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

[mlinssen]

No, not DeepL -- it was Chat GPT 3.5

Wow. I have not engaged with any AI so far, I'm a real laggard. I'm well aware of the awesome power of AI, and have played with fluffy software and Model Driven Architecture a long time ago

Thanks Neil. Amazing

[Leucius Charinus]

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:

This is quite brilliant Neil thanks very much.

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.

This assumption plagues the entire field of Christian origins. If any progress is to be made scholars must be responsible enough to ask what if this assumption is dead wrong. Three Cheers for Herman. May Huey, the god of the surf, bless his immortal soul.

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.

Brent Nongbri has made some inroads into questioning how accurate the dating of manuscripts by paleography in isolation actually is.

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.

We must consider also the importance of various manuscripts to the content of the education system that was being promulgated by the church [industry]. The creation of "Doctors of the Latin Church", a title bestowed upon Saint Augustine in 1298 CE, was entirely relevant to the agenda of the education system which we in the 21st century have inherited.

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,

I'd quibble with Detering on this point. Independent scientific dating should always be welcomed to have a place at the chronology table.

... 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.

Thanks again Neil.

This sort of stuff is illuminating to both paleographical dating (in isolation) as a critical dating method for Christian literature when studying Christian origis, and to the (classical) historical method in general when studying Christian origins. The historical method enables two very different sources of evidence to be defined:

* the first is physical evidence which can be dated to a primary time period;

* the second is hypothetical or theoretical evidence which is inferred to have existed because we have later physical copies from a secondary time period (often many centuries removed)

[andrewcriddle]

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.

Does Detering discuss the use of the confessions by e.g. Eugippius and/or the discussion in the Retractions (See for example Augustine reflects on the Confessions ) ?

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Andrew is amazing. It's not that others at the forum aren't intelligent or informed. It's just that Andrew epitomizes the closest thing to objectivity here. He's something else.

[neilgodfrey]

Does Detering discuss the use of the confessions by e.g. Eugippius and/or the discussion in the Retractions (See for example Augustine reflects on the Confessions ) ?

Andrew Criddle

Of course. Detering was not a fool. Instead of assuming he must not have mentioned X or Y a more likely set of questions would be: What does he say about X and Y?

Keine Autobiographie, aber eine „Autobibliographie“ sind die Retractationes, in denen der Kirchenvater gegen Ende seines Lebens eine Übersicht über sein literarisches Schaffen gibt. Die Retractationes sind für die Datierung und historische Einordnung der Werke unentbehrlich. p. 17

[Secret Alias]

What does he say about X and Y?

Why is that true? I've read a lot of books which overlook things. Does every book on Marcion reference the Syriac fragment? Does every book on the Jews mention Samaritans? We're in a field which tends to have self-serving people make self-serving arguments.

[Secret Alias]

Keine Autobiographie, aber eine „Autobibliographie“ sind die Retractationes, in denen der Kirchenvater gegen Ende seines Lebens eine Übersicht über sein literarisches Schaffen gibt. Die Retractationes sind für die Datierung und historische Einordnung der Werke unentbehrlich. p. 17

And what kind of a stupid statement is this? If that's all he said that's like saying nothing. And the other guy? The reason Andrew mentions them and phrases the question the way he did is that just looking at it at first glance you'd have to argue for three forgeries not just one. It would be surprising to make the case for the Confessions being a forgery rather difficult.

[Secret Alias]

Neil has this annoying habit (which is a carry over from his radical Christian background) of taking offense that when people here stupid sounding arguments from questionable scholars (Detering was a fucking nut, I know I dealt with him for years) that this "disrespects" the scholar whereas Neil has no problems disrespecting respected scholars who hold positions he doesn't agree with. Why? He's some weird former cult member who went against his former beliefs with the same weirdness that he had when he was a cult member.

Why wouldn't Andrew have been surprised to hear someone make a stupid argument when Augustine said these things about his Confessions:

I. The Retractations, II, 6 (A.D. 427) My Confessions, in thirteen books, praise the righteous and good God as they speak either of my evil or good, and they are meant to excite men’s minds and affections toward him. At least as far as I am concerned, this is what they did for me when they were being written and they still do this when read. What some people think of them is their own affair [ipse viderint]; but I do know that they have given pleasure to many of my brethren and still do so. The first through the tenth books were written about myself; the other three about Holy Scripture, from what is written there, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,2even as far as the reference to the Sabbath rest.3
2. In Book IV, when I confessed my soul’s misery over the death of a friend and said that our soul had somehow been made one out of two souls, “But it may have been that I was afraid to die, lest he should then die wholly whom I had so greatly loved” (Ch. VI, 11)--this now seems to be more a trivial declamation than a serious confession, although this inept expression may be tempered somewhat by the “may have been” [forte] Which I added. And in Book XIII what I said--“The firmament was made between the higher waters (and superior) and the lower (and inferior) waters”--was said without sufficient thought. In any case, the matter is very obscure.

This work begins thus: “Great art thou, O Lord.”

II. De Dono Perseverantiae, XX, 53 (A.D. 428)

Which of my shorter works has been more widely known or given greater pleasure than the [thirteen] books of my Confessions? And, although I published them long before the Pelagian heresy had even begun to be, it is plain that in them I said to my God, again and again, “Give what thou commandest and command what thou wilt.” When these words of mine were repeated in Pelagius’ presence at Rome by a certain brother of mine (an episcopal colleague), he could not bear them and contradicted him so excitedly that they nearly came to a quarrel. Now what, indeed, does God command, first and foremost, except that we believe in him? This faith, therefore, he himself gives; so that it is well said to him, “Give what thou commandest.” Moreover, in those same books, concerning my account of my conversion when God turned me to that faith I was laying waste with a very wretched and wild verbal assault,4 do you not remember how the narration shows that I was given as a gift to the faithful and daily tears of my mother, who had been promised that I should not perish? I certainly declared there that God by his grace turns men’s wills to the true faith when they are not only averse to it, but actually adverse. As for the other ways in which I sought God’s aid in my growth in perseverance, you either know or can review them as you wish (PL, 45, c. 1025).

III. Letter to Darius (A.D. 429)

Thus, my son, take the books of my Confessions and use them as a good man should--not superficially, but as a Christian in Christian charity. Here see me as I am and do not praise me for more than I am. Here believe nothing else about me than my own testimony. Here observe what I have been in myself and through myself. And if something in me pleases you, here praise Him with me--Him whom I desire to be praised on my account and not myself. “For it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves.”5 Indeed, we were ourselves quite lost; but He who made us, remade us [sed qui fecit, refecit]. As, then, you find me in these pages, pray for me that I shall not fail but that I may go on to be perfected. Pray for me, my son, pray for me! (Epist. CCXXXI, PL, 33, c. 1025).

Yes, Andrew's surprise, surprise that someone would be so fucking weird to write a book which has three separate acknowledgements in Augustine's other writings, seems justified. Another stupid theory that Neil attaches himself to.

I think that the modern world has allowed so many useless people to have so much free time is a bad thing. It floods discussion groups with stupid theories.

[StephenGoranson]

When I was at Brandeis U. circa 1970 I took a course on Autobiography. We read lots of them. My paper compared and contrasted Augustine, Confessions and Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
I think Augustine wrote his, and I don't know any reason to think such is seriously debatable. Others may.

[neilgodfrey]

When I was at Brandeis U. circa 1970 I took a course on Autobiography. We read lots of them. My paper compared and contrasted Augustine, Confessions and Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
I think Augustine wrote his, and I don't know any reason to think such is seriously debatable. Others may.

You won't know unless you read more, will you!