I read this a while ago, and just today I dipped into Edwin Johnson's other book... and lost interest quickly.
You can get a summary from the same Hoffman:
http://www.egodeath.com/uwetopperonedwinjohnson.htm
The Christian church developed in the benediktinischen monasteries of France (Paris and Lyon) around 1500, which became catholic church fathers by incompetent monks written, which is New Testament as consequence of it developed. There are no older texts, and contents betray the time: Beginning of the printing.
That is indicated as well known as 1460, and already in the next twenty years first Bibles are to have been printed. If all were back dated later these Bibles, which Johnson at least suggest, I would have to correct the chronological acceptance of Johnson around approximately fifty years.
Anyhow I became hellhoerig here and tried, my version that it in 12. Jh. a first beginning of Christian religion to have given could to save. But that is not easy in relation to the knowledge of a theologian, who represented the truth, and which reads with humor and in the consciousness of its weaknesses: The reformation Martin Luther was the first attempt to down-struggle the rising catholic church of France. Before there was no church in the actual sense, i.e. as representatives of the Biblical teachings. The creation of the Bible texts, which was accomplished by the Reformatoren like the catholics with large eagerness in few years - partly together, partly against each other -, put only the foundation-stone for Christian churches, equal which kind.
My draft, which is papacy in Avignon two hundred years rather developed, suffers according to Johnson at two errors: The two hundred years are invented, and the fact that the monks of Avignon, (first was a Tibeter, as seems to me) as first Popes of the catholic church to apply could, a fiction is like all earlier.
On which chronology critics Johnson developed, whether he considered e.g. Newton's late work, knows we only andeutungsweise. As also Johnson writes: "perhaps still nobody does not have this thought had, which I communicate here, anyhow I it anywhere read." But it read Hardouin (P. 20 center) and quotes it (P. 81, likewise P. 98). Of this Jesuiten I had reported 1998 (P. 14) that he 28 years long (1687 to 1715) on behalf of the French king and the church meeting the documents of all Konzilien of the 1. Century up to its own lifetime arranged again and gave change. Ten years later - thus after further corrections - the work was released and is considered since then than obligatory. It was main it, which invented this time novel and best knew. And it was also the none, which said at that time with this clarity.
The most important thoughts of Johnson's seem to be me the following:
Before the Tridentini council (alleged starting from 1545 in Tirol and north Italy) there was still no Vulgata, at least no complete or recognized version of latin Bible. In the following twenty years it develops only. Luther's portion of the Bible creation is enormously, particularly in the letters of the Paulus, which reflects the controversy between rivaling Benediktinern and Augustinern etc. and therefore so complex, contradictory and incomprehensible are. Also some Augustinus texts might come from Luther or its environment.
Since however the text of the Tridentinums was written by Hardouin, we do not know again, what was really decided at that time. Nevertheless - so Johnson - he tells us the whole procedure of the board round. That must probably be because of it that the truth could not be masked anyway, at least not for theologians. And the people did not read the decrees of the Tridentinums.
From Johnson it follows that "reformed" a moenchische movement were, which one can call late form of the Urchristentums perhaps two generations after emergence of the Christianity, which for Johnson not before center "15. Century "to have been can. The catholic church developed only as reaction in addition, evenly on the Tridentinum. Here table "stood for the" round, which Johnson uses as term for the "large action".
When earliest date for trustworthy messages from the time of the reawakening of the sciences, to which time of the printing indicates, Johnson several times 1533, although it expresses itself carefully, because it does not know exactly, when this year lies. It uses dear of terms like "Tudor time", king Heinrich VIIITH from England etc.. About at that time must have been written Beda and Chaucer, the church fathers and the New Testament. It knows also the monasteries, where such work was made: Monte Cassino and Bobbio, Fulda, pc. Irenaeus of Lyon and above all pc. Dénis and pc. Germains of Paris, even knows some the participants (the notorious abbott Tritheim belonged naturally to it), and does not save not with admiration for this achievement, whereby he does not verhehlt however that he feels lies of this order of magnitude unworthily for our culture, exactly the same as he the continuation of these lies by today's scholars sharply condemned (P. 91-92).
If Johnson's conclusions are correct -- and I do not see a possibility of disproving it -- it doesn't mean that our entire literature and writing culture began in 1460 (if the backcomputed date is correct, says Johnson) with the printing press. But our precious Erstdrucke carries frequently no data or is arbitrarily dated, usually clearly predated. We do not know how old they are.
Many handwritten manuscripts -- particularly the Bible texts -- were made late, after the artworks were made. The work was by no means final around 1570, but kept running the whole time, in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries with unreduced strength. In this connection falls also Tischendorfs Name, which I described straight as a manufacturer of the Codex Sinaiticus (2001, chapter VIII).
Against conclusion of the book Johnson discusses the problem of the Jews, which must have already existed. One of the authors, who wrote the Pauline letters, must have been even Jew, as also a Jewish Old Testament must have already been present, if also not absolutely in the shape, which has it today. But much rather as 1500 the just as little can have been. The Masoreten lived its holy writing and the Talmud in the Renaissance, is just as hasty and monstroes manufactured, probably at the same time as the first Christian books. The parallels in the production process, which state Johnson, are convincingly also for that, which does not have view of this literature kind.
As Eugen Gabowitsch straight in the discussion communicated to me, Morosow and Fomenko, the most important Russian chronology critics, knew the writings of Edwin Johnson and partly developed upon them. Therefore the question arises, why isn't this important work in the English language world read any longer?
I would suppose because history is at its most interesting when also at its most credible...
Antiqua Mater is really good though, as I recall, so don't take this as a slight against the other book.
Did you have any opinion about it?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
