Talk:Christian interpolation

Misleading change of article subject
Until 18 October 2021, the subject of this article, as originally written on 16 January 2016‎ by, was "textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish or Pagan source texts during Christian scribal transmission." Today, this was changed by to "textual insertion and textual damage to source texts during Christian scribal transmission" (i.e., also to Christian texts). Now in my view, the article as it was until today was scarcely more than a dictionary definition, and as such would have been better converted to a list article (listing all known instances of Christian interpolations into non-Christian texts). However, since the changes made today by Editor2020, it doesn't even refer anymore to what a "Christian interpolation" is normally taken to mean: while from a non-scholarly perspective, one may indeed take the term "Christian interpolation" to refer to any and all interpolations made by Christians, in practice scholars use this term specifically to refer to interpolations made by Christians into non-Christian texts. See, e.g., here, or just examine the context of all the results here.

Now as I wrote earlier in my edit summary, we may also create a list article called Interpolations in the New Testament or (if we're going to include patristic texts, as we probably should) Interpolations in early Christian texts, to which the current 'New Testament' section could be merged. But right now, we are misleading our readers, as well as confusing them, with regard to what the term "Christian interpolation" as used by scholars actually refers to. It normally does not refer to interpolations made by Christians into Christian texts. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 08:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Fine with me. Editor2020 (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will note here that the material originally in the 'New Testament' section has now been moved to a draft: Draft:Interpolations in early Christian texts. The main secondary source upon which is relies, Conner 2017, is self-published and thus not reliable. It needs to be rewritten based on reliable sources before it can be moved to main space again. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 16:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I wrote the stub more or less as it stands now because we needed something. I'm not clear why "but may also refer to possible interpolation in secular Roman texts, such as the case of Tacitus on Christ." has been removed as this is significant and notable exception to interpolation in Jewish texts. I'm not around much now so do whatever you want guys, but the point of stubs is to expand. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor who removed this wrote in their edit summary that virtually all scholars agree that Tacitus's reference to Jesus is not an interpolation. I have no idea whether or not this really is the case, and I will gladly leave the task of verifying this to the person who will expand the article at some point in the future. It's been replaced now with the more general and abstract . ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)