|Fiction over fact|
|How it didn't happen|
Historical forgery denotes one of two types of forgeries:
- A genuine item — however mundane — from the relevant time period, which has been tampered with long afterwards.
- An item from the wrong time period (ranging all the way up to: having been made from scratch just recently) that is presented as a genuine original dating from a certain time period.
Historical forgeries are typically used either to back up otherwise outlandish fringe theories, or to turn a fast buck being sold as authentic to museums or collectors. In both cases, the confidence men behind the forgeries are leading the public (and sometimes academia) astray in exchange for ill-gotten fame and/or fortune.
 Forgery as propaganda
Even after the development of the printing press in the West (c. 1440) forgeries were relatively easy to pull off as the ability to cross check information was difficult.
The best way to make something "important" is to say some famous (or infamous) figure said it...preferably after anyone who could contradict you was dead and gone. We see this with George Washington's vision and and a "quote" by Abraham Lincoln. In ancient Egypt they took the practice to the next level, totally eliminating leaders they felt were an "embarrassment" from official public records (for example, Akhenaten, Hatshepsut, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, and Ay are not listed in the Abydos King List) and crediting more suitable rulers with their contributions.
Since records of that time were hand-written they were limited both in the number of copies and in circulation, making forgery even easier as the means to determine a forgery was extremely limited. For instance, it wasn't until the time of Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), a Renaissance scholar, that the material that showed the Donation of Constantine was a crude forgery was able to be consolidated and checked (based on the mangled Latin in the document that nobody even remotely close to Constantine's court would have written, but that a semi-literate medieval forger would have).
Of course this lends itself to its own woo, with ad hoc claims such that none of the Pauline epistles were composed before 180 C.E. We can't say that the whole Pauline corpus is a forgery; only parts of it.
 The laws of Numa Pompilius
|...were digging up the ground to a greater depth than usual, two stone chests were found, each about eight feet long and four broad, with the lids fastened with lead.
Each chest had an inscription, in Latin and Greek letters: one to the effect that Numa Pompilius, the son of Pompo, king of the Romans, was buried there, the other, that the books of Numa Pompilius were inside. [...] The books were shown to other people and the fact became public.
Praetor Q. Petilius, who was friends with L. Petilius, requested them, found them very dangerous to religion and told Lucius he would have them burnt.
Somehow, the Romans were skeptical about the archeological finding because the double-ancient Romans knew a thing or two about quality (the book looked brand new) and because the opinions of the dead king were kind of close to those of the Pythagoreans.
 Shroud of Turin
The first undoubted attestation of the existence of the Shroud of Turin was in 1390 CE when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.
 Pauline letters
Paul one of the inventors of Christianity, who people used to say wrote half of the New Testament, actually wrote about a fourth of it. The rest? Forgeries — aka pseudepigrapha (nice word, don't you think?).
Paul himself warned the reader that there was a veritable cottage industry of people who wrote stuff in his name. Ironically these warnings appear both in the letters believed to be written by him and by forgers.
 Prester John's letter
A missive from mythical Christian monarch Prester John appeared in the 12th century to give legitimacy and support to the Crusades. Full of fantastical tales and promises of victory against the Infidel, it was enormously popular as literature, such that most people believed it until around the 17th century when it became very clear that Prester John had never existed. It is now believed to be a forgery by a mid-12th century west European (possibly an Italian) with some experience of the Crusader lands.
 Ossuary of James
 See also
- ↑ Di Renzo, A (2000) "His master's voice: Tiro and the rise of the Roman secretarial class", Journal of technical writing and communication, vol. 30, (2) 155-168
- ↑ Dupont, Florence. (1989) Daily Life in Ancient Rome Tr. Christopher Woodall. Oxford: Blackwell; pg 223
- ↑ Millard, Alan (2003) Literacy in the Time of Jesus - Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime? Biblical Archaeology Review 29:04, Jul/Aug 2003.
- ↑ The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery: The Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER c 180 CE Oct 26, 2013 3:15 pm, RationalSkepticism.org.
- ↑ Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 40, Ch 29, Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University
- ↑ Literary Frauds among the Romans, Alfred Gudeman, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1869-1896), Vol. 25 (1894), 140-164, via JSTOR, pages 141-142
- ↑ Les sources de l'histoire du linceul de Turin. Revue critique by Poulle, Emmanuel (December 2009). Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique 104(3-4):747–782. doi:10.1484/J.RHE.3.215.
- ↑ Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings by Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, 1998, ISBN 9781573922722.
- ↑ See the Wikipedia article on Authorship of the Pauline epistles.
- ↑ Review: PRESTER JOHN: THE LETTER AND THE LEGEND by V. Slessarev, Frend, W. H. C. History 46, no. 157 (1961): 132.