Augustine's Confessions: a medieval forgery? (Detering)

[Leucius Charinus]

Detering: Augustine’s Confessions are a medieval forgery!

2015. Publication of Detering’s book, O du lieber Augustin—Falsche Bekenntnisse? The title is a double pun in German. “O du lieber Augustin” [“O you dear Augustine”] is an iconic children’s tune dating from the late Middle Ages. It has nothing to do with St. Augustine but originated when the plague ravaged Vienna (see here). The second part of the book’s title can be translated “False Confessions?” This is a pun on Augustine’s famous tome, which is appropriate for in his book Detering argues that Augustine never wrote the Confessions–it is a medieval forgery by the hand of Anselm of Canterbury. From the back cover:

Augustine (354-430) was arguably the most important Church Father and most influential Catholic philosopher of late antiquity. His autobiographical Confessions belong to world literature. Hermann Detering now calls the authenticity of Augustine’s Confessions into question. Scholars have long noted that the style of the Confessions differs substantially from the style of Augustine’s other writings. Beginning from this thread, Detering examines the text carefully, compares it with Augustine’s other writings, and comes to the conclusion that the Confessions are a forgery dating to the Middle Ages. The bold author is eminently factual, and his reconstruction of the text’s genesis throws a bright light on medieval forgery in general.

Detering’s radical proposal of medieval forgery is entirely unknown to the English speaking world. In Germany his view is barely noted in the German Wikipedia and uniformly ignored. As usual, the severe marginalization that accompanies so much of Detering’s incisive work has nothing to do with the argument—which in this case is characteristically fact-based, thorough, and level-headed—but of course with the argument’s threat to orthodoxy.

https://www.mythicistpapers.com/2019/06 ... e-2015-16/

Thanks for the reminder Stuart

Just like the gospels, the LXX translations were likely the work of many unnamed scribes over a significant period of time. No doubt editorial layers standardized them. I think much the same about Patristic writings, that they are compendiums if material sometimes from very different unnamed authors with and editor that gives us a false sense of unity, and are ascribed to a legendary figure. Hermann Detering did an excellent analysis of the writings of Augustin, that show quite clearly the works were put together long after his death and from a 3rd person perspective. My view is the same applies to nearly all the Patristic writings, not just the NT.

Patristic Writings, Ecclesiastical "History" and the FF

The FF - Falsifying Fathers - are of three types:

1. Ante Nicene FF
2. Nicene FF
3. Post Nicene FF (Augustine belongs here)

Augustine was supposed to be an ex-Manichaean reader but his Manichaean canon (i.e. list of books) does not match canon lists found in Manichaean manuscript discoveries.

In the year 1298 CE four (supposedly very high profile) Christian identities of the 4th century Latin Nicene Church were elevated to the status of "Doctors of the Latin Church". These were Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and Saint Jerome. The "four Doctors" became a commonplace among the Scholastics, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298).

I suspect these high profile authors were redefined if not invented many centuries after they supposedly wandered about later 4th and 5th century Christendom.

Anselm of Canterbury,

OSB (/ˈænsɛlm/; 1033/4–1109 CE), also called Anselm of Aosta (Italian: Anselmo d'Aosta) after his birthplace and Anselm of Bec (French: Anselme du Bec) after his monastery, was an Italian[7] Benedictine monk, abbot, philosopher and theologian of the Catholic Church, who held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. After his death, he was canonized as a saint; his feast day is 21 April.

As archbishop, he defended the church's interests in England amid the Investiture Controversy. For his resistance to the English kings William II and Henry I, he was exiled twice: once from 1097 to 1100 and then from 1105 to 1107. While in exile, he helped guide the Greek bishops of southern Italy to adopt Roman rites at the Council of Bari. He worked for the primacy of Canterbury over the bishops of York and Wales but, though at his death he appeared to have been successful, Pope Paschal II later reversed himself and restored York's independence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury

[Irish1975]

Something here smells. Detering was an intelligent scholar.

The Confessions is a minutely-detailed memoir of a time and place that Anselm, 7 centuries later and in England rather than Africa/Italy, could not have invented from his imagination. (Example: the whole chapter about the Manichean teacher Faustus.) And what would be an intelligible motive for the great Anselm? He famously wrote his own 1st-person devotional-theological works, such as the Proslogion—which is a more brilliant philosophical writing than anything Augustine wrote. Why write pseudonymous autobiography? And a time gap of 7 centuries! I can’t take this seriously at all.

It would be one thing to claim that Confessions was not written by the same man who wrote the rest of the Augustinian corpus. That would be an enormous undertaking. A difference of style from his other works is not even the beginning of an argument.

But the fact that—if the presentation here of Detering is accurate—he makes this negative claim in conjunction with the absurd idea of Anselm being the true author, is a clear sign that something is not right here.

[Stuart]

Irish1975,

I'd separate the two claims, the one that Augustine was not the author of the material from the claim that Anselm was the author. The former is reasonably well argued, the latter is best described as speculation. This tendency of scholars to put forward a solid observation and argument and then spoil it by making a speculative claim is an unfortunately frequent occurrence. A lot of critics can demolish the speculative claim and then use that as an excuse to discount the observation. That even some of the best scholars in this field, and even feel compelled to do so, shows how undisciplined the field is.

[Leucius Charinus]

Something here smells. Detering was an intelligent scholar.

The Confessions is a minutely-detailed memoir of a time and place that Anselm, 7 centuries later and in England rather than Africa/Italy, could not have invented from his imagination. (Example: the whole chapter about the Manichean teacher Faustus.) And what would be an intelligible motive for the great Anselm? He famously wrote his own 1st-person devotional-theological works, such as the Proslogion—which is a more brilliant philosophical writing than anything Augustine wrote. Why write pseudonymous autobiography? And a time gap of 7 centuries! I can’t take this seriously at all.

To be fair (and serious) we'd need to read his argument(s) which are written in German and remain AFAIK untranslated into English.

It would be one thing to claim that Confessions was not written by the same man who wrote the rest of the Augustinian corpus. That would be an enormous undertaking. A difference of style from his other works is not even the beginning of an argument.

I tend to agree with Stuart here in separating the two claims. Extraordinary claims do require strenuous and well evidenced arguments I agree with that.

In regard to your example above about "(Example: the whole chapter about the Manichean teacher Faustus.)" in the OP I did point out that "Augustine was supposed to be an ex-Manichaean reader but his Manichaean canon (i.e. list of books) does not match canon lists found in Manichaean manuscript discoveries." Here is a little more information about what we find in Augustine concerning the Manichaeans:

The light and the darkness: studies in Manichaeism and its world
By Paul Allan Mirecki, Jason BeDuhn

The Reconstruction of Mani's Epistles from three Coptic Codices
(Ismant El-Kharab and Medinet Madi)
--- by Iain Gardner


p.102

Addendum

Brief consideration of the "Fundamental Epistle".


This text, as quoted and controverted by Augustine [30] [Epist, Fund]
was one of the primary sources for the knowledge of Mani's teaching
prior to modern discoveries. Augustine clearly chooses this
document as a principle focus for his attack because i is a text
he himself knows well and read when he was an auditor, because
he believes it to have unimpeachable authority for the Manichaeans,
and because it is a succinct and clear summary of Mani's teachings.
Modern scholarship has generally not questioned its authenticity.

However a question arises over the text's exact status for the
Manichaean community ..... The question of status relates to the
texts's position with reference to the canon and the collection
of Epistles. None of the various canonical lists from other sources
refer to a "Fundamental Epistle", nor does the title occur in an-Nadim. [31]

p.104

In sum, the status of the "Fundamental Epistle" remains uncertain;
i.e., whether it should be attributable to the Epistles as regards
the canon. I am inclined, until further evidence comes to light,
to treat it separately.

Since the true authorship of other letters 'by Mani' quoted in the
heresiological literature is even more problematic (or they are to
be regarded as largely inauthentic fabrications and parodies), the
detailed recovery of the canonical work must begin with the Coptic
remnants from Medinet Madi and Ismant el-Kharab; then supplemented
from an-Nadim's list, together with the fragments preserved in the
Mani-Codex and from Turfan.

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... ni&f=false

The heresiological narratives of the orthodox Christians of the 4th century leave a lot to be desired. To what extent are these narratives pseudo-historical inventions of the orthodox victors? The above extract leaves open the possibility that Augustine was just "winging it" with his reports about the "Fundamental Epistle" of Mani. That is, Augustine, or whoever it was that authored Augustine's heresiological material was possibly straw-manning Mani and the Manichaeans. Other orthodox heresiological sources are likewise highly polemical.

While this does not deal directly with Augustine's Confessions being forged it does bring into the discussion the reliability of Augustine as self-professed ex-Manichaean.

[Irish1975]

Irish1975,

I'd separate the two claims, the one that Augustine was not the author of the material from the claim that Anselm was the author.

Well and good, since I already separated them for you!

The former is reasonably well argued

Is it though?

the latter is best described as speculation. This tendency of scholars to put forward a solid observation and argument and then spoil it by making a speculative claim is an unfortunately frequent occurrence.

It’s so common that one suspects a marketing strategy. Publishers like controversy that goes over the top. You can’t just say that JFK in Dallas is an unsolved murder. You have to announce to the world who did it and how and why.

Skepticism is an unacceptable result. We must, like Fox Mulder, want to believe…something.

A lot of critics can demolish the speculative claim and then use that as an excuse to discount the observation. That even some of the best scholars in this field, and even feel compelled to do so, shows how undisciplined the field is.

The goal is endless discourse, more conferences, bigger sales, safer jobs on top, postmodernism and the internet. Truth is for suckers.

But I can’t see Hermann Detering playing this game.

To be fair (and serious) we'd need to read his argument(s) which are written in German and remain AFAIK untranslated into English.

Yes there is that to consider.

I tend to agree with Stuart here in separating the two claims.

I too agree with Stuart saying the same thing I did, lol.

I’m just horsing around y’all, it’s late.

In regard to your example above about "(Example: the whole chapter about the Manichean teacher Faustus.)" in the OP I did point out that "Augustine was supposed to be an ex-Manichaean reader but his Manichaean canon (i.e. list of books) does not match canon lists found in Manichaean manuscript discoveries."

The funny thing about “canon lists” is that they never agree. I’m not up on Manichean texts, but I don’t see how this connects to the forgery claim. There are better ways to account for Augustine’s writings on his first religion, rather than: someone else forged them.

The heresiological narratives of the orthodox Christians of the 4th century leave a lot to be desired. To what extent are these narratives pseudo-historical inventions of the orthodox victors? The above extract leaves open the possibility that Augustine was just "winging it" with his reports about the "Fundamental Epistle" of Mani. That is, Augustine, or whoever it was that authored Augustine's heresiological material was possibly straw-manning Mani and the Manichaeans. Other orthodox heresiological sources are likewise highly polemical.

While this does not deal directly with Augustine's Confessions being forged it does bring into the discussion the reliability of Augustine as self-professed ex-Manichaean.

I have volume 1 of BeDuhn’s biography, which is quite good. One of his central claims is that Augustine’s reasons for switching to catholicism from the Manichaeans were entirely political. The apologia in the Confessions is all post-hoc rationalization, even if the decision itself was understandable from a human point of view.

[Leucius Charinus]

The heresiological narratives of the orthodox Christians of the 4th century leave a lot to be desired. To what extent are these narratives pseudo-historical inventions of the orthodox victors? The above extract leaves open the possibility that Augustine was just "winging it" with his reports about the "Fundamental Epistle" of Mani. That is, Augustine, or whoever it was that authored Augustine's heresiological material was possibly straw-manning Mani and the Manichaeans. Other orthodox heresiological sources are likewise highly polemical.

While this does not deal directly with Augustine's Confessions being forged it does bring into the discussion the reliability of Augustine as self-professed ex-Manichaean.

I have volume 1 of BeDuhn’s biography, which is quite good. One of his central claims is that Augustine’s reasons for switching to catholicism from the Manichaeans were entirely political. The apologia in the Confessions is all post-hoc rationalization, even if the decision itself was understandable from a human point of view.

The manuscripts received from church tradition ("history") attributed to Augustine were set in a very comfortable vantage point in the history of the Christian cult. They are set after the Theodosian reforms, after the invention of the Saints and Martyrs, after the Damasian PETER-WAS-HERE tourism business was established in Rome, and after the invention and kick-starting of the holy relic trade. Everyone was switching to Christian cult. Rapidly. There were tax exemptions and large amounts of money to be had.

That Augustine focusses on the "Fundamental Epistle" of Mani and that this "epistle" remains unmentioned in the physical remains of "canon lists" from the later 4th century Manichaean manuscript discoveries may be problematic in the integrity stakes.

I'd not read through this text before:

Confessions (Augustine) - Outline (by book)

FROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_(Augustine)


1. His infancy, and boyhood up to age 14. Starting with his infancy, Saint Augustine reflects on his personal childhood in order to draw universal conclusions about the nature of infancy: the child is inherently violent if left to its own devices because of Original Sin. Later, he reflects on choosing pleasure and reading secular literature over studying Scripture, choices which he later comes to understand as ones for which he deserved the punishment of his teachers, although he did not recognize that during his childhood.

2. Augustine continues to reflect on his adolescence during which he recounts two examples of his grave sins that he committed as a sixteen-year-old: the development of his God-less lust and the theft of a pear from his neighbor's orchard, despite never wanting for food. In this book, he explores the question of why he and his friends stole pears when he had many better pears of his own. He explains the feelings he experienced as he ate the pears and threw the rest away to the pigs. Augustine argues that he most likely would not have stolen anything had he not been in the company of others who could share in his sin.

3. He begins the study of rhetoric at Carthage, where he develops a love of wisdom through his exposure to Cicero's Hortensius. He blames his pride for lacking faith in Scripture, so he finds a way to seek truth regarding good and evil through Manichaeism. At the end of this book, his mother, Monica, dreams about her son's re-conversion to Catholic doctrine.

4. Between the ages of 19 and 28, Augustine forms a relationship with an unnamed woman who, though faithful, is not his lawfully wedded wife, with whom he has a son, Adeodatus. At the same time that he returned to Tagaste, his hometown, to teach, a friend fell sick, was baptized in the Catholic Church, recovered slightly, then died. The death of his friend depresses Augustine, who then reflects on the meaning of love of a friend in a mortal sense versus love of a friend in God; he concludes that his friend's death affected him severely because of his lack of love in God. Things he used to love become hateful to him because everything reminds him of what was lost. Augustine then suggests that he began to love his life of sorrow more than his fallen friend. He closes this book with his reflection that he had attempted to find truth through the Manicheans and astrology, yet devout Church members, who he claims are far less intellectual and prideful, have found truth through greater faith in God.

5. While Saint Augustine is aged 29, he begins to lose faith in Manichean teachings, a process that starts when the Manichean bishop Faustus visits Carthage. Augustine is unimpressed with the substance of Manichaeism, but he has not yet found something to replace it. He feels a sense of resigned acceptance to these fables as he has not yet formed a spiritual core to prove their falsity. He moves to teach in Rome where the education system is more disciplined. He does not stay in Rome for long because his teaching is requested in Milan, where he encounters the bishop Ambrose (Saint Ambrose). He appreciates Ambrose's style and attitude, and Ambrose exposes him to a more spiritual, figurative perspective of God, which leads him into a position as catechumen of the Church.

6. The sermons of Saint Ambrose draw Augustine closer to Catholicism, which he begins to favor over other philosophical options. In this section his personal troubles, including ambition, continue, at which point he compares a beggar, whose drunkenness is "temporal happiness," with his hitherto failure at discovering happiness.[5] Augustine highlights the contribution of his friends Alypius and Nebridius in his discovery of religious truth. Monica returns at the end of this book and arranges a marriage for Augustine, who separates from his previous concubine, finds a new mistress, and deems himself to be a "slave of lust."[6]

7. In his mission to discover the truth behind good and evil, Augustine is exposed to the Neoplatonist view of God. He finds fault with this thought, however, because he thinks that they understand the nature of God without accepting Christ as a mediator between humans and God. He reinforces his opinion of the Neoplatonists through the likeness of a mountain top: "It is one thing to see, from a wooded mountain top, the land of peace, and not to find the way to it… it is quite another thing to keep to the way which leads there, which is made safe by the care of the heavenly Commander, where they who have deserted the heavenly army may not commit their robberies, for they avoid it as a punishment."[7] From this point, he picks up the works of the apostle Paul which "seized [him] with wonder."[8]

8. He further describes his inner turmoil on whether to convert to Christianity. Two of his friends, Simplicianus and Ponticianus, tell Augustine stories about the conversions of Marius Victorinus and Saint Anthony. While reflecting in a garden, Augustine hears a child's voice chanting "take up and read."[9] Augustine picks up a book of St. Paul's writings (codex apostoli, 8.12.29) and reads the passage it opens to, Romans 13:13–14: "Not in revelry and drunkenness, not in debauchery and wantonness, not in strife and jealousy; but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and as for the flesh, take no thought for its lusts."[10] This action confirms his conversion to Catholicism. His friend Alypius follows his example.

9. In preparation for his baptism, Augustine concludes his teaching of rhetoric. Saint Ambrose baptizes Augustine along with Adeodatus and Alypius. Augustine then recounts how the church at Milan, with his mother in a leading role, defends Ambrose against the persecution of Justina. Upon his return with his mother to Africa, they share in a religious vision in Ostia. Soon after, Saint Monica dies, followed soon after by his friends Nebridius and Verecundus. By the end of this book, Augustine remembers these deaths through the prayer of his newly adopted faith: "May they remember with holy feeling my parents in this transitory light, and my brethren under Thee, O Father, in our Catholic Mother [the Church], and my fellow citizens in the eternal Jerusalem, for which the pilgrimage of Thy people sighs from the start until the return. In this way, her last request of me will be more abundantly granted her in the prayers of many through these my confessions than through my own prayers."[11]

10. Augustine shifts from personal memories to introspective evaluation of the memories themselves and of the self, as he continues to reflect on the values of confessions, the significance of prayer, and the means through which individuals can reach God. It is through both this last point and his reflection on the body and the soul that he arrives at a justification for the existence of Christ.

11. Augustine analyzes the nature of creation and of time as well as its relationship with God. He explores issues surrounding presentism. He considers that there are three kinds of time in the mind: the present with respect to things that are past, which is the memory; the present with respect to things that are present, which is contemplation; and the present with respect to things that are in the future, which is expectation. He relies on Genesis, especially the texts concerning the creation of the sky and the earth, throughout this book to support his thinking.

12. Through his discussion of creation, Augustine relates the nature of the divine and the earthly as part of a thorough analysis of both the rhetoric of Genesis and the plurality of interpretations that one might use to analyze Genesis. Comparing the scriptures to a spring with streams of water spreading over an immense landscape, he considers that there could be more than one true interpretation and each person can draw whatever true conclusions from the texts.

13. He concludes the text by exploring an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, through which he discovers the Trinity and the significance of God's creation of man. Based on his interpretation, he espouses the significance of rest as well as the divinity of Creation: "For, then shalt Thou rest in us, in the same way that Thou workest in us now So, we see these things which Thou hast made, because they exist, but they exist because Thou seest them. We see, externally, that they exist, but internally, that they are good; Thou hast seen them made, in the same place where Thou didst see them as yet to be made."[12]

Sounds like a typical product of the church industry. Note the references to Paul. We must be mindful that, in Augustine's time and for a thousand years after, the Christian education system packaged the Paul-Seneca letter exchange as the preface to the writings of Seneca.

Fraud.

Saint Ambrose was also one of the four elite Christian Saints / Bishops / HERESIOLOGISTS / Holy Relic Pundits who were made "Doctors of the Latin Church" in 1298 CE. The Catholic education system obviously produced their own text books. And still do today. The question in my mind relates to their historical integrity.

It would be interesting to determine the date of the earliest extant manuscript for this text. Does BeDuhn provide this?

[andrewcriddle]

Apart from the discussion of the Confessions in Augustine's Retractions (Second Thoughts) and the use of the Confessions by early medieval writers (Eugippius, Bede ...); we have several surviving manuscripts of all or part of the Confessions conventionally dated in the early medieval period, well before Anselm. https://www.stoa.org/hippo/comm.html

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

Here is Detering's discussion about the dates of the manuscripts (pp. 233-235 in O du Lieber Augustin). First the translation, with endnotes added in-line:

Palaeography - the dating of the manuscripts

As is known, determining the origin and age of manuscripts is the domain of palaeographers. According to a definition in the Protestant lexicon Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (3rd edition), palaeography is "one of the auxiliary sciences of historical research and philology"; its task is "to explore the history of writing, the materials and tools used for writing (letters and books in antiquity, papyrus research) and to convey the ability to read old scripts correctly, to recognize the age, temporal and regional characteristics of such scripts and to make use of the indications arising from the handwritten evidence for the criticism of tradition." (362 = 362 Meyer, Palaeography, 1960.)

In dating the Confessiones manuscripts, as we already noted on page 80f. and as a complete overview from the preface of the Confessiones edition by Skutella can show, the following remarkable result was achieved:

B = Bambergensis 11th cent.
C = Parisinus 9th c.
D = Parisinus 9th c.
E = Parisinus 10th c.
F = Parisinus 9th c.
G = Parisinus 9th c.
H = Parisinus 9th c.
J = Fuldensis 8th/9th c.
Μ = Monacensis 10th c.
O = Parisinus 9th c.
P = Parisinus 9th c.
S = Sessorianus 7th c.
V = Vaticanus 9th/10th c.
Z = Turonensis 10th/11th c.
S = Stuttgartensis 10th c.

The list shows that the majority of the manuscripts date from the 9th/10th century, which means that there is a gap of about four to five centuries, or half a millennium, between them and the presumed time of origin of the Confessiones! Only the Sessorianus is dated a little earlier. However, it has been shown that the condition of the text does not correspond to the presumed age of the manuscript, which Bischoff even dated to the 5th century. (363 = 363 Cf. Gorman, The Early Manuscript-Tradition of St. Augustine's Confessiones, 1983, p. 114, note 2.)


Although this finding is surprising, scholars have not yet reconsidered their dating of the Confessiones. The natural assumption here, as elsewhere, is that older manuscripts existed that have been lost.

Although the conventional dating of the Confessiones manuscripts is puzzling, it must be admitted that it also does not support the theory that the work was written in the 11th century. If the palaeographers were correct in their dating of the manuscripts, our hypothesis of forgery would be possible in principle, but not the assumption of their 11th century origin. Thus, not only the "cloud of witnesses," i.e. the list of medieval and late antique writers who betray knowledge of the Confessiones in their works, but also the list of manuscripts confronts us with a choice: either to continue to rely on the judgment of the majority of researchers, first and foremost the palaeographers, with their known datings, or to trust in our own judgment, which became more and more solidified in the course of our occupation with the Confessiones, its numerous inner problems and contradictions.

Those who decide in favor of the second option, and thus against the consensus, must know that they are possibly setting off a kind of chain reaction, which could ultimately lead to other late antique or medieval writings, including the Augustinian ones, proving to be forgeries along with the Confessiones. Moreover, he should bear in mind that the neglect of the palaeographical evidence is still considered a sin against the Holy Spirit among historians - and this, as we know, is not venial.

Nevertheless, it is natural that palaeographers can also err and have often erred, not only by one, but also by two or three centuries. Trying to determine the age of a manuscript based on the style and appearance of its script is certainly an admirable art that requires much practice and experience. However, it quickly reaches its limits, for example, where the authors used an older type of handwriting to make their works, which they had written under the name of venerable church authorities, appear as ancient as possible. In this context, let us once again recall the dispute between Jean Mabillon and Johannes Dallaeus over the dating of the pseudo-Alcuinian Confessio fidei. As we saw, Dallaeus was unimpressed by the "elegance of the Carolingian minuscules," which his opponent Mabillon cited as evidence for a dating in the 9th century - and he was right. In the end, internal arguments tipped the scales in favor of dating the script to the 11th instead of the 9th century. The scribes of the 11th century seem to have had a particularly good understanding of Carolingian minuscules from the 9th century.

Since there are hardly any possibilities outside palaeography to scientifically determine the age of manuscripts based on external criteria, and the so-called radiocarbon method is far too imprecise in our context, text, literary and redaction criticism, the examination of internal contradictions and problems, and the search for anachronisms remain the safest methods for determining the authenticity of a script. Given the current very limited possibilities for securely dating a manuscript, they are, so to speak, the fixed point from which, although not the whole world, at least the somewhat entrenched worldview of some historians and church historians could be set in motion.

This is all the more true since one does not even need to be a particularly great skeptic, let alone a "radical critic," to know how rare authentic written documents are in the Middle Ages. A concluding look at the literary practices of the Middle Ages can show this.

The original German text:

Paläographisches - die Datierung der Handschriften

Die Bestimmung der Herkunft und des Alters von Handschriften ist, wie man weiß, eine Domäne der Paläographen. Unter Paläographie versteht man einer Definition des protestantischen Lexikons Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (3. Auflage) zufolge „eine der Hilfswissenschaften der Geschichtsforschung und der Philologie“; sie hat „die Aufgabe, die Geschichte der Schrift, des Schreibens, der Schreibstoffe und -Werkzeuge (Brief und Buch im Altertum; Papyrusforschung) zu erforschen und die Fähigkeit zu vermitteln, alte Schriften richtig zu lesen, das Alter, die zeitlichen und landschaftlichen Besonderheiten solcher Schriften zu erkennen und die aus dem handschriftlichen Befund sich ergebenden Anhaltspunkte für die Kritik der Überlieferung mit zu verwerten“.362

Bei der Datierung der Confessiones-Handschriften gelangte man, wie wir schon S. 80f. bemerkten und wie ein vollständiger Überblick aus dem Vorwort der Confessiones-Ausgabe Skutellas zeigen kann, zu dem folgenden bemerkenswerten Ergebnis:

B = Bambergensis 11. Jh.
C = Parisinus 9. Jh.
D = Parisinus 9. Jh.
E = Parisinus 10. Jh.
F = Parisinus 9. Jh.
G = Parisinus 9. Jh.
H = Parisinus 9. Jh.
J = Fuldensis 8./9. Jh.
M = Monacensis 10. Jh.
O = Parisinus 9. Jh.
P = Parisinus 9. Jh.
S = Sessorianus 7. Jh.
V = Vaticanus 9./10. Jh.
Z = Turonensis 10./11. Jh.
S = Stuttgartensis 10. Jh.

Die Liste zeigt, dass die Mehrzahl der Handschriften aus dem 9./10. Jahrhundert stammt, d. h. dass zwischen ihnen und der vermuteten Entstehungszeit der Confessiones eine zeitliche Lücke von ca. vier bis fünf Jahrhunderten - oder so man will von einem halben Jahrtausend - klafft! Einzig der Sessorianus wird ein wenig früher datiert. Allerdings hat sich gezeigt, dass der Zustand des Textes dem vermuteten Alter der Handschrift, die von Bischoff sogar ins 5. Jahrhundert datiert wurde, in keiner Weise entspricht.363

Obwohl der Befund erstaunen muss, hat er die Wissenschaftler bisher nicht dazu veranlasst, ihre Datierung der Confessiones zu überdenken. Man geht hier (wie auch anderswo) ganz selbstverständlich davon aus, dass ältere Handschriften existierten, die verloren gegangen sind.

Obwohl die herkömmliche Datierung der Confessiones-Handschriften Rätsel aufgibt, ist einzuräumen, dass sie andererseits auch nicht geeignet ist, unsere Theorie einer Entstehung des Werkes im 11. Jahrhundert zu unterstützen. Falls die Paläographen mit ihrer Datierung der Handschriften recht hätten, wäre unsere Fälschungshypothese zwar grundsätzlich möglich, nicht aber die Annahme ihrer Herkunft aus dem 11. Jahrhundert. So stellt uns nicht nur die „Wolke der Zeugen“, d. h. die Liste der mittelalterlichen und spätantiken Schriftsteller, die in ihren Werken Kenntnis der Confessiones verraten, sondern auch die Liste der Handschriften vor die Wahl: uns entweder weiterhin auf das Urteil der Mehrheit der Forscher, allen voran der Paläographen, mit ihren bekannten Datierungen zu verlassen, oder aber auf das eigene Urteil zu vertrauen, das sich im Verlauf unserer Beschäftigung mit den Confessiones, ihren zahlreichen inneren Problemen und Widersprüchen immer weiter festigte.

Wer sich für die zweite Möglichkeit und damit gegen den Konsens entscheidet, muss wissen, dass er damit eventuell eine Art Kettenreaktion auslöst, die am Ende dazu führen kann, dass sich mit den Confessiones auch weitere spätantike oder mittelalterliche Schriften, einschließlich der augustinischen, als Fälschungen erweisen könnten. Zudem sollte er bedenken, dass die Vernachlässigung des paläographischen Befundes unter den Historikern immer noch als Sünde wider den heiligen Geist gilt - und die ist bekanntlich nicht lässlich.

Gleichwohl gilt natürlich, dass auch Paläographen irren können und oft genug geirrt haben, nicht nur um ein, sondern auch um zwei, drei Jahrhunderte. Das Alter einer Handschrift aufgrund der Art und des Aussehens ihrer Schriftzüge bestimmen zu wollen, ist gewiss eine bewundernswerte Kunst, die viel Übung und Erfahrung erfordert. Doch stößt sie schnell an ihre Grenzen, z. B. dort, wo die Verfasser sich eines älteren Handschriftentyps bedienten, um ihre Werke, die sie unter dem Namen altehrwürdiger Kirchenautoritäten verfasst hatten, möglichst altertümlich erscheinen zu lassen, ln diesem Zusammenhang sei noch einmal an den Streit zwischen Jean Mabillon und Johannes Dallaeus um die Datierung der pseudo-alkui- nischen Confessio fidei erinnert. Dallaeus zeigte sich, wie wir sahen, von der „Eleganz der karolingischen Minuskeln“, die sein Kontrahent Mabillon für eine Datierung im 9. Jahrhundert ins Feld führte, unbeeindruckt - und er behielt recht. Am Ende gaben interne Argumente dafür den Ausschlag, die Schrift ins 11. statt in das 9. Jahrhundert zu datieren. Die Schreiber des 11. Jahrhunderts verstanden sich, scheint’s, besonders gut auf karolingische Minuskeln des 9. Jahrhunderts.

Da es außerhalb der Paläographie kaum Möglichkeiten gibt, das Alter von Handschriften aufgrund äußerer Kriterien wissenschaftlich zu bestimmen und auch die sogenannte Radiokarbon-Methode in unserem Zusammenhang viel zu ungenau ist, bleiben bei der Bestimmung der Echtheit einer Schrift Text-, Literar- und Redaktionskritik, die Untersuchung der inneren Widersprüche und Probleme und die Suche nach Anachronismen immer noch die sichersten Methoden. Angesichts der derzeitigen sehr beschränkten Möglichkeiten zur sicheren wissenschaftlichen Datierung einer Handschrift sind sie sozusagen der feste Punkt, von dem aus zwar nicht die ganze Welt, wohl aber das etwas festgefahrene Weltbild mancher Historiker und Kirchenhistoriker in Bewegung versetzt werden könnte.

Das gilt umso mehr, als man noch nicht einmal ein besonders großer Skeptiker und schon gar kein „radikaler Kritiker“ zu sein braucht, um zu wissen, wie rar authentische Schriftstücke im Mittelalter gesät sind. Das kann ein abschließender Blick auf die literarische Praxis des Mittelalters zeigen.