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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:15 am
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.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 10:55 pm 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.



Thanks very much for your contribution Neil.

What is provenance when applied to manuscripts?

Provenance (from the French provenir, 'to come from/forth') is the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object.[1] The term was originally mostly used in relation to works of art but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including archaeology, paleontology, archives, manuscripts, printed books, the circular economy, and science and computing.

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

The following is also quite useful.

Defining Provenance

I should firstly break down what the term provenance means as it is often not fully understood, even among those who work in the field. With the help of Rosemary Joyce’s (2012) book chapter, From Place to Place: Provenience, Provenance, and Archaeology, I define provenance as the ownership and whereabouts history of an object from the moment of its creation. A similar, yet different term, is provenience. Provenience is the specific location of where an object was found or excavated. Provenience (or findspot) is one element of an object’s provenance but does not capture the full story. It is the full provenance history that allows for an object possess a greater sense of historical and social context. Among other things, provenance provides us with information about where an object would have been specifically used in ancient times, how the object moved from its excavation area to other parts of the world, how its value changed throughout history (monetarily, aesthetically etc.) and whether it has been physically altered, restored or even if it is potentially a fake.

The Important of Provenance

Provenance is an ever-present and challenging aspect of museum collecting. Reckless collecting practices from museums, dealers, and individuals throughout history has meant the objects in museums today are often lacking in provenance documentation. You may think, why do we even need this documentation and what purpose does it serve? Surely possessing the object itself is enough to construct its meaning and value? Not quite . . . provenance has proven to be a crucial element of an object’s existence. The antiquities market is immense, powerful, and entangled with illegal and unethical practices. Conflict in the Middle East has resulted in an overwhelmingly large portion of Mesopotamian artefacts being caught up in illegal activity, such as clandestine excavations, looting, and theft. Furthermore, the desire for these types of objects from market nations such as the U.S and U.K has meant that there are a large number of fakes and forgeries intertwined with these authentic objects. This is why provenance is so crucial. If an object has valid provenance documentation which shows that it has not been involved with any illegal or unethical activity, the museum can feel safe and certain in their decision to acquire the object. If a museum accepts an object without this provenance documentation, it is difficult to know whether it has been caught up with this kind of activity and the museum could be inadvertently supporting illegal and unethical practices by acquiring and displaying it.

What is Provenance and why is it so important?
Feb 1, 2023 | Museum General
Written By Gabrielle Powell
https://abbeymuseum.com.au/what-is-prov ... important/

A skeptical investigator should always remain sensitive to issues related to the provenance of manuscripts even if (or perhaps, especially if) they have been sourced from the "church archives". We cannot simply assume for example that the late extant Latin manuscripts attributed to the Greek writer Irenaeus have an impeccable provenance - meaning an impeccable transmission history from antiquity to the 14th century. Numerous instances exist whereby the church has attempted to pass off forged manuscripts as legitimate.

In the case of Irenaeus the Turin manuscript is an example. In 1713 Pfaff published the Turin manuscript of Irenaeus in Greek. Harnack later declared it to be a forgery. Do we have any Greek manuscripts for Irenaeus? In 1526 Erasmus' Latin edition for the writings of Irenaeus uses sources not found in three extant manuscripts of that time. Moreover Erasmus thinks that Irenaeus was a Latin author (Not a Greek author). All this relates to the provenance of the Latin manuscripts attributed to the Greek writer Irenaeus.

These questions relating to provenance of manuscripts from the "church fathers" should not be dismissed. Discussion of this topic in question --- the provenance of these manuscripts --- should proceed intelligently. There are many unanswered questions to this. As I have pointed out above, the issue of the earliest extant manuscripts for the "Fathers" and the issue of their provenance (manuscript transmission from antiquity) is not a trivial subject and yet is rarely discussed.
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 »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 2:40 am
Thanks very much for your contribution Neil.

What is provenance when applied to manuscripts?

. . . .

The following is also quite useful.

Defining Provenance

. . . . . how its value changed throughout history (monetarily, aesthetically etc.) and whether it has been physically altered, restored or even if it is potentially a fake.[/highlight][/b]

The Important of Provenance

. . . . Furthermore, the desire for these types of objects from market nations such as the U.S and U.K has meant that there are a large number of fakes and forgeries intertwined with these authentic objects. . . . .

What is Provenance and why is it so important?
Feb 1, 2023 | Museum General
Written By Gabrielle Powell
https://abbeymuseum.com.au/what-is-prov ... important/

A skeptical investigator should always remain sensitive to issues related to the provenance of manuscripts even if (or perhaps, especially if) they have been sourced from the "church archives". We cannot simply assume for example that the late extant Latin manuscripts attributed to the Greek writer Irenaeus have an impeccable provenance - meaning an impeccable transmission history from antiquity to the 14th century. Numerous instances exist whereby the church has attempted to pass off forged manuscripts as legitimate.

In the case of Irenaeus the Turin manuscript is an example. In 1713 Pfaff published the Turin manuscript of Irenaeus in Greek. Harnack later declared it to be a forgery. Do we have any Greek manuscripts for Irenaeus? In 1526 Erasmus' Latin edition for the writings of Irenaeus uses sources not found in three extant manuscripts of that time. Moreover Erasmus thinks that Irenaeus was a Latin author (Not a Greek author). All this relates to the provenance of the Latin manuscripts attributed to the Greek writer Irenaeus.

. . . .
As far as I am aware no evidence has been shown to verify fourth century origins of Justin, Paul's letters, gospels, etc.....

But those texts do bear the marks of the first 2 centuries of our era as surely as Dead Sea Scrolls bear the radiocarbon marks of the first couple of centuries before our era. The marks in the Christian texts are the match with the broader thought of those time - like tree-ring and ice-layer comparisons. The matches are too consistent to be credible products of the fourth century. Forgers cannot avoid betraying what they know and don't know about their own times and the times in which they are wanting to misplace something.

As for any hypothesis, Bayes would be a worthwhile method to use on the fourth century invention hypothesis.

I mentioned Coady, but on checking I see I should rather have referred to Ricoeur's Memory, History, Forgetting -- it contains an excellent discussion on how and why we believe what we do as applied to historical documents -- though it is very philosophical and the sort of work everyone would like to read, but it has worthwhile references to Bloch's Historian's Craft
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

As for any hypothesis, Bayes would be a worthwhile method to use on the fourth century invention hypothesis.
Why? What compelling evidence has Pete raised in 20 years of "research" that would warrant such an investigation?
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 »

We do tend to believe things without evidence: many of us believe in oral traditions behind the gospel narratives, some of us believe in Q as a source for some of the gospels, others -- you won't believe this! -- actually believe in a Persian era provenance of the Pentateuch .... all these are beliefs based on hypotheses and interpretations of data through the framework of those hypotheses that have become reified as facts.
An error that ages tends to gain credibility as an expression of truth --- Franz Cumont
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:07 pm As far as I am aware no evidence has been shown to verify fourth century origins of Justin, Paul's letters, gospels, etc.....

But those texts do bear the marks of the first 2 centuries of our era as surely as Dead Sea Scrolls bear the radiocarbon marks of the first couple of centuries before our era. The marks in the Christian texts are the match with the broader thought of those time - like tree-ring and ice-layer comparisons. The matches are too consistent to be credible products of the fourth century. Forgers cannot avoid betraying what they know and don't know about their own times and the times in which they are wanting to misplace something.
I just came across an article that addresses the same kinds of identifiers of provenance as part of a broader discussion on "Jewish Alexandrian Literature" by Jan Dochhorn in the book Alexandria (2013). It's in German but his interesting conclusion translated is:
Someone who begins to research a parabiblical text out of interest in early Judaism, for example, may find out that it is to be located in Byzantine or Oriental Christianity.
The sorts of markers that date a text can be references to a custom that was known only in a certain era -- thus precluding it from being written in a time when such a custom was no longer known. Paul's writings are so immersed in Stoicism -- even his salvation model is raw Stoicism with Christ replacing the role of the Stoic's Reason -- that it is almost impossible to imagine them being written as late as the fourth century. Etc etc etc -- such are the marks that point to "before this" but "after that" era for a text.
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:07 pmAs far as I am aware no evidence has been shown to verify fourth century origins of Justin, Paul's letters, gospels, etc.....
There is arguably no physical primary evidence from before the 3rd century to verify 1st or 2nd century origins. The question is whether and to what extent the top-down imperial establishment of the overt political Christian state in the 4th century has contributed towards the fabrication of its own prior history.

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:07 pm But those texts do bear the marks of the first 2 centuries of our era as surely as Dead Sea Scrolls bear the radiocarbon marks of the first couple of centuries before our era. The marks in the Christian texts are the match with the broader thought of those time - like tree-ring and ice-layer comparisons. The matches are too consistent to be credible products of the fourth century. Forgers cannot avoid betraying what they know and don't know about their own times and the times in which they are wanting to misplace something.
C14, tree-ring and ice-layer analysis is science. Textual and redaction criticism of Chriistian literature is not science. It is an art form, highly subjective and bound up within a historical paradigm associated with theological institutes and colleges which have been central to the education system of western civilisation since at least the 4th century.

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:27 pm The sorts of markers that date a text can be references to a custom that was known only in a certain era -- thus precluding it from being written in a time when such a custom was no longer known. Paul's writings are so immersed in Stoicism -- even his salvation model is raw Stoicism with Christ replacing the role of the Stoic's Reason -- that it is almost impossible to imagine them being written as late as the fourth century. Etc etc etc -- such are the marks that point to "before this" but "after that" era for a text.
The literature of 1st century Stoic philosophers such Seneca and Epictetus (via Arrian) can be copy/pasted into the NT in ways analogous to the copy/pasting of LXX material into the NT. According to Bruno Bauer the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria"; that of Matthew's gospel "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca"; Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb." A literary school hell bent on assembling theological literature based on an historical fiction set in the 1st century of the common era simply mimics the philosophical literature of 1st century Stoics. No big deal. I don't see any problem with replicating literary memes and tropes in centuries old extant texts. That's precisely what Pseudo-Isidore was still doing in the 9th century.


Here's an example:

Compare Matthew 6:6 with Epictetus (c.50–c.135 CE)
via Arrian of Nicomedia (c.86/89–after 146/160 CE)
The Discourses of Epictetus - a series of informal lectures by Epictetus
written down by his pupil Arrian around 108 CE.


(A) Here is the statement of the Stoic Epictetus (via Arrian) in relation to prayer:

  • "Nevertheless he has placed by every man a guardian,
    every man's Daimon, to whom he has committed the care of the man,
    a guardian who never sleeps, is never deceived.
    For to what better and more careful guardian
    could He have entrusted each of us?

    When, then, you have shut the doors and made darkness within,
    remember never to say that you are alone, for you are not;
    but God is within, and your Daimon is within, and what need
    have they of light to see what you are doing?
    To this God you ought to swear an oath
    just as the soldiers do to Caesar.".



(B) Here is the statement of Jesus (via Matthew) in relation to Christian prayer (Matthew 6:6)

  • 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father,
    who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


What is the dependence? (A) ==> (B) or (B) ==> (A) ?

IMO the dependence is from (A) ==> (B). Also there is no real time limit for the mimicry of (A) by (B)
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8022
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: Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:57 pm There is arguably no physical primary evidence from before the 3rd century to verify 1st or 2nd century origins.
I'll tell you what. This is at least possible. The 2nd century material is less abundant than the 3rd century material. More importantly, reassigning the 2nd century manuscripts to the 3rd century moves the terminus window in a way that is not necessarily implausible. For example, one might be able to start citing at least one paleographer to support it. Discounting the 2nd century inscriptions is possible in a way that discounting the 3rd century inscriptions is not. A hypothesis of 3rd century origins would be more difficult to disprove directly from the physical evidence and therefore more interesting to explore than an ignorantist 4th century origin hypothesis.

I wonder if we can explore the third century more then. This might give me some impetus to finish Part A (275-325) and move on to Part B (225-275). It would be wonderful if all this work produced at least some common ground.
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:07 pmAs for any hypothesis, Bayes would be a worthwhile method to use on the fourth century invention hypothesis.
The fact is there are at least three 4th century inventions to be analysed:
1) the "canonical material" (which may have drawn on earlier sources) and
2) the "apocryphal material".
3) the "Eusebian material" - Ecclesiastical History including heresiology

We are able to logically separate these three classes of Christian literature.

If 1) the "canonical material" and 3) Eusebius, can be put down for the moment and instead consider just the 2) apocryphal material we find a distinctive chronological pattern.

I have attempted to construct a statistical test using the THE CHI-SQUARED TEST related to the invention (composition and authorship) of 2) the "apocryphal material".

INTRODUCTION

If the [physical] primary evidence of Christian non canonical manuscripts in antiquity is summarised and analysed according to its chronology, a post Nicene provenance is strongly suggested. It should be mentioned that although the earliest primary material is known to have been authored in Greek, the bulk of the discovered manuscript evidence represent Coptic translations of this Greek. The Coptic material may not be the original primary evidence, however it seems to be the closest (one step removed) to the primary evidence that is available at the present moment.
The secondary evidence furnished by the church in antiquity, that such manuscripts were known to the church prior to 325 CE, is in the following analysis, being tested.

THE CHI-SQUARED TEST

Pearson's chi-squared test (χ2) is a statistical test applied to sets of categorical data to evaluate how likely it is that any observed difference between the sets arose by chance. It is suitable for unpaired data from large samples. It tests a null hypothesis. It states that the frequency distribution of certain events observed in a sample is consistent with a particular theoretical distribution.

The null hypothesis being tested here is the mainstream theory for the authorship of the non canonical (largely Gnostic) literature. This theory (hypothesis) predicts a theoretical distribution (of the physical evidence of non canonical literature) which spans the three century epoch between 125-425 CE. This is consistent with a theory of continuous authorship throughout this span. Biblical scholars confidently conjecture /hypothesise /theorise that the authorship of many of the texts in NHL (and many other non canoncial texts) span a period from the 2nd century to the 4th century. Any standard list of non canonical texts sorted by date of proposed authorship will reveal texts being authored throughout these three centuries.

It is therefore reasonable - as a first approximation - to divide the epoch into equal segments, and to expect a physical distribution of the evidence to be more of less divided equally between the segments.

[timmed]

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Weigh ... ostics.htm


This statistical testing was discussed years ago. It was summarised (thread below) as "unsound methodology". However I think the methodology may be valid. I later bounced it off Richard Carrier who also was unfavorable to the model but I am not entirely convinced by his criticism of it either.

PRIOR DISCUSSION: viewtopic.php?t=771
On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE
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: Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:57 pm I wonder if we can explore the third century more then.
Some players:

* Philostratus and the Second Sophistic
* Mani and the Manicheans
* Philip the Arab - was he ever a Christian?
* Plotinus and the imperial sponsorship of Platonism
* Porphyry - editor in chief of Plotinus' Enneads
* Eusebius and the theological library of Origen and Pamphilus
* Diocletian Reforms - legal, geographical, political.

Some worries over these players.
They look like duplicates.

* Ammonius the Christian - involved in the Ammonian / Eusebian tables
* Ammonius Saccas - the "father" of Neoplatonism
* Origen the Christian - pupil of Ammonius the Christian
* Origen the Platonist - pupil of Ammonius Saccas
* Anatolius the Christian Bishop
* Anatolius of Alexandria the Platonist

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Nicae ... Christ.htm
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8022
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: Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:42 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:57 pm I wonder if we can explore the third century more then.
Some players:

* Philostratus and the Second Sophistic
* Mani and the Manicheans
* Philip the Arab - was he ever a Christian?
* Plotinus and the imperial sponsorship of Platonism
* Porphyry - editor in chief of Plotinus' Enneads
* Eusebius and the theological library of Origen and Pamphilus
* Diocletian Reforms - legal, geographical, political.

Some worries over these players.
They look like duplicates.

* Ammonius the Christian - involved in the Ammonian / Eusebian tables
* Ammonius Saccas - the "father" of Neoplatonism
* Origen the Christian - pupil of Ammonius the Christian
* Origen the Platonist - pupil of Ammonius Saccas
* Anatolius the Christian Bishop
* Anatolius of Alexandria the Platonist

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Nicae ... Christ.htm
Certainly. I'm also wondering if we're making any headway so far.

For example, was there at least one Χρειστιανος sometime in the 3rd century?
Post Reply