Information

Hvilken slags dokumenter blev forfalsket i middelalderen, og hvor almindelig var forfalskning?

Hvilken slags dokumenter blev forfalsket i middelalderen, og hvor almindelig var forfalskning?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

For eksempel læste jeg om Privilegium Maius og spekulerede på, hvilke andre tilfælde af dokumentfalsk der var i middelalderen?


Forfalskning var almindelig i middelalderen, begyndende med den mest berømte: Konstantins donation.

Meget almindelige forfalskningsgenstande var hellige relikvier, der blev handlet i store mængder. Europa var fuld af den omrejsende købmand, der solgte disse relikvier.


Pseudo-Isidore er et godt eksempel. Peter Heather har en meget interessant beretning om det i en af ​​sine bøger.


Historisk forfalskning

Historisk forfalskning betegner en af ​​to typer forfalskninger:

  • EN ægte vare - dog dagligdags - fra den relevante tidsperiode, som har været manipuleret med længe bagefter.
  • Et element fra forkert tidsperiode (spænder helt op til: at være blevet lavet fra bunden for nylig) det vil sige præsenteret som en ægte original dateret fra en bestemte tidsperiode.

Historiske forfalskninger bruges typisk enten til at bakke op om ellers mærkelige frynseteorier eller til at vende en hurtig penge til at blive solgt som autentisk til museer eller samlere. I begge tilfælde fører tilliden, mændene bag forfalskningerne, til at føre offentligheden (og nogle gange akademia) på vildspor i bytte for utilfreds berømmelse og/eller formue.


Forekomster af litterær forfalskning

Lejlighedsvis dukker en forfalskning op med en vis genial glamour som Constantine Simonides (1824–67), en græsk eventyrer, der varierede sin handel med helt ægte manuskripter med salg af mærkelige egne sammensætninger. Maj. George de Luna Byron, alias de Gibler, der hævdede at være en naturlig søn af Byron af en spansk grevinde, producerede og bortskaffede store mængder forfalskninger tilskrevet hans påståede far og Shelley, John Keats og andre. Mere almindelig er den forfalskning, der er stødt på i tilfælde af Edinburgh -forfalskeren AH ("Antique") Smith, der var ansvarlig for forfalskninger af Robert Burns, Sir Walter Scott, Mary Stuart og andre personer fra skotsk litteratur og historie - en bedrift, der i sidste ende gav ham 12 måneders fængsel.

Særligt berygtet var tilfældet med de kloge forfalskninger. Thomas James Wise (1859–1937) havde ry for at være en af ​​de mest fornemme private bogsamlere på hver side af Atlanterhavet, og hans Ashley Library i London blev et pilgrimssted for forskere fra Europa og USA. Han afslørede konstant pirater og forfalskninger og benægtede altid, at han var forhandler. Chokket var derfor større i 1934, da John W. Carter og Henry Graham Pollard udgav En undersøgelse af karakteren af ​​visse foldere fra det nittende århundrede, der beviser, at omkring 40 eller 50 af disse med høje priser var forfalskninger, og at alle kunne spores til Wise. Efterfølgende forskning bekræftede fundet af Carter og Pollard og anklagede Wise for andre og mere alvorlige lovovertrædelser, herunder raffinement af mange af hans egne kopier af tidlige trykte bøger med blade stjålet fra kopier i British Museum.

Ingen forfalskning for at opnå anerkendelse er bedre kendt end Thomas Chattertons "Thomas Rowley" -digte (1752–70), som den ungdommelige forfatter forsøgte at videregive som værket i en middelalderlig gejstlig. Disse digte, der forårsagede en videnskabelig fejde i mange år, havde indflydelse på den gotiske vækkelse. Chatterton nyder imidlertid en plads i engelske bogstaver som et kreativt geni i sig selv. Den mere konventionelle forfalskning William Henry Ireland (1777-1835) fremstillede muntert Shakespeare -dokumenter indtil hans forfalskede "tabte" tragedie Vortigern og Rowena blev grinet af scenen på Drury Lane Theatre, London, i 1796. Heldigere var Charles Bertram, der lavede en beretning om det romerske Storbritannien af ​​"Richard of Westminster", en imaginær munk. Bertrams dupe, den excentriske antikvar Dr. William Stukeley, identificerede munken med kronikeren Richard af Cirencester, kendt for at have opholdt sig i Westminster i 1300 -tallet. Bertrams forfalskning (listigt udgivet i et bind indeholdende værker af to ægte gamle forfattere, Gildas og Nennius) havde en enorm indflydelse på historikere fra Romersk Storbritannien, der varede ind i det 20. århundrede. Lige så indflydelsesrige var de osianiske digte af James Macpherson (1736–96), som påvirkede den tidlige periode af den romantiske bevægelse. I hvilken grad Macphersons digte skal betragtes som falske er ikke sikkert. Fordømt i sin egen tid var de muligvis, som han påstod, baseret på en ægte mundtlig tradition for skotsk gælisk poesi, men der kan ikke være tvivl om, at de blev omhyggeligt redigeret og interpoleret af deres samler.

Blandt de smedere, der har forsøgt at få eksperterne til at se tåbelige ud, er George Psalmanazar (1679? –1763). Som franskmand tog han til England, hvor han med stor succes foregav at være indfødt i Formosa (Taiwan) og udgav en bog om den ø, som han aldrig havde besøgt. En anden er William Lauder, der forsøgte at bevise John Milton skyldig i plagiat ved at citere digtere fra 1600-tallet, der skrev på latin, i hvis værker han havde interpoleret latinske oversættelser fra det tabte paradis. En forfalskning foretaget som en joke, men taget alvorligt, var "Ern Malley" -digte, der blev tilbudt et australsk magasin i 1944 som værket af en nylig død digter. Faktisk blev den komponeret af to unge soldater, der ønskede at latterliggøre visse aspekter af nutidens poesi.

Den rene fabrikation er en form for forfalskning, der trodser klassificering, ofte fordi der ikke er nogen falsk tilskrivning, og motiverne er svære at fastslå. Et eksempel på dette er Historia regum Britanniae (1135–38) af Geoffrey of Monmouth (død 1155), en pseudo-historiker, der sammensatte historier fra keltisk mytologi og klassiske og bibelske kilder til en fiktiv historie i det gamle Storbritannien. Bogen blev en af ​​de mest populære i middelalderen og var grundlaget for nogle Arthur -sagn, der blev omtalt i middelalderlig romantik og epik.

En fortælling om litterær forfalskning, der kom frem i begyndelsen af ​​det 21. århundrede, var berømthedsbiografen Lee Israel, der tilstod i sin erindring, Kan du nogensinde tilgive mig? (2008), at mens hun var nede på sit held i 1990'erne, havde hun forfalsket og solgt hundredvis af breve til samlere af forskellige bemærkelsesværdige figurer - Louise Brooks, Noël Coward, Dorothy Parker, Humphrey Bogart og Lillian Hellman blandt dem.


Stanford -historiker siger, at forfalsket middelalderhistorie var med til at skabe feminisme

Gennem forskning i de første historikere i middelalderens Europa opdager professor Paula Findlen, at en interesse for kvinders historie begyndte meget tidligere, end man antager.

Detalje af en miniature af middelalderens forfatter Christine de Pizan. Stanford -historikeren Paula Findlen har studeret renæssancebiografier om middelalderlige kvinder og siger, at disse ofte pyntede fortællinger repræsenterer en slags feminisme.

I dag er feminisme ofte forbundet med de politiske protester i 1960'erne eller den tidligere kvinders stemmeretbevægelse, men Stanford -historiker Paula Findlens seneste forskning afslører, at impulsen til at kæmpe kvinder startede i slutningen af ​​middelalderen.

Findlen, der er forsker i den italienske renæssance, har samlet biografier om middelalderlige kvinder, skrevet i Italien fra det 15. til det 18. århundrede, flere århundreder efter at kvinderne levede.

Gennem en grundig undersøgelse af disse tekster fandt Findlen, at disse tidlige moderne forfattere var så lidenskabelige over middelalderlige kvinder, at de undertiden fremstillede historier om dem.

Da Findlen omhyggeligt opsporede påstandene i disse historier, fandt hun, at de varierede fra faktuelle til noget faktuelle til helt falske.

Disse opfindede kvinder blev ofte nævnt i regionale historier med imaginære forbindelser til vigtige institutioner. De blev beskrevet som jurister eller professorater, påstande der viste sig at være fiktive.

Findlen hævder, at disse pyntede fortællinger repræsenterer, hvad der muligvis kan beskrives som oprindelsen til en bestemt slags feminisme.

"Tidlige moderne smedere brugte historier om kvinder til at skabe præcedenser til støtte for ting, de ville se i deres egen tid, men havde brug for at retfærdiggøre ved at påberåbe sig fortiden," sagde Findlen. "Mens de diskuterede eksistensen af ​​disse middelalderlige kvinder, bidrog forfatterne også til videnskaben om historie, som vi kender den."

Ved at udvide sin arkivbase fra Bologna til andre italienske byer og observere, hvordan disse historier rejste ud over Italien, fandt Findlen, at historierne om lokale kvinder fik international anerkendelse.

Findlen beskrev hendes strejf i den formodede historie "et projekt, der dels handler om, hvordan tidlige moderne middelalderfolk opfandt middelalderen og hævdede og definerede denne fortid." Hun tilføjede: "At danne historie er en måde at sikre, at du får den fortid, du gerne vil have."

I sin kommende publikation, der i øjeblikket hedder "Opfinder middelalderlige kvinder: Historie, hukommelse og forfalskning i det tidlige moderne Italien", lægger Findlen særlig vægt på Alessandro Macchiavelli, en advokat fra det 18. århundrede fra en Bolognese-familie.

Macchiavelli var lidenskabelig over at finde beviser til støtte for Bolognas ry som et "paradis for kvinder". Han skabte historier og fodnoter om lærde middelalderlige kvinder fra regionen, herunder forfatter Christine de Pizan.

Ifølge Findlen "opstod han aggressivt [biografier om] middelalderlige kvinder og fremlagde de beviser, der manglede for dem."

Disse fabler præsenteres som fakta og forfalskede middelalderens oprindelse til Bolognas kvindelige intelligentsia. Findlen arbejdede oprindeligt på dette materiale, fordi hun søgte efter – og ikke fandt beviser for middelalderlige præcedenser, der blev ved med at blive påberåbt i tidlige moderne kilder. "I sidste ende," sagde hun, "det fascinerede mig."

Mens folk senere erkendte, at Macchiavelli var en forfalskning, var det rigtigt, at han vakte kritisk opmærksomhed på kvinders liv.

På en måde demonstrerer Macchiavelli "en finurlig tidlig moderne mandlig version af feminisme," sagde Findlen. Han bidrog også til begyndelsen på disciplinen middelalderhistorie. Da han forfalskede et dokument, gjorde han det baseret på omfattende viden om arkiverne og en fin forståelse af historisk metode.

"Middelalderhistorie er et af de virkelig vigtige emner, hvor mennesker udvikler en dokumentarisk kultur i slutningen af ​​1600- og 1700 -tallet, og de begynder at identificere og vælge de dokumenter, der er vigtige for at definere middelalderen," sagde Findlen.

Forestil dig kvinderne i Bologna

Mellem det 15. og 18. århundrede, sagde Findlen, fremstillede repræsentationer af middelalderlige kvinder en bys ry.

For eksempel ville forskere i Bologna lære om dens formodede tradition for lærde kvinder. De trængte til oplysninger om middelalderlige kvinder, der kunne give historiske præcedenser for en som Laura Bassi, den første kvinde, der kan dokumenteres at modtage en grad og professorat fra universitetet i Bologna i 1732. Efter at have haft præcedens fik hun til at virke som en genopfindelse af den gamle snarere end nogen truende ny.

Findlen henvendte sig først til Christine de Pizan (ca. 1364-1430), datter af en kandidat og professor ved universitetet i Bologna. Hun er måske bedst kendt for sine skrifter, der roser kvinder.

I hende Bog om damernes by (1405), et katalog over berømte kvinder, overvejede Christine sine italienske rødder. Denne længsel efter hendes fortid inspirerede Christine til at forestille sig "hvad ingredienserne var i denne verden, der skabte hendeog andre kvinder kan lide hende, ”sagde Findlen.

Selvom det var inspireret af nogle sandhedskerner, opfandt Christines skrifter beviser for at udfylde hendes fortællinger, sagde Findlen. På denne måde giver Christine et udgangspunkt for Bolognas interesse for kvindehistorie, der vil udspille sig i løbet af de næste fire århundreder.

Hvad vi ønsker fra historien

Findlens projekt gentænker vores tvang til at skrive om fortiden. "Nogle af de ting, vi tager for givet, er legender, ikke fakta," sagde hun, "men jeg tror, ​​at jeg er endnu mere interesseret i at få folk til at forstå hvorfor vi vil have det. "

På trods af tilstedeværelsen af ​​falske kendsgerninger i middelalderens kvindebiografier understregede Findlen, at "fortidens upålidelighed også er en del af beviserne, som vi skal tage højde for." Desuden tilføjede hun, at dette projekt kræver "at kende arkiverne godt nok til at fange nuancerne."

"Processen med at skabe en kvindehistorie," sagde Findlen, "starter med denne impuls til at skabe kollektive biografier i det 14. og 15. århundrede og fremefter."

Findlen forestillede sig den større indvirkning af hendes arbejde og sagde: "Jeg vil gerne have, at dette projekt giver et interessant vindue ind i historiens opfindelse, der tager Italien som et casestudie, for at forstå, hvorfor [tidligt moderne] mennesker var så lidenskabelige over middelalderen . "

Under renæssancen er "mennesker i stigende grad optaget af at dokumentere den historie, der var," sagde Findlen. "De er interesserede i den historie, der kunne have været. Og så er de også interesseret i den historie, der burde have været. Og det er tre forskellige tilgange til historien."


Forfalskning i den antikke verden

Enhver, der mistænker grafiske detaljer i en fortælling, er et tegn på ægthed af en tekst- eller øjenvidnekilde, skal læse Anthony Grafton ’s Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship (1990). I dette blogindlæg deler jeg mine noter fra hans første kapitel.

Ifølge Anthony Grafton er der to påstande, der minder læsere om muligheden for forfalskning på arbejdspladsen:

  1. det hævde, at en forfatter havde kopieret hvert ord præcist af de gamle tekster før ham (hvordan kunne læserne vide? er påstanden beregnet til at afskrække duften af ​​noget mistænkeligt?)
  2. påstanden om, at et dokument blev fundet under mirakuløse eller ekstremt heldige omstændigheder (f.eks. fandt ypperstepræsten Hilkiah tilfældigvis i templet for kong Josija 5 Mosebog, der havde unddraget sig alle præster før ham, egyptiske medicinske tekster hævder at være fundet “ under fødderne af Anubis ” osv. — se mine noter om Davies ’ diskussion af 5. Mosebog om bogens svigagtige herkomst.)

Grækenland, 6. og 5. århundrede fvt.

Solon og Pisistratus, Athenske statsmænd, blev mistænkt for interpolere linjer til Homer ’s Iliaden at give Athen en mere fremtrædende rolle i den trojanske krig, end Homer oprindeligt havde givet den by.

Acusilaus af Argos, forfatter til en beretning om guder, halvguder og menneskelige helte, hævdede, at hans informationskilde var et sæt “bronze -tabletter opdaget af hans far i deres have. ”

Han skabte derved en af ​​de store topoi af vestlig forfalskning, objektets motiv fundet på et utilgængeligt sted, derefter kopieret og nu tabt, som autoritet for, hvad der ville have manglet troværdighed som en persons arbejde. (s.9)

Ctesias, en historiker, der skrev en sladderlig beretning om persisk historie, der regelmæssigt modsagde en anden berømt historiker, Herodot, hævdede at have overlegne kilder. Han hævdede, at han havde haft adgang til og læst Susas officielle arkiver.

Han berigede derved smedere med en anden af ​​deres yndlingsressourcer, hævder at have konsulteret fjerntliggende officielle dokumenter, helst på et uklart sprog.

Grækenland, 5. og 4. århundrede fvt.

Offentlige indskrifter erklæringen af ​​byers rettigheder og besiddelser og fremstilling af dokumentation for at understøtte disse påstande, opstod i en æra med by-stat-rivaliseringer.

Antikviteter udarbejdet ud fra lokal tradition, logisk slutning og tynd luft fulde lister over deres byer ’ tidlige herskere, deres templer ’ tidlige præsterinder og deres spil ’ tidlige sejrherrer.

Når sådanne påstande kunne understøttes med en smule polstring ud fra detaljer om gamle traktater og andre dokumenter, ville historikere og talere komme til undsætning og finde netop de tekster, de havde brug for offentligt at citere i indskrifterne.

Templer var også i rivalisering med hinanden, så jo flere optegnelser, der kunne findes “fundet ”, der angiveligt demonstrerede, at guder selv havde besøgt dem tidligere, eller at mirakuløse helbredelser var blevet udført af deres guder, jo bedre. For at imødekomme behovet blev der fundet passende historiske inskriptioner, og det blev ligeledes opdaget, at “forbedrede ” helbredelserne.

Hvorfor historikeren Thucydides foretrak mundtligt vidnesbyrd. Thucydides er berømt og kendt for at hævde, at direkte mundtligt vidnesbyrd altid skulle foretrækkes af en historiker frem for skriftligt vidnesbyrd. Dette tyder naturligvis på, at skriftlige optegnelser ikke kunne afhøres og etableres på samme måde som mundtlige rapporter kunne.

Ironien her er, at Richard Bauckham i hans “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses ” bruger denne påstand fra Thucydides til at hævde, at gamle historikere (før oplysningstiden) brugte mere pålidelige beviser end (efter oplysningstiden) moderne, og skriver om &# 8220 øjenvidnes vidnesbyrd ” som om det var noget hellig, ubestrideligt, rå erfaring — og skriver længe om “ vidnesbyrd ” for overlevende fra holocaust. Så det er interessant at læse Grafton ’s indtage Thucydides ’ -metoden her: skriftligt vidnesbyrd kunne ikke stilles spørgsmålstegn ved, hvordan mundtligt vidnesbyrd kunne. Jeg kan ikke forestille mig Bauckham for alvor at foreslå, at evangelieforfatterne brugte tid på at forhøre deres øjenvidner.

Litteratur-, bibliotek- og bogmarkedsrevolutionerne

I det fjerde århundrede f.v.t. Uddannede mennesker var klar over, at litterære værker af bestemte personer havde særprægede stilarter og bekymringer.

Kanoner med klassiske tekster begyndte at dukke op som eksemplarer på de bedste i prosa og poesi. Skoler lærte eleverne at efterligne disse. En foretrukken skoleøvelse var at give eleverne en opgave med at skrive breve i stil med og udtrykke interesser hos kendte forfattere. Nogle af disse kunne let være blevet accepteret som ægte, når de først kom i omløb.

Ifølge Galen voksede efterspørgslen efter tekster fra de litterære mestre i kanonerne hurtigt udbuddet. Biblioteker, skoler og velhavende personer søgte nye og gamle værker for store omkostninger. Forfalskere producerede hidtil ukendte værker (angiveligt) af berømte forfattere og solgte dem også til de store biblioteker.

Ved offentlige orationer og dramatiske forestillinger ville publikum sandsynligvis ikke blive behandlet for forfalskninger. (s. 12) De berømte navne sælges.

Bibliotekerne indeholdt flere kopier af værker af de berømte dramatikere Aeschylos, Sophokles og Euripides og prosaværker af Platon, Hippokrates og Aristoteles, men mange af titlerne knyttet til disse navne var direkte forfalskninger.

Bibliotekarer reagerede ved at udarbejde lister over, hvad de vurderede at være ægte værker i deres samling, og andre blev bedømt som falske. Bibliotekarer og litteraturforskere udarbejdede forskellige tests for at forsøge at afgøre, hvilke værker der var ægte og hvilke falske.

Så for eksempel på et tidspunkt, hvor der var 130 teaterstykker i omløb, der påstod at være af dramatikeren Plautus, vurderede lærde som Varro kun tyve eller deromkring at være ægte.

Sekteriske rivaliseringer for at bevise den største antik

Orfiske og pythagoreiske sekter. Medlemmer af grupper eller sekter som disse valgte at leve efter autoritative tekster af deres såkaldte grundlæggende mestre, der angiveligt havde levet i en fjern antik.

Behovet for gamle tekster fra sådanne grupper blev imødekommet af dem, der var villige til at gøre en indsats for at levere det.

Egyptisk, babylonisk og jødisk stolthed producerer flere “ -sikre tekster ”. Efter at være blevet erobret af Alexander den Store og styret af græske dynastier, genoprettede skriftlærde og præster fra disse folk noget af deres kulturelle stolthed ved at bevise, at deres historier og berømte tekster viste, at de var ældre og mere prestigefyldte inden for litterære, filosofiske og religiøse præstationer end grækerne.

Disse “ -sikre tekster ” var beregnet til at imponere et græsk publikum, siden de blev skrevet på græsk, selvom de hævdede at have været oversættelser af tidligere tekster.

Jøderne producerede for eksempel en græsk version af Bibelen, selvom de hævdede, at det var en oversættelse af en tidligere hebraisk. De gik dog længere. De hævdede også, at deres hebraiske bibel var selve inspirationskilden til de berømte græske filosofiske ideer om Platon osv.

Epikuræske, pythagoreiske og zoroastriske sekter, for ikke at være outdone, måtte tilbyde tekster, der kunne hævde den samme eller større antikvitet end dem i Mellemøsten.

Hvordan man opretter en tekst med glamour af guddommelig autoritet

  • Det må synes at komme fra en respektfuld fjern historisk fortid
  • Det kunne skrives i første person, som om det var talt af enten
  • en guddommelig figur
  • eller en af ​​hans menneskelige ledsagere
  • eller en autoritær fortolker af hans lære
  • Det skal (i modsætning til “normale ” litterære genrer) helst tilbyde en række funktioner, der underviser i både tilbedelsesmetoder og daglig adfærd

Forfalskninger af denne art var i overflod, og metoderne, der blev brugt til at opdage dem, voksede i raffinement, efterhånden som forfalskningernes kompleksitet blev mere og mere barok. (s.15)

Den traditionelle videnskabelige datering af de Paulinske breve og de kanoniske evangelier er ikke betvivlet af Grafton, men har sikkert ret til spørgsmålet. Lærde, der kun stoler på interne beviser for at sige, at Paulus skrev i 50 ’'erne eller evangelierne, blev skrevet ikke længe efter 70 e.Kr. synes jeg at forlade døren vidt åben for den fælde, Grafton advarer mod her. Sikkert eksternt bevis —, når vi kan se ANDRE først vidste om disse tekster, og#8212 burde helt sikkert have meget større vægt end det gør i øjeblikket. Men for at være så forsigtig, ville det betyde at tilskrive brevene fra Paul — og alle evangelierne — til det andet århundrede! Åh nej – umuligt –. . . . Det ville ændre ALT! Jep! Især hvis vi kan se, hvordan de så bekvemt opfyldte de andres “ tidlige behov ”! Hov. . . .

En sofistikeret forfalskningsklassiker: Aristeas Letter

Dato: sandsynligvis 2. århundrede fvt.

Formål: For at forklare oprindelsen til den græske version af Det Gamle Testamente eller jødiske bibel, Septuaginta, LXX.

  1. Bibliotekar på det egyptiske alexandriske bibliotek, Demetrius, skriver til sin konge Ptolemaios Philadelphus “om opkøbspolitik ”. Han påpeger, at biblioteket mangler en kopi af “Bøgerne om jødernes love ”, og at de eneste eksisterende er på hebraisk og af ringere kvalitet, da de ikke har haft en kongelig befaling til at garantere deres nøjagtige overførsel.
  2. Kongen reagerer på at give Demetrius tilladelse til at bede den jødiske ypperstepræst, Eleazar, om at sende 6 repræsentanter fra hver af Israels tolv stammer til at udarbejde en perfekt, officiel oversættelse. ”
  3. Brevet forsvarer jødernes rituelle koder i loven og forklarer, at disse alle er allegorier for en dybere filosofisk adfærd og ikke er beregnet til at blive fortolket bogstaveligt. Bogens etiske standarder roses.
  4. Brevet afsluttes med accept af den nye oversættelse af alle jøderne i Alexandria.

Bevis for forfalskning:

Den pågældende Demetrius var aldrig bibliotekar på det alexandriske bibliotek under Ptolemaios Philadelphus (som ikke kunne lide ham). Grafton citerer Pfeiffer, Historie, 100-101 også for andre fejl, men jeg har endnu ikke haft en chance for at konsultere dette.

Sofistikering af løgnen:

Forfatteren bruger de metoder, som Alexandrian -kritikere havde udviklet til at korrigere tekster og opdage forfalskninger for at få sin egen tekst til at virke desto mere troværdig.

  1. han bruger den allegoriske metode til at “ forklare væk ” eller retfærdiggøre jødernes rå kost og andre ritualistiske koder, ligesom andre samtidige forskere havde brugt allegori til at rationalisere de mere barbariske og usmagelige dele af Homer.
  2. han diskuterer, hvordan man til dels kom frem til de korrekte oversættelser gennem standardtekstkritik —, der samlede alle de tilgængelige manuskripter og udvidelser til rådighed — for at foreslå, at de mest videnskabelige metoder til at bestemme nøjagtighed blev brugt og for at styrke troværdigheden af ​​hans fortælling
  3. snarere end bare at fortælle en fortællende historie om forhandlingerne mellem Demetrius og Ptolemaios, citerer han ord for ord ” fra Demetrius ’ memorandum. Tilføjelse af et strejf af realisme som denne (en løgn inden for en løgn) øger troværdigheden af ​​hans brev.
  4. han skriver for to publikum: for jøder i Palæstina at demonstrere, at den græske oversættelse er overlegen deres hebraiske version for hedninger for at demonstrere, at de jødiske rituelle love ikke er meningsløse, men allegoriske filosofiske koder.
  5. hans motiv er ikke penge, men et ønske om at hævde Septuagintas åndelige autoritet over den hebraiske bibel.

Grafton kommenterer, at denne forfalskning er en af ​​de mest komplekse at overleve, men det er virkelig kun et eksempel på en meget stor befolkning. “De tidlige kristne producerede dem af snesevis ” (s.17)

Kristne forfalskninger

Forskere har længe erkendt, at 1 og 2 Timoteus og Titus er forfalskninger, lige så meget som de apostoliske forfatninger. Deres hensigt var naturligvis at bruge navnene på gamle myndigheder og førstepersonsregnskaber til at forsøge at bilægge doktrinære tvister i kirken.

Jo mere eksotisk den påståede oprindelse og sprog er, jo bedre

Publics kunne være mere imponeret, hvis et dokument kunne siges at have sin oprindelse på et fremmed (hellig — f.eks. Egyptisk, etruskisk) sprog med en forklaring på, at dets græske oversættelse kun delvist kunne fange originalens fulde kraft.

Dette var tilfældet med teksten til halvguden Hermes Trismegistus, som faktisk blev skrevet på græsk for græsk læser, på trods af dens påstand om at have haft en egyptisk oprindelse. Det imponerer stadig nogle mennesker i dag, selvom det oprindeligt var en pastiche med græske filosofiske mærker og dårligt forståede egyptiske ordsprog og traditioner, men det virkede eksotisk og syntes at have haft en egyptisk oprindelse.

En anden sag var “ tordenskalendere ” af angiveligt etruskisk oprindelse. Disse forklarede tordenens betydninger på en given dag i året. Teksten hævdede at have været sammensat ord for ord fra ældre halvguder, Tages og Tarchon. Dens krav om etruskisk herkomst var nok til at overtale mange af dens værdi.

Augustansk historie (Scriptores Historiae Augustae)

Dette (4. århundrede e.Kr.) er en anden klassisk sofistikeret forfalskning, der muligvis ikke har noget andet formål end morskaben til dens forfatter (selvom den hævdede at være en samling af seks forskere). For at styrke sine påstande om ægthed citerede den endda selve hyldenummeret på en ikke-eksisterende tekst:

“ elfenbenbogen ” indeholdende et senatus consultum underskrevet af kejser Tacitus. Det var i reol 6 på Ulpian -biblioteket, hvor “linen -bøgerne ”, der indeholder Aurelians gerninger, også var indkvarteret.

Intet kunne have gjort mere for at øge troværdigheden hos denne dedikerede, men selvhånende imaginære forsker, hvis nysgerrighed omfavnet selv de mindste detaljer om kejserlige liv og værker —, der ironisk nok repræsenterede sig selv som at indrømme for Junius Tiberianus, præfekten i Rom, at Der er ingen forfatter, i hvert fald inden for historiens område, der ikke har fremsat en eller anden falsk erklæring. (s.19)

Forfalskning under den sande forfatteres næse?

Ville falske endda have turdet videregive falske værker under selve næsen på de forfattere, de smed? Det skete.

Galen huskes bedst som medicinsk forfatter. Han skrev en klage over, at han kunne gå gennem Roms gader og se bøger, der hævdede at være alene (Galen Physician), som han slet ikke havde været ansvarlig for. Han forsøgte at forklare, hvordan læsere kunne se forskellen mellem hans værker og de falske, der cirkulerede under hans navn.

Men det er et punkt, som de, der kender bogstaverne fra Paul, kender, selvom denne sammenligning er min egen, og ikke Grafton ’s, som jeg tilføjer her. I et brev, der af mange lærde vurderes at være en forfalskning i sig selv, advarer “Paul ” sine læsere om at passe på bogstaver, der påstår, at de er fra ham. Så ideen om forfalskninger inden for deres navnebrøders tid og område var bestemt en troværdig på det tidspunkt. Se 2 Thessaloniker til diskussion, og især 2: 2.

Galen var også en tekstkritiker, der skrev analyser af tidligere medicinske værker. I sit forord til Hippokrates, Om menneskets natur, han behandler forskellige syn på værket, nogle der havde argumenteret for at hele bogen var en forfalskning og andre der havde argumenteret, men en enkelt linje var en interpolation.

Galen hævder, at den første del af værket var ægte, men den sidste del var bestemt forfalsket. Hans argumenter:

  1. den første del blev omtalt af Platon i Phaedrus, så den måtte have eksisteret dengang
  2. den anden del indeholder anakronismer, såsom tekniske udtryk for “unbroken ” og “urines ”, som tidlige græske læger aldrig brugte, men som kun ellers blev brugt af nylæger.

Julius Africanus, kristen lærd og romersk bibliotekar

Julius Africanus skrev et brev til Origenes nedrivning af ethvert håb om, at enhver tankevækkende person accepterede historien om Susanna som tilhørende den originale Daniel — -bog, som den er knyttet til på græsk, dog ikke i den hebraiske version.

Igen er hans argumenter interessante for deres “modernitet ”:

  1. Jøderne i den omtvistede tekst nyder mere frihed, end det faktisk var tilfældet under det babylonske fangenskab
  2. Daniel i den omstridte tekst profeterede i direkte tale, i modsætning til Daniel i den anden tekst, der talte via englesyner
  3. Historien var for fjollet til at være en græsk mime
  4. Historien indeholder to afgørende udførlige ordspil — på græsk —, så det kunne ikke have været en oversættelse fra hebraisk.

Konklusion

Anthony Grafton fortsætter med en diskussion om Jerome's opdagelse af forfalskninger, selv i den formodede kanon for bibelske værker, og bevæger sig derefter ind i middelalderen og videre til i dag.

Det er interessant at se, at de værktøjer eller argumenter, der bruges i dag til at opdage forfalskninger, var i brug selv i oldtiden. Det er lige så interessant at se, at de argumenter, der afslørede forfalskninger, da ikke formåede at overtale dem, der ville tro, at de havde den ægte litteratur, lige så meget som de samme værktøjer i dag ikke formår at overbevise enhver Mulder, der ønsker (eller har brug for) at tro & #8221.


University of Exeter: Forfalskning af officielle dokumenter af munke var udbredt i middelalderens Europa, viser ny bog

Munke forfalskede officielle dokumenter i hele middelalderens Europa på grund af sociale ændringer og det skrevne ords voksende betydning, viser en ny bog.

Forfalsket dokumentation begyndte at blive produceret for alvor i det tiende århundrede på tværs af store dele af kontinentet og var "middelalderens hvide løgn". Munkene begrundede bedrag, fordi de følte, at deres bestræbelser var til det større gode.

I løbet af denne tid blev mange bispedømmegrænser trukket for første gang, og der var ændret praksis inden for lov og administration. Bogen af ​​Dr. Levi Roach fra University of Exeter argumenterer for, at forfalskning tidligere har hjulpet folk med at søge trøst og sikkerhed. Det var også et vigtigt redskab for munke til at cementere det, de så som deres institutionelle rettigheder til jord og ejendom, efterhånden som aristokrater fik mere magt.

Dr Roach said: “Few regions in world history can rival medieval Europe for the sheer scale of forging. Most of the forgeries were associated with leading figures within the church – men such as Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg and Gilbert Foliot, abbot of Gloucester and later bishop of Hereford. It was faith, not cynicism, that inspired the era’s counterfeiters. Before the 10th century it was relatively rare by the 12th, it was rife.

“This newfound fascination with forgery was driven by new attitudes to local and institutional memory. It was in the later 10th century that many abbeys and bishoprics first started writing down their own histories, often embellishing them with forgery.”

Dr Roach examined five religious institutions in the book, using documents now held in 50 archives across Europe. The painstaking detective work involved analysing handwriting, document layouts and the parchment used. He also analysed later copies of original documents, often produced to reconstruct lost paperwork.

The research shows forgers modelled their efforts on authentic documents, often quite closely. The results may look obviously anachronistic to a trained modern eye, but they did not in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Most were assumed to be authentic well into the nineteenth century, and a few continue to have their defenders.

The growing use of the written word meant more official information was recorded during this period, and these documents had greater authority. There was also disagreement and competition between churches, and between churches and noblemen as to who owned land and property. Sometimes there were conflicts within the same church, something to be expected when monks lived so closely together.

Dr Roach said: “Looking at forgery tells us so much about the human condition. There was a reason why people wanted to deceive, and this was particularly the case in the church in the Middle Ages across Western Europe. It happened at almost every religious house for which good archives still exist.

“Faith drove forgery. People justified fakes because they thought God was on their side. This happened from the earliest days of the church. People knew they were deceiving others, but felt their motives were pure.”

Many of the forged documents wouldn’t have been widely seen, and were often produced as a precaution. They may have been used to show to supporters and visitors, or perhaps presented in a court of law.

Dr Roach said: “Forgery reflects society’s concerns and problems in a similar way to fake news today. Forgeries were often designed to be seen by those already converted to the cause people lied to their friends not to their enemies.”

Falsifiers used productions on well-known and powerful individuals, such as the Merovingian ruler Dagobert I (623–39), the Carolingian emperor Charlemagne (768–814) and the last monarch of England’s native line, Edward the Confessor (1042–66).

The most common types of text forged in the Middle Ages were charters conveying or confirming legal rights, particularly of liberty, immunity and exemption. Most royal courts had no more than a handful of scribes, who often combined their royal duties with responsibilities elsewhere, often at local religious houses. Texts were drafted and copied before being approved, sealed, or given signs of assent. New charters were modelled on old versions, often repeating their terms verbatim. Forgeries are often obvious because of anachronisms.

One of the case studies featured is Pilgrim, bishop of Passau in south-eastern Bavaria between 971 and 991. Pilgrim hailed from one of the foremost Bavarian noble families, and his uncle, Archbishop Frederick of Salzburg, was his immediate superior within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Pilgrim faked documents, writing them himself, to give Passau a glorious history, producing one of the most imaginative and elaborate forgery complexes of Austrian and Bavarian history. It is likely that Pilgrim had local audiences in mind: the cathedral canons at Passau, and perhaps also their haughty neighbours at Salzburg.


The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England

Jens Röhrkasten, The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England, Den engelske historiske gennemgang, Volume CXXI, Issue 490, February 2006, Pages 280–281, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cej053

The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England, by Alfred Hiatt (London: The British Library, 2004 pp. 226. £40).

The phenomenon of forgery has fascinated generations of medievalists. The full scope of the subject and the challenges posed by different types of texts, artefacts and methods were the subject of a long conference in 1986, the proceedings of which, published in six volumes, Fälschungen im Mittelalter, edited by H. Fuhrmann, are a major contribution to the study of forgery in the middle ages, and set the standard against which subsequent work must be assessed. Hiatt's stimulating and splendidly produced book excludes a number of aspects which are usually associated with the subject (numismatics, forgery of artefacts, forgery and economic exchange), concentrating instead on texts, maps and images. A survey of forgery in England between the Norman conquest and.


Forgery

in art. (1) The preparation Of works of fine, decorative, or applied art in imitation of a particular historical style or the style of a well-known master. Forgery is done with the intent of sale.

(2) A forged work of art. A forgery is seldom a copy of an original. It most often is a variation upon an original or a compilation of characteristic motifs from several originals. Forgers, some of whom are very talented, imitate the stylistic details of a specific era or the artistic style of a particular master artist, painstakingly copying all his distinctive techniques. For greater verisimilitude, they use old materials and old technical devices. Forgers simulate the effects of age, such as patina on stone and metal and craquelures on paintings. They create artificial gaps and fragmentation, allegedly caused by the passage of time.


7 Antique Forgeries Made in Antiquity

Forgery of art and antiquities is far from a modern phenomenon. Thousands of years ago, devotional objects, trendy artworks, and popular collectibles were ginned up on the quick and sold as ancient to a large market of thirsty marks. Here are seven fakes that were made in antiquity. The surviving ones are ancient artifacts now, but they were only pretending back then.

1. THE BLACK CRUCIFORM STONE FROM THE TEMPLE OF SHAMASH

In 1881, British Museum archaeologists found a black cruciform stone covered in inscriptions during the excavation of the temple of Shamash, in Sippar (modern-day Iraq). They discovered it in the Neo-Babylonian layer (7th to 6th century BCE), but according to the inscription, it was created during the reign of Manishtushu, King of Akkad (circa 2276 to 2261 BCE). The voluble inscription covers all 12 sides of the monument with a glowing report of how the king had showered the temple with gifts and privileges and funded an extensive renovation. The last line of the inscription insists that "this is not a lie, it is indeed the truth . He who will damage this document let Enki fill up his canals with slime . "

This is not the truth. It is indeed a lie, a forgery likely produced by the priests of the temple to put the official seal of approval of antiquity and royalty on the many privileges and large income they enjoyed. It's the kind of forgery known as a pious fraud, when an artifact or document is created to deceive for the good of the faith, in this case the good of the faith meaning the good of the priests' wallets. It's like the Donation of Constantine, only carved on stone in fake archaic cuneiform instead of ink on papyrus.

2. THE SCEPTER OF AGAMEMNON

Starting in the Hellenistic era and continuing for centuries, the prized artifacts in ancient Greece were of purported Homeric origin. They weren't just valued for their literary or historic significance these objects were venerated, religious relics donated to and collected by temples. Many of them were believed to have been dedicated to the temples by the living Homeric heroes themselves.

The imperial era Roman author Lucius Ampelius lists the Homeric offerings in the temple of Apollo at Sicyon among the "miracles of the world": the shield and sword of Agamemnon, Odysseus's cloak and breastplate, Teucer's bow and arrows, and Penelope's loom. Homeric devotional objects appear in Beskrivelse af Grækenland by 2nd century geographer Pausanias, as well, with one in particular getting the most attention: the scepter of Agamemnon, forged by the very hand of the god Hephaestus.

Of the gods, the people of Chaeroneia honor most the scepter which Homer says Hephaestus made for Zeus, Hermes received from Zeus and gave to Pelops, Pelops left to Atreus, Atreus to Thyestes, and Agamemnon had from Thyestes. This scepter, then, they worship, calling it Spear. That there is something peculiarly divine about this scepter is most clearly shown by the fame it brings to the Chaeroneans.

They say that it was discovered on the border of their own country and of Panopeus in Phocis, that with it the Phocians discovered gold, and that they were glad themselves to get the scepter instead of the gold. I am of opinion that it was brought to Phocis by Agamemnon's daughter Electra. It has no public temple made for it, but its priest keeps the scepter for one year in a house. Sacrifices are offered to it every day, and by its side stands a table full of meats and cakes of all sorts.

There were other temple artifacts purported to have been made by Hephaestus, but Pausanias dismissed them all as fakes because they were bronze which, according to him, was first smelted in the 6th century by Theodorus of Samos. Apparently Hephaestus's godhead was not sufficient to put him ahead of the curve of human ingenuity. The scepter proved itself authentic to Pausanias because it was gold, as Homer said it was, it made its keepers famous, and, most importantly, its ownership history could be traced from the heroes of Troy all the way back to the god. Ownership history remains a key element of authentication, although nowadays the owners have to be real people rather than mythological heroes and deities to qualify.

3. THE JOURNAL OF DICTYS

Purportedly the personal diary of Dictys, companion of Idomeneus, the commander of Crete's forces fighting against Troy, the Journal of the Trojan War is an eye-witness account of the war. It pitches its own authenticity in the introduction and preface in the form of several favored postmodern literary tropes—the found manuscript, the translation of a translation, the dead author—which also happen to have been very popular with ancient forgers. The description was tailor-made to persuade an ancient audience that they were reading a real diary from the Trojan War. According to the preface,

In the thirteenth year of Nero’s reign an earthquake struck at Cnossos and, in the course of its devastation, laid open the tomb of Dictys in such a way that people, as they passed, could see the little box. And so shepherds who had seen it as they passed stole it from the tomb, thinking it was treasure. But when they opened it and found the linden tablets inscribed with characters unknown to them, they took this find to their master. Their master, whose name was Eupraxides, recognized the characters, and presented the books to Rutilius Rufus, who was at that time governor of the island. Since Rufus, when the books had been presented to him, thought they contained certain mysteries, he, along with Eupraxides himself, carried them to Nero. Nero, having received the tablets and having noticed that they were written in the Phoenician alphabet, ordered his Phoenician philologists to come and decipher whatever was written. When this had been done, since he realized that these were the records of an ancient man who had been at Troy, he had them translated into Greek thus a more accurate text of the Trojan War was made known to all. Then he bestowed gifts and Roman citizenship upon Eupraxides, and sent him home.

Whoever wrote this book (hint: not Dictys) made this find seem plausible by keeping it as unanachronistic as possible. Greeks believed Cadmus had introduced the Phoenician alphabet to Greece, so it makes sense that a book so old would be written in Phoenician. The reference to linden tablets is another nod to his audience's understanding of history. Wood predated paper or papyrus as a writing medium. Nine volumes is a lot of wooden tablets to haul around, but these were the hallmarks of genuine antiquity, immediately recognizable as such to an educated Greek reader.

4. THE APOLLO OF PIOMBINO

So few ancient Greek bronzes have survived that when a bronze kouros, a male nude ostensibly from the Archaic period (late 6th century BCE), was found off the coast of Tuscany near the town of Piombino in 1832, it caused a sensation. The Louvre snapped it up, and the Apollo of Piombino, as the statue became known, soon graced the pages of every art history tome.

But there were some weird things about the Apollo. His dadbod torso, the incised waves of his hair, the flat affect instead of the Archaic smile, and the shape of the letters on the inscription on his left foot dedicating him to Athena were not typical of the Archaic style. Then a restoration in 1842 found a lead tablet inside the bronze that named the two sculptors who made it. They were from Tyre and Rhodes and lived in the 1st century BCE. That tablet is now lost.

The Louvre held on as long as possible, redating the bronze to the 5th century and classifying it not as Archaic but as an example of the "severe style." Eventually even they had to admit this was no Greek original. It's a pastiche of Greek styles deliberately passed off as an original for the Roman market. Genuine Greek bronzes were rare even then, and forgers stepped up to bridge the gap between supply and demand.

5. THE RICHELIEU VENUS

Genuine marbles by the great Hellenistic sculptors were rare too, and your less scrupulous Roman artists made a booming business of passing off copies as the originals. A Greek signature by "Praxiteles" or "Lyssipus" could give even inferior works the cachet of masterpieces. The 1st century Roman fabulist Phaedrus referred to the practice in Book V of his Fables, Latin verse versions of Aesop's fables.

If Esop's name at any time
I bring into this measured rhyme,
To whom I've paid whate'er I owe,
Let all men by these presents know.
I with th' old fabulist make free,
To strengthen my authority.
As certain sculptors of the age,
The more attention to engage,
And raise their price, the curious please,
By forging of Praxiteles.

The sculptor of the Richelieu Venus did just that. Now in the Louvre, the statue of a clothed Venus and Cupid dates to the 2nd century CE and has a signature of no less a luminary than 4th century BCE Greek master Praxiteles engraved on the sweet spot of the plinth. While some art historians believe the inscription was added a few hundred years ago before the statue was acquired by the 17th century collector, statesman, and power behind the throne Cardinal Richelieu, the forms and letters of the Greek are characteristic of the middle imperial period when the statue was made.

6. THE SHABAKA STONE

The Shabaka Stone is a motivational opposite of the temple of Shamash stone. This time it was the konge making up stuff to ingratiate himself to the priests, and he used the same trick pseudoDictys used to do it. The rectangular basalt slab is inscribed in hieroglyphs that identify the king who commissioned it—Nubian Pharaoh Shabaka (ca. 716-702 BCE)—and why—to preserve an important religious text whose only known copy was falling apart. The text, a creation myth crediting the god Ptah with creating all the other gods, itself follows, although significant portions were eroded away when the stele was reused centuries later as a millstone.

There was no tattered papyrus. As a Nubian outsider, Shabaka needed to suck up to the priests at the temple of Ptah in Memphis, Egypt's first capital. He had recently conquered the city and wasn't exactly welcomed as a liberator. A nice inscribed slab kissing Memphis' ancient ass would please both priests and populace. He really made an effort, too. The inscription has all kinds of archaic touches in the layout, grammar and spelling making it seem like it could legitimately come from the mysterious ancient text.

7. THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF FAKE MUMMIES

The mummies of animals were essential devotional objects for the rituals of animal cult worship in ancient Egypt. Devotees would purchase mummies from the temples as votive offerings to the gods. The scale of this market was so huge that cats, dogs, ibises, baboons, bulls, and other animals were farmed to satisfy demand. In just one of more than 30 centers of animal cult worship, the necropolis of Saqqara, archaeologists found 8 million animal mummies (mostly dogs) that had been interred in catacombs from the 30th Dynasty (380 to 343 BCE) through to the Roman period. The estimated combined body count for all the animal cult centers is a mind-boggling 70 million.

Egyptians' voracious appetite for embalmed beasts could not be sated even by the most prolific puppy/kitten/baboon mills. In 2015, researchers at the University of Manchester examined more than 800 mummies from the Manchester Museum collection to see what was inside the bundles. X-rays and CT scans revealed that a third of them had intact animals, as advertised, another third had partial remains, and the last third were empty. The linen wrappers were filled with whatever was lying around—mud, sticks, eggshells—much like the brain the Wizard of Oz scared up for Scarecrow.

Even when the era of Egyptian animal cult worship was over and the fraud was no longer pious, mummies were still so prized that people kept cranking out fakes. In the Middle Ages and Early Modern era, mummies were believed to have medicinal properties. They were ground up into powder and sold in tinctures. They were also ground up into powder by artists to make a prized brown pigment.

Then, in the 19th century, Egyptomania exploded after the discoveries made during Napoleon's 1798 Egyptian expedition. Mummies were a must-have fashion accessory for the wealthy, and the production of fakes followed with alacrity. Two small mummies in the Vatican's collection thought to be of children or animals were recently found to be Egyptomaniacal forgeries. CT scans, X-rays, and DNA tests found that inside genuine Egyptian linen bandages were a random jumble of medieval human bones and one 19th century nail. And thus the expert antiquarians of the Vatican were deceived just as surely as the ancient faithful had been thousands of years earlier.


CHAPTER FIVE: FORGERIES IN CONFLICTS WITH JEWS AND PAGANS

History, as any good student of it knows, is messy. Things often do not follow ordinary or orderly patterns. And the history of the composition of documents in antiquity is no different. Bart&rsquos attempt in the first half of his book &lsquoForged&rsquo to force the read to choose between basically two binary opposites&mdash either the NT documents were composed by who they claim to be composed by, or they were forgeries or fabrications, is frankly to limit the possibilities to too few options. I say this, not only because of what we now know of the many and varied roles scribes played in even composing documents in antiquity (see K. van der Tooren as previously discussed) but I say this on the basis of the prima facia evidence within the NT itself.

Take for example the complex case of the document we know as the Gospel of John. This document is formally anonymous (no direct internal naming of the author in the document), and it has the later attribution &lsquoaccording to John&rsquo. But which John? John Mark, John of Patmos, John son of Zebedee? The attribution does not specify. In the heat of controversy, trying to snatch this Gospel back from the Gnostics who apparently thought it was the best, Irenaeus and others attributed this Gospel to John son of Zebedee. But frankly, there are severe problems with that guess. Here is a document which uniquely among canonical Gospels claims within the document to involve the testimony of an eyewitness&mdashthe Beloved Disciple (see John 19-21). But this Gospel contains none of the crucial eyewitness stories we find in the Synoptics involving John son of Zebedee&mdashnot the calling of the Zebedees, not the raising of Jairus&rsquo daughter, not the Transfiguration, not the asking for box seats in the kingdom when Jesus gets there&mdashnothing like this is in John&rsquos Gospel. In fact there is hardly a mention of the Zebedees at all in the Fourth Gospel (but see the passing reference in John 21). Yet when we get to the end of the document we have a very peculiar testimony&mdash&ldquothis (i.e. the Beloved Disciple) is the disciple who is testifying to these things, and has written them down, and we know his testimony is true.&rdquo (21.24). What makes this sentence doubly interesting is that it comes after a very strange disclaimer&mdash- Jesus did not say the Beloved Disciple would live until he returned.

Why in the world do we need that disclaimer? Apparently because the Beloved Disciple&rsquos community thought he uniquely would do so. But why would they think that and why stress it here? The normal, and I think correct answer to this question is that the Beloved Disciple had finally died, and Jesus had not yet returned, and so the community he was a part of wanted to reassure people that Jesus had not falsely predicted the endurance of the Beloved Disciple longer than he actually lived. As to why the community of the Beloved Disciple would think he would not die before the return of Jesus, I can think of a very good reason&mdash Jesus had already raised him from the dead once. Surely, he would not die again. You can read about my case for the Beloved Disciple being Lazarus in What Have They Done with Jesus. I think the case is a strong one, passing the case for John son of Zebedee in the fast lane. For example, there are no direct references to a Beloved Disciple before John 11.1-3, and quite a few there after, and in John 11.1-4 &lsquothe one whom Jesus loves&rsquo is clearly said to be Lazarus.

Let&rsquos pause for a moment on that phrase &lsquothe Beloved Disciple&rsquo. Jesus famously said he came to be a servant, he rebuked his disciples for their debate about which one of them was the greatest, he held up children as examples to his boastful disciples, and he preached humility. What kind of disciple would go around calling ham selv &lsquothe Beloved Disciple&rsquo? It&rsquos a fair question. I think that this is not what that disciple called himself. It is what his family and later Christian friends and community called him. And that brings us back to John 21.24&mdash&lsquowho exactly is the &lsquowe&rsquo in that verse? It&rsquos surely the community of the Beloved Disciple testifying about the testimony the Beloved Disciple wrote down before he died. But as Sherlock Holmes would say, John 21.24 is the telltale sign that this Gospel in its final form was composed or put together and edited by someone other than the Beloved Disciple. Who, exactly?

Obviously, it is a literate person who has collected and edited the memoirs of the Beloved Disciple. He too seems to have been a person comfortable with calling this man, uniquely, the Beloved Disciple, amongst the many disciples Jesus had. He is indebted to him, and highly values his testimony. This person could be an ordinary scribe tasked with collecting, editing and presenting the Johannine community with this Gospel, probably the latest of all the canonical Gospels. Why then is the common name John added to this document?

Papias tells us there were two famous John&rsquos&mdash John the apostle, and the elderly or elder John. Only the latter had Papias met. If you study all of the fragments of Papias&rsquo writings from both within the work of Eusebius and other sources, one of the things you learn about him, which Eusebius despises, is that Papias is a chiliast &mdash that is, a person who believes in a future millennium or messianic age at the end of history and before history&rsquos end. Of course the only person who clearly advocates such a thing directly in the NT is the author of Revelation&mdash John the prophet or seer, John of Patmos (John 20).

Here is my theory about the fourth Gospel, but whether this theory is correct or not, John 21.24 must be accounted for, and it reveals the post-mortem collection and composition of this document by someone other than the Beloved Disciple, and someone not claiming to be the Beloved Disciple&mdash the &lsquowe&rsquo is not the &lsquohe&rsquo in that verse. My theory in sum is that John of Patmos, after he returned from exile to Ephesus where the Beloved Disciple had died, collected and edited the BD&rsquos materials and promulgated this Gospel. This fact was known well into the second century (the Gospel was probably only composed in the late 90s anyway) and it is the cause for it having the label &lsquoaccording to John&rsquo. Now if John of Patmos had been interviewed and asked if he was the source of the material in this Gospel, he would have said no &mdash he was simply the scribe or editor who assembled after the death of the BD. In short, right before our eyes and within the canon in the Gospel of John, we have evidence of a composition history of a document that involves someone other than the source of the material in the document composing the document. This falls neither into the category of written by the genuine author nor into the category of forgery or fabrication. Those categories are too narrow and cramped to explain all the NT data.

Bearing this in mind, we can turn to Bart&rsquos Chapter Five. In order to properly explain why there are so many forgeries or fabrications in the NT and in early Christian history, Bart takes the route of suggesting that Christians saw themselves as constantly embattled, and apparently the end justified the means, even if the means was forgery and fabrication. The truth would be defended by deceit and fraud. If Bart is right that there was no literary convention of writing pseudonymous documents in antiquity, and if he is write that the NT documents were not written by those to whom they are credited, then this is the sort of alternative one would expect Bart to come up with.

The problem is, he is partially wrong about the first theory, and extensively wrong about the second theory, and so we don&rsquot really need this further rationalization of why Christians behaved badly and forged and fabricated documents. We especially don&rsquot need it if one adequately takes the measure of the varied roles scribes played, even after the death of an authentic witness, in composing documents. He begins with Ephesians, once more, and suggests that there are an awful lot of references to truth in that book, which is ironic if someone falsely claimed to write this book after the time of Paul. He&rsquos right about that, for the case for pseudepigrapha being a recognized literary convention is weak indeed. Fortunately, Paul did write Ephesians and so it doesn&rsquot involve deception.

The burden of this chapter is first of all to show that there were reasons why most Jews in the first century did not accept Jesus as the messiah: 1) he was not the messiah they were looking for, and he did not kick the Romans out of the land, instead he died a shameful death on a cross. Early Jews were not looking for a crucified messiah, among those who were looking for a messianic hero at all 2) of the OT texts used by early Jewish Christians to demonstrate that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, some had not been interpreted messianically before, some were not prophecies, and some were prophecies that did not refer more specifically to a messiah (mashiach). Bart is right about both of these points. The dying and rising messiah is hard to find in the OT unless Isaiah 52-53 is talking about him but even that text says nothing about gruesome crucifixion. Jesus did not match up with various essential early Jewish expectations.

Bart is equally correct that when Jews largely didn&rsquot accept Jesus, this led, especially in the second century and later to anti-Semitism among Christians, including the charge that Jews were Christ killers. Never mind that it was the Romans who executed Jesus (which did not lead to anti-Italianism). Bart is good at pointing out the sins of the early church, and this chapter is all about that, and about forgeries like the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Nicodemus (fourth century forgery), the Pilate Gospels which were used to beat Jews over the head.

Once again the purpose of spending so much time on later forgeries from the post- NT era is the guilt by association kind of argument&mdash if there was this much deceit going on later, there must have been a bunch of it in the first century A.D. as well. The problem with this sort of argument by analogy is of course that each era of history, just as each individual person, has their own unique features. For example, as Jacob Neusner has so ably shown, you can&rsquot retroject later rabbinic Judaism and all its practices back into Second Temple Judaism. Things changed dramatically after A.D. 70, and after 120, Judaism ceased to be a Temple and territory focused religion at all, focusing only on the third T&mdashTorah.

I would stress that the historical conditions in earliest Christianity, with its apostles and eyewitnesses and co-workers, had quality control agents and a sufficiently large Jewish Christian population to make some of the later practices of anti-Semitic Gentile Christians unlikely or exceptional in that era. Paul&rsquos impassioned argument in Romans 9-11 that God had not abandoned nor was he finished with his first chosen people shows what the apostles were teaching about such matters. That such arguments later fell on deaf ears should not stop us from recognizing the different character of the leadership in the earlier period. It is interesting that some of the documents Bart discusses in this chapter could be called attempts at Christian fiction or novellas a category of literature Bart mostly ignores (but see the discussion of the Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea on p. 161). This sort of literature was popular in the first four centuries of Christian history, but even if viewed that way, it does not exonerate them of their mean-spirited anti- Semitic ideas and emphases. Worse still, the Romans were already anti-Semitic, and this sort of literature just fed their despising of the Jews. This literature is a far cry from Luke-Acts where we are told that even the Jewish officials who did have something to do with Jesus&rsquo death acted in ignorance not malice and could be forgiven.

As a prelude to dealing with later Christian writings alleged to have been written by Jesus himself, on pp. 159-6o Bart deals with the famous John 7.53-8.11 where he stresses that this text says that Jesus himself could write. Bart does not here comment on the historical merits of the story, but since elsewhere he says Jesus is an illiterate peasant, there is no doubt about how he views it. He does mention the recent theory of Chris Keith that this story was concocted to demonstrate that Jesus could write! But that surely is a minor motif in the story, we are not even told what Jesus wrote on the ground, so this theory while ingenuous is probably entirely wrong. Most Johannine scholars anyway think this is an authentic Jesus story, but not originally a canonical one. I agree with the latter opinion.

On pp. 162-63 Bart deals with the fascinating but fictional correspondence between King Abgar of Edessa and Jesus himself. It is interesting for many reasons, not the least of which is that a Christian pilgrim in the fourth century, Egeria, saw this document as displayed by the bishop of that place. What this shows of course is that Bart is right&mdash there were many fictitious writings and indeed forgeries and fabrications in early Christianity. There is no denying it, and very many of them sadly have an anti-Semitic slant. This is not a part of Christian history that Christians should be proud of, or condone however fascinating these documents might be from a historical point of view. But the fact that there is such an abundance of these documents should tell us one thing&mdash-estimates that the literacy of early Christians was something like 1-5% must be way too low. Somebodies produced these documents for some audiences, and they bespeak of a geographically widespread literacy in early Christianity, and not just among the elites.

På s. 164 Bart makes a point that is historically dubious. His is an argument from silence. His argument is that because there were no Imperial edicts banning Christianity specifically, that it is not true that Christianity was widely viewed as an illegal religion. This completely ignores the fact that the one thing saving Judaism from being proscribed was Imperial edicts saying the Jews could practice their own religion and need not offer sacrifices to the Emperor. Bart does not even reckon with all the things said in Roman literature about &lsquoreligio licita&rsquo and for that matter about superstitio&mdasheastern and foreign superstitions. Beginning from Augustan on, there were indeed imperial efforts to ban and banish foreign cults, and when it became clear Christianity was not merely Judaism, it fell under such a cloud. Bart is right that actual persecution of Christians was sporadic and local in the first century, but the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan make perfectly clear that early in the second century, Christians were not being given the same &lsquopass&rsquo that Jews were given when it came to worshipping the Emperor. Hvorfor ikke? Because there were rules about how to deal with superstitions, and Christianity fell into that category. Indeed, when Christians urged people not to worship the Emperor they were in violation of Caesar&rsquos decrees (see Acts), and notice how Paul in Athens in Acts 17 is on trial for promulgating false religion or false gods, gods not approved for worship by the Areopagus first. In other words, Bart&rsquos portrayal of the first century situation for Christians has some historically dubious aspects to it.

As Christianity gained momentum and more and more followers, the need for apologetics became more urgent, as the faith became more visible in the Empire. Bart on pp. 165-73 makes a reasonable case for seeing some of the fictional and forged documents as attempts to exonerate Christians from pagan charges, counter claims, or contumely. For example the Acts of Pilate are held up as a possible response to a pagan document called the Acts of Pilate which paints Jesus in a very bad light. I suspect he is right about this. Christians resorted to rather transparent fiction as a vehicle to rebut false claims about their faith. What is not clear to me is that at least the more transparent of these documents would not immediately have been recognized as fiction rather than fabrication. That they were later, considerably later, in the Middle Ages (e.g. in the case of the Gospel of Nicodemus), viewed differently is another story. I think Bart spends too little time reckoning with the possibility and scope of early Christian fiction&mdashwhich did not intend to deceive, and probably did not fool its original intended audience. But I agree we must take seriously that there were various forgeries and fabrications in early Christianity, and simply admit that this is not consonant with a strong commitment to the truth in all things.

Bart goes on to discuss the Sibylline Oracles on pp. 173-76 and he is quite right that both Jews and Christians fabricated oracles and inserted them into or created these collections. The original oracles were lost in temple fires before these monotheistic substitutes were created. There is nothing in this discussion which seems amiss. Christians were indeed prepared to create false prophecies to bolster their religion, as were early Jewish and indeed there was also an apologetic purpose in this, to convince pagans about monotheism.

One of the ironies about this book is that while Bart has no trouble showing that later Christians acting immorally created forgeries and fabrications, he does not show that such practices were indulged in by the apostles and original eyewitnesses themselves or by their co-workers. And surely, if you want to actually discredit Christianity, what you actually need to do is go back annonce skrifttyper and discredit the original Christians and their actual eyewitness testimonies. For example, you would need to discredit the content of, say, the seven undisputed letters of Paul. You would have to discredit his testimony not only that Jesus died and rose from the dead, but that he appeared to hundreds of people, some of whom, like himself, had been previously hostile to Jesus and his followers. This book does none of that. But it certainly does leave the odor of a skunk on many Christians who lived after the NT era. No wonder some people say I can believe in Jesus, but the church is simply unbelievable.


Se videoen: middelalder (Juli 2022).


Kommentarer:

  1. Merla

    I already have it

  2. Mika'il

    I would like to talk a lot with you.

  3. Ridere

    In my opinion, you admit the mistake. Jeg kan forsvare min holdning.

  4. Najin

    Yah...

  5. Osmarr

    Spørgsmål er det ideelle svar

  6. Hod

    Jeg vil vide, mange tak for hjælpen i dette spørgsmål.

  7. Farlane

    Strålende idé og rettidig



Skriv en besked