Talk:Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha

:::::::[https://brill.com/display/title/11038 How about this?] Or is the problem that since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_apocrypha&oldid=136443754 2007] the article removed "Jewish apocrypha '''''and pseudoepigrapha'''''"? '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]] 03:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

:::::::[https://brill.com/display/title/11038 How about this?] Or is the problem that since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_apocrypha&oldid=136443754 2007] the article removed "Jewish apocrypha '''''and pseudoepigrapha'''''"? '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]] 03:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

::::::::That's exactly what I'm saying. And thanks for agreeing that Wiki articles are not reliable sources. And thanks for the link, which in the few available pages illustrates my point nicely. (Sorry I can't afford $202 for the PDF.) Davila distinguishes between "Jewish Pseudepigrapha" and "Christian Apocrypha" --or attempts to. Those are definitions we can provisionally work with, moving away somewhat from the distinction between Apocrypha (Deuterocanon} and OT or NT Pseudepigrapha. Davila has replaced NT Pseudepigrapha with "Christian Apocrypha." It's less important what we call them than that we announce our definitions at the outset. And notice that by Davila's definitions there is no such thing as "Jewish Apocrypha" in spite of the likelihood that most or all of the Deuterocanon was authored by Jews. Aramaic speaking Jews rejected it as scripture; Greek speaking Jews (whether or not Christian) did not. But Greek speaking Jews were generally assimilated to Christianity, (or eventually Islam), along with many Pharisees and priests. (At any rate they disappeared, taking up Latin > Ladino or who knows what--they abandoned LXX + Apocrypha.) As it stands around here, the word 'apocryphal' never gets past the popular meaning of 'dubious'. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-18391-87|~2026-18391-87]] ([[User talk:~2026-18391-87|talk]]) 13:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

::::::::That's exactly what I'm saying. And thanks for agreeing that Wiki articles are not reliable sources. And thanks for the link, which in the few available pages illustrates my point nicely. (Sorry I can't afford $202 for the PDF.) Davila distinguishes between "Jewish Pseudepigrapha" and "Christian Apocrypha" --or attempts to. Those are definitions we can provisionally work with, moving away somewhat from the distinction between Apocrypha (Deuterocanon} and OT or NT Pseudepigrapha. Davila has replaced NT Pseudepigrapha with "Christian Apocrypha." It's less important what we call them than that we announce our definitions at the outset. And notice that by Davila's definitions there is no such thing as "Jewish Apocrypha" in spite of the likelihood that most or all of the Deuterocanon was authored by Jews. Aramaic speaking Jews rejected it as scripture; Greek speaking Jews (whether or not Christian) did not. But Greek speaking Jews were generally assimilated to Christianity, (or eventually Islam), along with many Pharisees and priests. (At any rate they disappeared, taking up Latin > Ladino or who knows what--they abandoned LXX + Apocrypha.) As it stands around here, the word 'apocryphal' never gets past the popular meaning of 'dubious'. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-18391-87|~2026-18391-87]] ([[User talk:~2026-18391-87|talk]]) 13:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

:::::::::Well there are sources that refer to them: [https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1644-apocrypha]

:::::::::I've moved the article to "Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha" '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]] 17:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)