It's amazing how many Christian bible scholars get duped by obvious forgeries. As mentioned in the article the "Museum of the Bible" bought a lot of fakes, some of them quite crude. And of course the Ohio Stones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Holy_Stones which to a Modern Hebrew speaker are clearly based on a very modern script.
An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
31–40 of 207 posts
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#32It's amazing how many Christian bible scholars get duped by obvious forgeries. As mentioned in the article the "Museum of the Bible" bought a lot of fakes, some of them quite crude. And of course the Ohio Stones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Holy_Stones which to a Modern Hebrew speaker are clearly based on a very modern script.
[flagged]
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#33The book of Enoch (a non-canonical pseudopigraphal book) is a wild story that expounds on the strange events of Genesis 6:1-4 and is quoted by Jude and Peter. The fact that some of the DSS versions contain forgeries is interesting. I have always suspected there were a very ancient Enoch texts that are now lost and what we do have contains many forgeries.
"The Books of Enoch" by Paul C. Schnieders is an interesting read if you're curious about their contents. The general consensus from my understanding is that none of the ones we have today are the one referenced in The Bible
Thanks for the reference. I have read Enoch 1 and it is a wild story that in my view is pure fantasy (e.g., giants were 300 cubits tall!?). I have always just assumed that Jude and Peter were quoting some authentic version from earlier and the version I have read was the creation of an imposter.
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a concept called "provenance" which is basically "how sure are we that it's authentic". What work like this is doing is comparing scrolls with uncertain provenance to items of very secure provenance like known fragments from the original excavations. You can find forgeries everywhere in the antiquities trade. Some of them are modern productions, but many (see all pieces of the true cross in churches around th…
Not quite. Provenance is the story of how an object came from the ground to wherever it is now. The question of authentication is larger than provenance. If there's good documentation showing the object originally came from an archeological excavation, that's a point towards authenticity. If the alleged provenance starts with an unnamed antiquities dealer by way of an anonymous Swiss collector, that doesn't help one…
You're strictly correct, but I made some simplifications that I think are appropriate and avoid the whole semantic mess of what "authenticity" means. Secure provenance is usually a sufficient condition to establish authenticity for archaeologists anyway.
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. If you want to live your life via the scientific method, awesome - it's a really powerful technique for refining the accuracy of predictions. It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though.
[deleted]
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#36The book of Enoch (a non-canonical pseudopigraphal book) is a wild story that expounds on the strange events of Genesis 6:1-4 and is quoted by Jude and Peter. The fact that some of the DSS versions contain forgeries is interesting. I have always suspected there were a very ancient Enoch texts that are now lost and what we do have contains many forgeries.
non-canonical by a few churches. In my head canon it's the only one that is true.
I don't know of any church that considers it canonical. I think it certainly reflects what folks thought about the enigmatic Genesis 6:1-4 text before and around the time of Christ.
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome formally defined what books were considered authentic and which ones were not (and this list was, with some reduction, also used by Protestants). The Book of Enoch was a bit contentious because of the quotation in an inspired book - but it was ultimately determined to be not inspired, and the quotation not necessarily either. (I.e. Imagine if scripture quoted a Roman decree…
[flagged]
Isaac Newton would disagree.
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#38The book of Enoch (a non-canonical pseudopigraphal book) is a wild story that expounds on the strange events of Genesis 6:1-4 and is quoted by Jude and Peter. The fact that some of the DSS versions contain forgeries is interesting. I have always suspected there were a very ancient Enoch texts that are now lost and what we do have contains many forgeries.
The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome formally defined what books were considered authentic and which ones were not (and this list was, with some reduction, also used by Protestants). The Book of Enoch was a bit contentious because of the quotation in an inspired book - but it was ultimately determined to be not inspired, and the quotation not necessarily either. (I.e. Imagine if scripture quoted a Roman decree…
I have a copy of Enoch 1, 2, 3; but I have not seen it included in any Bible. It is not part of the Apocrypha -- you don't find in the Orthodox Study Bible or a Catholic Bible. What Bible is it in? I would like to get it.
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome formally defined what books were considered authentic and which ones were not (and this list was, with some reduction, also used by Protestants). The Book of Enoch was a bit contentious because of the quotation in an inspired book - but it was ultimately determined to be not inspired, and the quotation not necessarily either. (I.e. Imagine if scripture quoted a Roman decree…
I have a copy of Enoch 1, 2, 3; but I have not seen it included in any Bible. It is not part of the Apocrypha -- you don't find in the Orthodox Study Bible or a Catholic Bible. What Bible is it in? I would like to get it.
As a protestant I've certainly seen some of the deuterocanonical books in non-Catholic study Bibles. Not the same thing really as Enoch, which I think is a little bit more controversial.
Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. Provenance is the story of how an object came from the ground to wherever it is now. The question of authentication is larger than provenance. If there's good documentation showing the object originally came from an archeological excavation, that's a point towards authenticity. If the alleged provenance starts with an unnamed antiquities dealer by way of an anonymous Swiss collector, that doesn't help one…
You're strictly correct, but I made some simplifications that I think are appropriate and avoid the whole semantic mess of what "authenticity" means. Secure provenance is usually a sufficient condition to establish authenticity for archaeologists anyway.
The problem with that oversimplification is that provenance is much bigger than authentication and authentication is much bigger than provenance. Sure, some of the work overlaps, but they're distinct. When provenance research shows up in the media, it's usually in the form of identifying looted material culture and repatriating it. There's also the issue of objects that are almost certainly authentic and legally exported, but the provenance doesn't go back to the archeological context ("provenience" [sic]) and that lack of provenance limits the archeological value of these objects.