claim. My argument here is that much of the Judeo-Christian scripture tradition is built on claims of authority through misrepresented authorship.huckelberry wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:36 amYou correctly point out that much of the Bible has unknown probably committees for authors.
As noted earlier, how significant it seems from person to person is the point.huckelberry wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 1:36 amThe significance of these observations is a pretty mixed bag to my mind.
honorentheos wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:49 pmFundamentalist authority derives from the source while progressive authority derives from the perceived value. The first gives a source absolute authority while the latter requires agreement.
<snip>
In this thread Shulem presented the critical fundamentalist view that the authority of the Book of Abraham is black or white. Disprove the book is of ancient origin, the argument is won.