Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Book of Jasher – the name of a lost book mentioned several times in the Bible, which was subject to at least two high-profile forgeries in the 18th and 19th century. [2] [3] Gospel of Josephus – 1927 forgery attributed to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, actually created by Italian writer Luigi Moccia to raise publicity for one of his ...
The Epistle of James is not technically a forgery because it does not claim to be specifically by James, the brother of Jesus. Rather, it claims to be by "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1). James, Ehrman notes, was a common name. Two of Jesus' disciples had that name, as did the brother of Jesus.
The Bibliotheca Fictiva Collection of Literary and Historical Forgery is the premier library collection in the world that is dedicated entirely to the subject of textual fakery and imposture. The collection totals nearly two thousand rare books and manuscripts and is kept at the Special Collections Department of Johns Hopkins University ’s ...
Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects ... Literary forgery * ... This page was last edited on 10 July 2023, ...
The account claimed to review the textual evidence available [2] from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Newton describes this letter as "an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records", [ 3 ] and "a criticism ...
The oldest known tablet inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament sold on Wednesday for $5.04 million, more than double its high estimate.. The stone, which dates back around ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
[2] The document was later demonstrated to be a forgery created by Mark Hofmann, who had been responsible for the forgery of many other notable documents. Rendell then recast his conclusion, stating that while there was "the absence of any indication of forgery in the letter itself, there was also no evidence that it was genuine." [3]