Talk:Forged (book)

Redirects, move to new name.

Shouldn't this article be called "Forged (book)"? It seems to me that most people who type in "Forged" are likely looking for the metalworking process or the at of forgery. That's what I was looking for, but when I type in "Forged", it brings me to a page about a religious book. I really think it would be more helpful if this was called "Forged (book)", because that is what would come up on the search bar menu, which would give the person an idea that it's not the page they are looking for. And again, "forged" shouldn't bring you directly here, it should bring you to the page on "forging", which should have a link to either this or a disambiguation page. I mean honestly, this is not a page that is likely to be of interest to very many people..45Colt 05:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, per logic described above. — ¾-10 03:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

minor mistakes

Acts can't be described as a forgery because It' anonymous. Second, Mark and Luke were never considered to be Apostles so I don't see how those books could have had names of apostles mistakenly ascribed to them. Third, you mihgt consider changing the follwing sentence. " These are not forgeries since the texts are anonymous but have had false authors ascribed to them..." As far as I know Hebrews was erroneously attributed to Paul. The statement gives the impression this was deliberate by using the expression "false authors". In the context of a discussion of forgery, it's very easy to get the wrong impression. Spiker 22 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article probably needs some discussion as to why Ehrman classifies the books the way he does. With Acts, he argues that the "we" passages (e.g. Acts 16:11) show that the author is pretending to have been Paul's companions - hence, "forgery" rather than merely being falsely attributed. St Anselm (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an explanation at Authorship of Luke–Acts#Interpretation of the "we" passages in authorship discussions. St Anselm (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Originality

I’ve removed this section for now since the material doesn’t actually have any relation to this book.Pipsally (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]