Detering Thinks "City of God" a Medieval Forgery

[andrewcriddle]

I've read the linked article.

Detering is suggesting that Augustine's Confessions is a forgery.
This is an entirely different work from City of God, which is highly unlikely to be a forgery.

I have to say that for both Confessions and City of God the existence of manuscripts dated well before 1000 CE makes composition by Anselm highly unlikely.

For Confessions manuscripts see http://www.stoa.org/hippo/comm.html

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

The Venerable Bede is generally supposed to have used Augustine's Confessions

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

Thank you Andrew. One of the most valuable people at this site.

[Roger Pearse]

It seems generally accepted that early medieval thinkers such as John Scotus Eriugena knew the City of God There would be major problems claiming it was unknown before Anselm.

Not to mention the existence of a 5th century copy, written in Augustine's own scriptorium.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Leucius Charinus]

I've read the linked article.

Detering is suggesting that Augustine's Confessions is a forgery.

What is his basis?

This is an entirely different work from City of God, which is highly unlikely to be a forgery.

I have to say that for both Confessions and City of God the existence of manuscripts dated well before 1000 CE makes composition by Anselm highly unlikely.

For Confessions manuscripts see http://www.stoa.org/hippo/comm.html

It would be good to read Detering's claims of negative evidence nevertheless. He is nowhere near as reckless as people think I am. Having a look down this list of manuscripts there are many here from 9th century France.

• Manuscripts and Editions
  
  The textual tradition of the Confessions is generally sound. 106 The work is transmitted in hundreds of medieval manuscripts, 107 of which one is late antique half-uncial, and nine more are ninth century minuscule. All critical editions of the last century have been based on the same (i.e., the oldest) manuscripts, progressively elucidating and defending the tradition they represent.
  
  The fullest description of the manuscripts utilized by editors is found in the preface of the CCSL edition by L. Verheijen, though it should be borne in mind that no modern editor has seen all the manuscripts he cites, and that they have not been collated afresh since Skutella. The description and discussion that follow are derivative. 108
  
  • S •Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Sessorianus 55. The script is half-uncial and difficult to date. Lowe (CLA 4.420a) suggested late sixth century; Bischoff (quoted at CCSL 23.xxxviii) once ventured `saec. V/VI', but has since commented that he finds the half-uncial `rätselhaft' and `tantalizing' (see JThS n.s. 34 [1983], 114n2, and Atti-1986, 1.412).
    
    O •Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1911. Early ninth century, southern France. 109
    
    P •Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1912. Early ninth century, western Germany. Reported by the editors together with two eleventh-century manuscripts (Bambergensis 33 and Turonensis 283 [Z]) with which it is closely related.
    
    C •Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1913. Mid-ninth century, Auxerre.
    
    D •Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1913A. Mid-ninth century, Loire valley (connected with Lupus of Ferrières). C and D are virtual twins, but both are conventionally reported because C lacks the last two-thirds of book VII and the first third of book VIII, where D is the sole witness to their common exemplar.
    
    E •Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 12191. Part from the late ninth century and part from the early tenth, from Tours.
    
    G •Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 12193. Ninth/tenth century, Loire valley. E and G are the two best representatives of a common tradition. (Also reported with them are the inferior MSS Paris BN lat. 10862 [F: ninth-century] and Munich clm 14350 [M: tenth-century].)
    
    A •Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, HB.vii.15. End of the ninth century, eastern France.
    
    H •Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 12224. Toward the middle of the ninth century, near Lyons.
    
    V •Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 5756. Late ninth century, northern Italy. AHV taken together represent another common tradition, of which V is the least reliable witness.
  
  
  Gorman's stemma (reproduced below) represents the most developed view of the tradition. No one manuscript may be ascribed preeminent authority. Where S has the advantage of great age, it has the disadvantages of haste and carelessness; it not only omits and iterates words and phrases, but it substitutes synonyms (particularly particles and conjunctions). It is the work of a man in a hurry. It was the favorite of Knöll. O is perhaps the best single MS, and presents a perfectly readable text. It was the favorite of Verheijen. There is general consent that CD provide independent testimony that can be used to control the differences between S and O. The family EG offers further control, which Verheijen largely neglected. The value of the testimony of P (+ BZ) and of AHV has not been clearly delineated. 110 Finally, there is a wild card in all this, the testimony of Eugippius, who gives some hints as to which witnesses may be trusted.