After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Chrestians vs Christians: Martyr, Tertullian, the Big Five MSS

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 9:14 pm (my emphasis)
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 6:47 pmThey embedded small kernals of truth into their fictions and happily passed them off with the rest of their fabrication. The FF writings are from 11th-14th century. They need to be set aside as late secondary evidence.
This is incorrect. Even if they are fabricated, they need to be understood as fabrications. The setting, motives, and origin of the fabricated texts need to be traced and placed in context, in detail. These hypotheses need to be defended against alternatives, alternatives which may make much more sense of the evidence. Even as fabrications, the texts could reveal much about those that produced them. And the very idea of referring to thousands of texts together as something to be "set aside" is fundamentally ahistorical.
I apologise for not being clear. Let me try and be clear.

The historical method suggests that in historical reconstructions the historian should wherever possible focus on the primary evidence from the time period being studied. The categorization of evidence as primary and secondary evidence will depend on the subject matter of the study. What is classed as primary and secondary evidence in one study can be reversed in another study. For example:
  • Two scenarios

    1) If we are studying the doctrines and history of the "early church" then the "fathers" are to be regarded as primary sources. The problem that the manuscripts of the church fathers is often a thousand years or more removed from the time period of antiquity may not be too critical to this study.

    2) If we are studying the NHL and the NT apocrypha in general then the heresiology of the "fathers" and the doctrines of the "early church" becomes secondary evidence. In this study it is the texts of the NHL (and NTA) which become the primary evidence. This evidence is actually derived much closer to the time period being studied.
My study over the last decade has been from scenario 2). I can understand that many people here are more interested in scenario 1). I should have made this clear with my comment that the secondary evidence (of the heresiologists) can be set aside. I apologise for the lack of clarity. The manuscripts of the "fathers" can't be set aside in scenario 1) because it is primary evidence, albeit a thousand years removed. However in scenario 2 it can be --- in the relative sense --- set aside because it is not the primary evidence. I should have clarified this earlier.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Chrestians vs Christians: Martyr, Tertullian, the Big Five MSS

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 10:59 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 9:14 pm (my emphasis)
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 6:47 pmThey embedded small kernals of truth into their fictions and happily passed them off with the rest of their fabrication. The FF writings are from 11th-14th century. They need to be set aside as late secondary evidence.
This is incorrect. Even if they are fabricated, they need to be understood as fabrications. The setting, motives, and origin of the fabricated texts need to be traced and placed in context, in detail. These hypotheses need to be defended against alternatives, alternatives which may make much more sense of the evidence. Even as fabrications, the texts could reveal much about those that produced them. And the very idea of referring to thousands of texts together as something to be "set aside" is fundamentally ahistorical.
I apologise for not being clear. Let me try and be clear.

The historical method suggests that in historical reconstructions the historian should wherever possible focus on the primary evidence from the time period being studied. The categorization of evidence as primary and secondary evidence will depend on the subject matter of the study. What is classed as primary and secondary evidence in one study can be reversed in another study. For example:
  • Two scenarios

    1) If we are studying the doctrines and history of the "early church" then the "fathers" are to be regarded as primary sources. The problem that the manuscripts of the church fathers is often a thousand years or more removed from the time period of antiquity may not be too critical to this study.

    2) If we are studying the NHL and the NT apocrypha in general then the heresiology of the "fathers" and the doctrines of the "early church" becomes secondary evidence. In this study it is the texts of the NHL (and NTA) which become the primary evidence. This evidence is actually derived much closer to the time period being studied.
My study over the last decade has been from scenario 2). I can understand that many people here are more interested in scenario 1). I should have made this clear with my comment that the secondary evidence (of the heresiologists) can be set aside. I apologise for the lack of clarity. The manuscripts of the "fathers" can't be set aside in scenario 1) because it is primary evidence, albeit a thousand years removed. However in scenario 2 it can be --- in the relative sense --- set aside because it is not the primary evidence. I should have clarified this earlier.
That does make it more clear, but the language of "set aside" is most certainly still unfortunate.

Instead of "set aside" or even "secondary evidence," the words we are looking for are these: treated with caution.

And the language of "a thousand years removed" (referring to manuscripts) makes it hard to take what you're saying very seriously.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Revisiting this:
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 9:14 pm (my emphasis)
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 6:47 pmThey embedded small kernals of truth into their fictions and happily passed them off with the rest of their fabrication. The FF writings are from 11th-14th century. They need to be set aside as late secondary evidence.
This is incorrect. Even if they are fabricated, they need to be understood as fabrications. The setting, motives, and origin of the fabricated texts need to be traced and placed in context, in detail. These hypotheses need to be defended against alternatives, alternatives which may make much more sense of the evidence. Even as fabrications, the texts could reveal much about those that produced them.
I have engaged in various discussions here on this very subject. Key search terms would be "Doctors of the Latin Church" and "Doctors of the Greek Church". These doctors are explicitly named and dated in the schematic "Chronological Map of the Evidence". Some example discussions are:

* Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

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

* and from SA: Arguing Against the Church Fathers

And the very idea of referring to thousands of texts together as something to be "set aside" is fundamentally ahistorical.
In context the comment was an exhortation (to Martijn and others) to set aside the analysis of heresiologists and instead to engage in analysis of the Nag Hammadi Library. I was referring to priority and value of research of the NHL over that of the "Fathers" in matters relating to the big picture of Christian origins. I was using the term relatively not absolutely.


Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 13, 2023 11:16 pmThat does make it more clear, but the language of "set aside" is most certainly still unfortunate.

Instead of "set aside" or even "secondary evidence," the words we are looking for are these: treated with caution.
Treated with extreme caution IMO. And from the above, I am certainly not trying to sweep them off the table where all the available evidence is martialed. That was the entire purpose of the "Map of the Evidence". The Fathers are the figures we find in Ecclesiastical History (EH) and they are vital data for various types of EH such as EH1 (Doctrines, Bishop Lists, NTC attestation, etc) and EH7 (Heresiology, heretics and attestation to the NT apocrypha -- including the NHL).

By the comment "setting aside" the "Fathers" I was suggesting a change in the focus of the investigation FROM the "Fathers" to the NHL.

And I stand by that comment in relation to investigations concerning Christian origins. The writings of the Fathers are certainly NOT time-capsules from antiquity whereas the NHL is certainly a time-capsule from antiquity.
And the language of "a thousand years removed" (referring to manuscripts) makes it hard to take what you're saying very seriously.
Manuscripts are generally a product of the age in which they were copied or written. You mentioned that yourself above. The NHL are manuscripts that were physically copied or written in the mid 4th century and are a product of their epoch. This is a general fact.

OTOH the earliest extant physical copies of the heresiological manuscripts (Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus et al - all of whom are hostile witnesses to the NHL texts and their ultimate authors) are literally a thousand years removed from the mid 4th century. This is a fact.

The integrity of the historical transmission of these manuscripts from antiquity is assumed. It is an assumption which is rarely made explicit. Your index of Christian literature lists earliest and latest dates but does not list the dates of the earliest extnt manuscripts. This is not a reflection on your work because nowhere on the net have I found such a resource. Do you know of one other than what Roger's done with his Tertullian stuff?


What do you mean by saying the language of "a thousand years removed" (referring to manuscripts) is hard to take seriously? As far as I am concerned this language of "a thousand years removed" (referring to manuscripts) is a serious issue and it is responsible to acknowledge the facts in this issue. Explicitly.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 5:02 am LC, you claim to be skeptical, yet I'm skeptical that you are skeptical about your constant Constantine claim.

Added later: claim or con game?

Evidence Map: Chronology of the components of Christian Literature
https://www.academia.edu/78665273/Evide ... Literature
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 5:12 pm The integrity of the historical transmission of these manuscripts from antiquity is assumed. It is an assumption which is rarely made explicit. Your index of Christian literature lists earliest and latest dates but does not list the dates of the earliest extnt manuscripts. This is not a reflection on your work because nowhere on the net have I found such a resource. Do you know of one other than what Roger's done with his Tertullian stuff?

What do you mean by saying the language of "a thousand years removed" (referring to manuscripts) is hard to take seriously? As far as I am concerned this language of "a thousand years removed" (referring to manuscripts) is a serious issue and it is responsible to acknowledge the facts in this issue. Explicitly.
The phrase elides the period of transmission instead of acknowledging.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 5:12 pm Some example discussions are:

* Heresiology before 325 CE has been forged: NT Apocryphal literature is a Post-Nicene reaction to the NT Bible.

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

* and from SA: Arguing Against the Church Fathers
Who can forget the in-depth, detailed, erudite, specific, impartial, evidence-based discussions like these?
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:59 pmThe writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin et al are fabrications.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 5:58 pm Did Justin actually write in the 2nd century what is found in a 14th century manuscript? Did Hippolytus write in antiquity what is presented in a 14th century manuscript? Did Irenaeus write in the Greek language in the 2nd/3rd century what we find only in Latin manuscripts of the 10/11th century? IDK. We don't know. Do we? So much for the FF and EH.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:14 pm The "memoirs" of the church fathers are like Joseph Smith's "Golden Plates" and his Book of Mormon except they have been in the making for almost 1700 years within the utterly corrupt church industry. It started with the "history of the early church" by Eusebius which was expanded generation after generation, forgery after forgery of additional material. By the 20th century it had become the 10 volumes of the Ante Nicene Fathers, the 14 volumes of the Nicene Fathers and the 14 volumes of the Post Nicene Fathers.

If you think this literature contains any history you will be mistaken. The church industry has simply fabricated a history. It's called propaganda, fraud and forgery.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:01 pm In the case of Origen's refutation of Celsus we certainly do not have such primary evidence. The earliest extant manuscript for Origen's refutation of Celsus is not prior to Constantine. We may make the inference that Origen's refutation of Celsus was prior to Constantine but an inference is not evidence.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:21 pm OTOH all C14 dating results for Christian related manuscript evidence point to an epoch after the Nicene Council.

The natural assumption inherent in the mainstream chronological paradigm (for a theoretical 1st and/or 2nd century Christian origins) is that older manuscripts existed that have been lost. Is this a conviction of a history assertion by the mainstream paradigm that is itself bogus? Time and evidence will tell.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:57 am Irenaeus is supposedly Our Authority with respect to
the date of authorship of the Apocryphon of John


A book called the Apocryphon of John was referred to by Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses, written about 185, among "an indescribable number of secret and illegitimate writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish people, who are ignorant of the true scriptures"[3]—scriptures which Irenaeus himself helped to establish (see the canonical four). Among the writings he quotes from, in order to expose and refute them, are the Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Judas, and this secret book of John.[4]

[3] Adversus Haereses 1.20.1.

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

The NHL contains a number of secret and illegitimate writings in Coptic. It's provisionally dated c.350 CE. After the year 325 CE "the true scriptures" were officially identified by the NT and LXX Bible codices of the 4th century Christian emperors. The Chi-Rho appears on imperial coinage. I think Irenaeus was fabricated by the Latin church [industry] -- in layers -- for the glory of the Latin church [industry].
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 7:20 pm Since you are interested in Pilate, the Saint and Doctor Jerome was also very active around the time that the Nicene Creed of 325 CE was updated with the Nicene Creed of 381 CE. In the updated creed Pontius Pilate is added, and the anathema clause consisting of the five sophisms of Arius, is removed.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 4:43 am Both assumptions /claims are viable but neither can be proven. The earliest extant manuscript for Tertullian is the "Apologeticum" dated to the late 8th century.

The works of Tertullian come down to us in various medieval manuscripts, none older than the late 8th century. The manuscripts sometimes contain only the Apologeticum, often together with works not by Tertullian. The other manuscripts contain a selection of his works.

• The 8th century Codex Parisinus, Bibl. Nat. Latinus 13047 (Adv. Iud, Fulda text)
• The 8-9th century Codex Petropolitanus Latinus I Q v. 40 (S) (Apol)
• The 9th century Codex Agobardinus (a.k.a. Codex Parisinus Bibl. Nat. Latinus 1622) (A) (Various)
• The 9th century Keppel fragment (of a Corbie Ms. Spect.)
• The 9th century Codex Parisinus Latinus 1623 (Π) (Apol)

http://tertullian.org/manuscripts/index.htm

It may be claimed that this manuscript is attributable to Tertullian living c.200 CE. But this claim can't be proven.

Alternatively we could claim that this 800 CE manuscript is attributable to the Pseudo-Isidore Latin forgery mill known to have been operating in the 9th century out of Corbie Abbey and, as such, may not be attributed to Tertullian at all. But this claim can't be proven either.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:47 pm The manuscripts may have existed and not survived OR they may in fact have never existed prior to the time period in question. We just don't know at the moment do we.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 6:53 pm The stuff of the Falsifying Fathers

The 3rd class of Christian literature -- "Ecclesiastical History" -- was initially produced by Eusebius in the 4th century as support materials for the One True Jesus Story Book which the Christian emperors of the 4th century pumped out of their scriptoria. The Christians of the later 4th century who preserved Eusebius, and the church which preserved their preservations, added, modified and deleted out of "church history" elements which they thought were necessary or unnecessary. Thus "Church History" was fabricated in layer after layer down through the centuries in order to conform it to the political context of the epoch in which they found themselves. There is sufficient reason to believe (IMO) that none of it is historical.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 5:49 pm About early Origin IDK. YDK. Nobody knows what is beneath the historical veneer of what Bruno Bauer called "Stoicism in Jewish garb". Theories abound. All based upon the secondary evidence. What could possibly go wrong?
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:08 pm The earliest extant manuscript for Saint Justin is some form of "Omnibus edition" dated to the year 1364 CE. This is well over a thousand years after the date upon which Saint Justin supposedly wrote. How can modern scholarship invest so much time and energy in determining what Saint Justin supposedly wrote in the 2nd century from a physical manuscript dated to the 14th century?
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:54 pm 3) The Ecclesiastical "History" of Eusebius was a product of the Nicene epoch and claims to have preserved -- by quotation and citation - almost a legion of the Fathers who extend from the later 1st century, through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Most of these Fathers function with a dual capacity. They are wearing two different hats.

In their capacity as Fathers of Orthodoxy these sources are used as witnesses to the orthodox canonical literature. In their capacity as Fathers of heresiology these sources are used as witnesses to the heretical non-canonical literature.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:53 am You should be well aware that I think it is reasonable to suspect that the 2nd/3rd century sources such as Justin (and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the FF) were fabricated by the later 4th century church industry or by the church industry of the Middle Ages which supposedly "preserved" these sources. So the fabrication is likely to have been first engineered in the Latin church.

Justin's earliest manuscript is a 14th century "Omnibus edition". Tertullian has only late very late Latin manuscripts (not Greek). Of course this does not stop the best of modern scholarship from peering into the texts of Justin and Irenaeus as if they were peering into a time capsule from the 2nd century. The Pope would be pleased.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:49 pm That is the supposed fertile womb of Patristics - the domain of the FF of which Eusebius - by virtue of his right as the first "historian" - was the mid-wife. Patristic scholars are those who know their Eusebius by heart. And by Eusebius I also mean the Eusebian continuators: the 10 volumes of the ANF, the 14 volumes of the NF and the 14 volumes of the PNF. All of which were "preserved" over centuries and centuries by an utterly corrupt industry which was highly influential and extremely rich.

I reserve the right to view all these FF writings (pseudo-historical propaganda) as being attributable to one single source - the long term operation of the [utterly corrupt] church industry over many long and dark centuries.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:59 pm
Sinouhe wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 7:48 amI think that Pliny's letter is a forgery based on the false testimony of Tertullian.
While I'd agree with that I'd take it a bridge further: Tertullian is also a forgery based on the false testimony of Eusebius and/or the Post Nicene "Fathers" and/or the church industry of the middle ages.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:03 am I have little faith in their historical existence prior to the C14 dates.
You've consistently neglected this:
The setting, motives, and origin of the fabricated texts need to be traced and placed in context, in detail. These hypotheses need to be defended against alternatives, alternatives which may make much more sense of the evidence. Even as fabrications, the texts could reveal much about those that produced them.
Here's what I have seen:

(a) reference to existing studies regarding other texts as forgeries and interpolations
(b) reference to an idea that anything and everything could be fabricated, with no limit on complexity or verisimilitude
(c) reference to an idea that everything should be regarded as potentially fabricated up to the moment of the extant manuscript
(d) reference to claimed interpolations, such as the claim of an interpolation into Porphyry, that are novel but are required for your hypothesis and presented without any evidence, other than the preservation of your hypothesis
(e) reference to a motivation of deception, such that the attempt to deceive explains all aspects of the literature, for the successful purpose of inducing a false critical history in academia

It's difficult for me to understand that you don't even seem to have insight into the extent of what you've been doing, given that you've been exposed to a wide range of historical scholarship and extensive discussions here that show how people investigate claims of forgery and interpolation. You've started at the wrong end with the hypotheses that require the forgeries claimed. The forgery ideas are by far the most interesting claims (and among the ones most amenable to study, although you have frequently regarded them as inscrutable).

Edited to add: a conciliatory note. You have focused a lot on other things, like your views of Arius, your views of the Alexandrians, notes on apocryphal Acts, etc. The fourth century has your attention, as you say:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:47 pm A lot of people here have not bothered to do any research on the 4th century on the basis that they don't need to. Have you done any research on any of this stuff yourself?
So you've done some detail-work; you just haven't done it with respect to the texts being dismissed.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 8:37 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:21 pm OTOH all C14 dating results for Christian related manuscript evidence point to an epoch after the Nicene Council.

The natural assumption inherent in the mainstream chronological paradigm (for a theoretical 1st and/or 2nd century Christian origins) is that older manuscripts existed that have been lost. Is this a conviction of a history assertion by the mainstream paradigm that is itself bogus? Time and evidence will tell.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:03 am I have little faith in their historical existence prior to the C14 dates.
You've consistently neglected this:
The setting, motives, and origin of the fabricated texts need to be traced and placed in context, in detail. These hypotheses need to be defended against alternatives, alternatives which may make much more sense of the evidence. Even as fabrications, the texts could reveal much about those that produced them.
I attempted to discuss this stuff more than 8 years ago.
But it didn't end well.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1433
I'd like to discuss the possibility that a substantial portion of what we read as the original Greek works of the heresiologist Irenaeus (2nd century) were instead the products of one or more Latin authors during the rule of Pontifex Maximus Damasus (d.382 CE) in Rome.

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 8:37 pm Here's what I have seen:

(a) reference to existing studies regarding other texts as forgeries and interpolations
(b) reference to an idea that anything and everything could be fabricated, with no limit on complexity or verisimilitude
The idea is to ask --- with skepticism --- the simple question whether it is possible that the Nicene church simply fabricated its origins.

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 8:37 pm (c) reference to an idea that everything should be regarded as potentially fabricated up to the moment of the extant manuscript
A skeptical investigator has the right to demand physical proof of manuscript transmission from antiquity. Where such proof is unavailable there is room for doubt.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 8:37 pm(d) reference to claimed interpolations, such as the claim of an interpolation into Porphyry, that are novel but are required for your hypothesis and presented without any evidence, other than the preservation of your hypothesis
Some background evidence supporting the claim of an interpolation into Porphyry has been set out in this post: viewtopic.php?p=154837#p154837

Most theories related to Christian origins invoke Christian interpolations into the literature of non Christian authors. The most common one being the TF.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 8:37 pm (e) reference to a motivation of deception, such that the attempt to deceive explains all aspects of the literature, for the successful purpose of inducing a false critical history in academia
The skepticism is directed at the "Ecclesiastical Histories" (EH) in order to explain the historical evidence for the two major broad groups of Christian literature: the canonical and the apocryphal. The question is whether it is possible that EH has introduced a false history in respect of both these groups, and if so what was the sequence of events by which these two false histories (for each of the two groups) were actually implemented - when and by whom.

It's difficult for me to understand that you don't even seem to have insight into the extent of what you've been doing, given that you've been exposed to a wide range of historical scholarship and extensive discussions here that show how people investigate claims of forgery and interpolation. You've started at the wrong end with the hypotheses that require the forgeries claimed. The forgery ideas are by far the most interesting claims (and among the ones most amenable to study, although you have frequently regarded them as inscrutable).

Edited to add: a conciliatory note. You have focused a lot on other things, like your views of Arius, your views of the Alexandrians, notes on apocryphal Acts, etc. The fourth century has your attention, as you say:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:47 pm A lot of people here have not bothered to do any research on the 4th century on the basis that they don't need to. Have you done any research on any of this stuff yourself?
So you've done some detail-work; you just haven't done it with respect to the texts being dismissed.
The ideas related to this possible forgery and interpolation which I have put forward for discussion are actually set within the time-frame of the 4th century. This was outlined in the schematic referenced in this thread. At the center of the schematic, in the 4th century, is this: Alternate chronology for the NT Apocrypha, Nag Hammadi Library and Heresiology (EH7).

Evidence Map: Chronology of the components of Christian Literature https://www.academia.edu/78665273/Evide ... Literature
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 2:37 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 8:37 pm (c) reference to an idea that everything should be regarded as potentially fabricated up to the moment of the extant manuscript
A skeptical investigator has the right to demand physical proof of manuscript transmission from antiquity. Where such proof is unavailable there is room for doubt.
Then the skeptical investigator has a practical incapacity to discuss the topic in question intelligently.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

Post by neilgodfrey »

What is being raised here is actually a fraught and complex area of discussion in philosophy and in particular the philosophy of history. How can we know anything -- how can we know if X really is from Y, etc.? One book I came across that hits directly on this question and that helped me think through several issues is
  • Coady, C. A. J. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
What is being addressed is the question of provenance -- and that's in some ways a separate study from the contents of the documents themselves. It calls for a different set of texts from those most of us usually refer to in any study of history.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: "the question of provenance"

Post by billd89 »

How do we know something with certainty? If certainty is impossible, does that mean that thing is 'probably' (plausibly) false? No, this would be a sophmoric argument for negation's sake: an Ulterior Motive (i.e. corrupt intent), the drivel of modern scholarship.

Devil's Advocate:
otoh and recently, a famous coin dealer was arrested for 'crimes of provenance.' Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg Jr. claimed the coin was looted, sold w/ "fabricated provenance." But at that price, and obviously purchased from mafia elements, why can't we go one step further: why couldn't that coin also have been faked? In fact, expert forgeries still circulate.

I think it is possible to fake a lump of 8.06 gr Au for USD$4.1 mln (~$4,775,000., inflation adjusted to 2023). Incidentally, that's about USD$ 18,431,000 per Ozt Fine Au. Surely that's the most expensive Gold Price in the world, ever. Therein lies the incentive, but the obvious gimme does not prove a fake either.

Faking one coin for an extraordinary profit is probably straight-forward; the sales guise would need to be quite elaborate anyway. One coin isn't an entire canon, tho.
Post Reply