praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Recently, a forum user questioned the validity of Pseudepigraphy in the historical manuscript evidence underlying various collections of edited manuscripts.
I'm confused by such thoughts. Pseudepigraphy has long been witnessed among both Jews and Gentiles. I'll use an example.
There is manuscript evidence for the Book of Thomas. "Thomas" is mentioned as a reluctant follower of Jesus Christ. Very few secular scholars believe the Book of Thomas is really from the disciple of Christ by such name.
Such is commonly true of the Book of Barnabas.....
How exactly does it work to claim Pseudepigraphy is "weird" and yet use the same arguments to exclude various books some do not like? If you must claim the method yourself, then allow me to do the same.
@Love Fountain
Thanks
I'm confused by such thoughts. Pseudepigraphy has long been witnessed among both Jews and Gentiles. I'll use an example.
There is manuscript evidence for the Book of Thomas. "Thomas" is mentioned as a reluctant follower of Jesus Christ. Very few secular scholars believe the Book of Thomas is really from the disciple of Christ by such name.
Such is commonly true of the Book of Barnabas.....
How exactly does it work to claim Pseudepigraphy is "weird" and yet use the same arguments to exclude various books some do not like? If you must claim the method yourself, then allow me to do the same.
@Love Fountain
Thanks
