Can you clarify what you mean by "held to be authoritative"? Do you mean by modern scholarship or by Christian theologists? If you mean "by modern scholarship", in what way is ancient Christian literature held to be authoritative?Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:58 pmYes I believe that I do with the caveat that Christian literature as a series of story books held to be authoritative place it in a class of literature that is entirely different from all other books, and series of books in antiquity.I'd raise the same criticism for your approach: when you refer to ancient non-Christian texts, do you do so after evaluating them in the same way that you'd want ancient Christian texts to be evaluated?
Do you think that, based on what we know about Plutarch and the time he wrote, it is reasonable to view the extant writings of Plutarch as representing pretty much what Plutarch himself wrote, even if we can't be certain?Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:58 pmIt would depend upon the purpose of the argument and the claims made on both sides of the argument. The writings of Plutarch and Paul were used in completely different ways after they supposedly wrote. We could say that until the 4th century the writings of both had the possibility of being found in the Greek section of Roman libraries - public and private.Lets take the writings of Plutarch and Paul. Both were writing around the same period. Both writings survive via similar copying processes. Both had pseudepigrapha attributed to them. If you were going to use the writings of Plutarch in an argument, how would you analysis their provenance before you felt safe enough to use them?
What I mean is: we don't have an eye-witness to the writings of Plutarch, someone who stood over his shoulders to verify that Plutarch was the one writing that particular text. It's the same with all the other ancient authors, including Paul (assuming he existed in the First Century CE). But I think you'd agree that it is reasonable to grant the assumption that Plutarch was the author of the letters that modern scholarship has attributed to him?
Surely that awareness has existed for a long time? Modern scholarship already has views on the Pastoral letters, the Book of Hebrews (which as early as Origen was suspected as not being written by Paul), pseudepigrapha attributed to earliest Christian apologists like Justin Martyr and Tertullian.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:58 pmThe theological agendas of the two authors is important to gauge. And gauging the use of their writings in subsequent theological agendas between antiquity and the present day. My position is that theological agendas and political agendas can both give rise to fraud. Those trying to reconstruct the history of Christianity must be aware of the use of pious fraud.
I agree that we need to consider the theological and political agendas of the authors when evaluating their writings, though those agendas must be derived first, usually from the writings themselves. For me, a Fourth Century CE agenda of creating Christianity by forging a history of a mish-mash of conflicting texts is much less likely than a Fourth Century CE agenda of taking conflicting texts and creating a mish-mash of "orthodox" history. (Then again, I'm just an amateur on the topic of history so my opinion is not worth much)
I guess they assumed that Paul and Seneca existed, and someone thought it was a good idea to have them communicate. If your theory is correct, forgers wanted to place Paul in the time of Seneca, wrote letters by Paul that had barely any indication of Paul writing in that time, then decided to forge letters by Paul writing to Seneca. The latter seems less likely.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 7:58 pmFor example the Nicene Christians circulated for more than a thousand years the writings of Seneca, prefaced with the forged letter exchange between Paul and Seneca. What were the 4th century Christian regime thinking?