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

[neilgodfrey]

Peyote is about possibilities. History is about probabilities.

I have never read a history that says Alexander probably invaded the Persian empire, that Julius Caesar was probably assassinated.

Hypotheses are about probabilities.

I know, you hear all the time among theologians that "history is about probabilities" and that we can never prove anything in ancient history. Except for an "extreme" wing of postmodernist historians in other history departments, that is not what they understand by history. Witness the "history wars", for example -- facts and proof are the core of historical claims. We had a prime minister who delivered a national apology for what our ancestors had done to our aboriginal people -- he did not say "Sorry for what they probably did".

[Leucius Charinus]

Treating challengers to old ideas as if they must not know the basics and cannot be taken seriously is also an invitation to the closing of our minds and losing sight of the foundations of what lies at the core of our beliefs.

To be honest. I think the idea that the Confessions is as late as Anselm is without merit. (The idea that the Confessions in its present form is post-Augustine is IMO possible but improbable.)

The proposition of ideas themselves but without the presence of accompanied substantiating arguments, I agree, may be without merit because it leaves it entirely up to the reader to provide the substantiating arguments.

What is correct is that before the 11th century the Confessions was largely ignored as a whole. Passages were excerpted out of context by writers who found them valuable but there was little interest in the work as a whole. However the change happens in the early 11th century with John of Fecamp a generation before Anselm. John is wildly unlikely to be the true author of the Confessions he lacks the intellectual credentials.

The paper cited refers to "intellectual interpretations of the texts by contemporaries can be joined to the paleographic examination of the manuscripts". We have already been made aware (from Neil's above extract) that Detering is critically skeptical of the paleographic examination of the manuscripts.

I genuinely feel that either Detering was unaware of relevant information, or he must have failed to take proper account of it.

That may well be how many academics "genuinely feel" when they encounter such claims without being made aware of Detering's claims without knowledge of his accompanying arguments which, AFAIK, have not yet been revealed in English translations. It therefore follows that Detering may indeed have been aware of this relevant information, and has in fact taken proper account of it. We just don't know at the moment. Do we?

(It is possibly relevant that this startling suggestion by Detering appears to have been almost totally ignored. Outside of this forum there is almost no reference to it on the web.)

I for one look forward to being able to at least read through the arguments made by Detering in support of his "startling suggestion".

I also look forward to learning more about how Saint Augustine, along with Saint Jerome and Saint Ambrose, were in 1298 CE made "Doctors of the Latin Church". Of particular importance in this process I look forward to learning more about the transmission history of the manuscripts attributed to these "Doctors of the Latin church" from the 4th and 5th century into the 13th century. I am wary of florigia, catenae and commentaries.