A Critique of Pseudepigrapha, an Editorial
By H. A. (Buster) Dobbs
Your excellent article is right on target. Osburn is saying that Jude wrote his epistle from sources other than the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The plagiarist in this "woodpile" is Osburn. He is using the scholarship of liberal scholars that are above, and out of his class, to craft his "scholarly" articles. I find Osburn's cannibalistic use of the published research of others to be disgusting and reprehensible.
Had he been writing an article, for example, on the authorship of the synoptic gospels, he would have done extensive research on what eminent liberal scholars have written, and crafted his article accordingly. He would use form and source criticism, make the Quelle contention, regard Mark as the oldest gospel, and claim Matthew (some unknown person other than the apostle) is the pseudepigraphic author.
He would handle the authorship problem for every book in the Bible in the same manner as "dyed in the wool" liberal scholars would, for example, the Jesus Seminar theologians. (I do not discount honest and open scholarship. Honesty and openness are virtues wherever found because everything is put on the table and nothing is hidden.)
Some of our squeamish and waffling brethren are offended at name calling. But this is always a matter of whose names are called, and who is doing the name calling.
Published May 1996