Talk:Apocalypse of Baruch

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Religious texts (defunct)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

untitled

the book may of have been written by a jew but like ben sira it is not considered authoritative by jews and thus i am removing it from the jewish texts category --Alpha774 04:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category name 'Jewish texts' implies that it is for Jewish texts which both of these are; it does not imply that they are "authoritative" Jewish texts; and at any rate neither of them is counted among the apocrypha by anyone that I know: the apocrypha are a defined set of books. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Apocrypha means anything outside of the canon also according to your logic we should put the gospels in the jewish texts category another thing there is a set Apocrypha at the back of a catholic bible but Apocrypha in Academic circles means unauthoritative text of Jews or Christians --Alpha774 05:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the apocrypha category is for the defined set of books, the others not included as apocrypha, are, in Academic circles, referred to as "Pseudepigrapha", which would be a more appropriate category than "apocrypha". The argument about the Gospels is a red herring, the 2 books on this disambiguation page were never known to be in anyone's canon and are both among the pseudepigrapha, but I don't see the logic in putting the Gospels in "Jewish texts". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read what http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Apocrypha says it says Apocrypha (from the Greek word απόκρυφα meaning "those having been hidden away"[1]) are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon thus put it in the Apocrypha category do we need to make a non-Rabbinic Jewish texts category just take it out of the jewish texts putting it in the jewish texts category is as stupid as putting corinthians or the book of revelation or the gospels in the jewish texts --Alpha774 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the term "apocrypha" is a specific term used by some Christian Churches to refer to a specific set of texts that are in dispute, that they reject, that other Churches that don't reject them prefer to call "deuterocanonical". Other works that don't fall in this specific set of texts that are rejected by everybody are "pseudepigrapha", including these two. But as for "Jewish texts", the relevant information is given in this article. You did read this article, right? It's a disambiguation page mentioning two works of this same title, both of which are described in the article as "Jewish texts". This is because they are thought to have been written by Jews; being in this category does not imply that they are accepted as true by anyone today, only that the original authors were Jewish, thus making them "Jewish texts". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one your defenition is totally wrong and second we better put the gospels under jewish texts then too--Jesusmyth 04:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this actual article page, please. Note that it describes both of the books of this title in question as "Jewish texts". And why shouldn't it? They are Jewish texts, and no authority disagrees that they are Jewish texts. This is making no claims whatsoever that they are considered 'authoritative' by anyone, only that they were literature authored by Jews. Same with the category "Jewish texts". Since the article itself describes them as Jewish texts, which is not contested, it is fully appropriate to put this article in the "Jewish texts" category - which again makes no statement about whether or not anyone ever considered this literature "canonical". Is there some part of this that is too hard for you to understand? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about I make a new category then because this was never accepted by jews the category will be called non-rabbinic jewish texts i already made a category for essene texts then make it a subcategory of jewish texts so why not do the same? --Jesusmyth 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also of some random muslim wrote a text that was never accepted by any muslims i would never clasify it as a muslim text also the da vinci code is not a christian text for the same reason--Jesusmyth 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did it no leave this away from Jewish texts it stays under non-rabbinic jewish texts no jew would want to read about these books it is a major sin to read heretical texts the talmuds tell us that if a jew reads a heretical text he will not be ressurected in the messianic era so leave it out--Jesusmyth 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]