The paper is an evaluation of differing opinions regarding the authenticity of two of Paracelsus’ works, the Astronomia Magna (1537/1538) and Brief an die Wittenberger Theologen (1525). Karl Sudhoff – the exceptionally erudite and prolific Paracelsus scholar and editor – considered Paracelsus’ letter to Luther and the Wittenberg theologians to be spurious. Others have questioned the extent to which the Astronomia Magna (often considered to be Paracelsus’ Meisterstück) should be placed among the genuine texts of the Paracelsian corpus. Based on historical and conceptual data, and focusing on Paracelsus’ theology, the author argues that both works under consideration are authentic. The study thus highlights the need to develop a diagnostic rubric for evaluating the authenticity of works in the Paracelsian oeuvre and suggests ideas toward this end on the basis of theological motifs prevalent within Paracelsus’ clearly authentic works.

本文是对Paracelsus的两部作品的真实性的不同观点的评估，这两部作品分别是《天文学》，《麦格纳》（1537/1538）和《简·维滕贝格·特洛根》（1525）。卡尔·素德霍夫（Karl Sudhoff）是一位极富博学多才的Paracelsus学者和编辑，他认为Paracelsus给路德（Luther）和维滕贝格（Wittenberg）神学家的信是虚假的。其他人质疑天文学家麦格纳（通常被认为是Paracelsus的Meisterstück）的程度）应该放在Paracelsian语料库的真实文本之中。基于历史和概念数据，并着重于Paracelsus的神学，作者认为正在考虑的两部作品都是真实的。因此，这项研究强调需要开发一种诊断性的评价书来评估在西沙群岛作品中的作品的真实性，并基于在西沙群岛明显地道的作品中普遍存在的神学主题来为此提出一些想法。