NT genre as Constitution; Church History as history of Colony

[Leucius Charinus]

Here is where I see the importance of distinguishing between "evidence" and "physical evidence".

If I claimed we had evidence of Tertullian writing around 200 CE, I'd assume you'd want to start with the physical evidence. How do we know it was written by Tertullian? How do we know it was written around 200 CE? What is the physical evidence (as starting point) for those assumptions? We shouldn't just assume that the works attributed to Tertullian were actually written by Tertullian and written around 200 CE.

Would those be fair statements?

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.

Because I can't see any way for the same onus to not fall on you.

Neither claim can be proven. Both are viable. Further evidence is required.

Let's take the first item in your list of three classes:

1) New Testament Canonical literature (NTC)

What does that actually mean? I'm guessing you mean:

(1) physical copies of medieval documents that purport to be New Testament Canonical literature (NTC)

An explicit definition was provided in the texts listed here:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... ament.html

We have physical manuscripts from late antiquity. These include Sinaiticus, possibly Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. We also have a list of fragmentary papyri dated via paleography in isolation to the 3rd century (sometimes earlier) but which theoretically could be dated with upper bounds in the early 4th century. The early dating and the later dating both involve making assumptions.

That base as the start of analysis is something we'd all agree upon.

The base are the NTC texts themselves and whatever physical manuscripts we may have for these texts.

But for you to take that analysis further -- to (for example) propose that the NTC was actually written in the Fourth Century -- you'd need to supply the physical evidence (as primary) plus any additional evidence and assumptions (as secondary) that allows you to conclude that the NTC was a product of the Fourth Century.

I have argued that the NTC could be a product of century 1, 2, 3 or 4 but we do not know for sure which. I reject the claim that we know for sure the NTC is from century 1 or 2. My argument is that a late date should be left on the table and not dismissed.

Yes, I know that makes it a long process for you, since you are essentially working from scratch, removing all traditional assumptions of provenance and dating.

That is correct.

No doubt there are early physical fragments that can help in that process, but filling in gaps will require a lot of assumptions. But I see that as inevitable if we take your theory seriously.

Any and all theories will necessarily require a lot of assumptions because so much is unknown. The authors of the NTC and the NTA are unknown. The century of composition of the NTC and NTA is not known. Where these texts were authored is unknown.

Would you like to define "New Testament Canonical literature (NTC)" in light of your approach to early Christian writings?

I define the NTC by the list provided as ECW. I define the NTA as another (much larger) list or collection of texts. We have English translations of many of these texts available. The task is to determine the who, when. where, how and why.

We have a paradigm handed down through the history of scholarship that the NTC is a product of the 1st/2nd century and that the NTA is a product of centuries 2 to 4, or 1 to 4. But proof (by means of the production of physical evidence) of these paradigms is not forthcoming.

In the absence of such proof I have devised an alternative theory that both the NTC and the NTA are products of the 4th century. I can't prove this at the moment. But what I can do at the moment is to insist that the alternative theory is not disproved or falsified by the physical evidence.

[GakuseiDon]

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.
...
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.

Because I can't see any way for the same onus to not fall on you.

Neither claim can be proven. Both are viable. Further evidence is required.

I agree with all that. But the fact that nearly all ancient texts are from copies that were made hundreds of years after those ancient texts were thought to have been originally written is a known problem. It's an assumption that the texts attributed to Tertullian were actually written by Tertullian and that Tertullian wrote around 200 CE, but one that is consistent with all the other assumptions we've made about ancient texts that have come through to us via the copying process.

You've questioned those assumptions, at least on the content of those texts that are purported to have originated in the pre-Nicene period. And fair enough too. I'm happy with the assumptions of academia in their assigning of provenance and dating, mainly because I lack the knowledge and training to question them. Mythicists like Dr Carrier and Earl Doherty also seem to agree with many of those assumptions about provenance and dating, which is indication to me that they appear to be common sense.

But it seems to me that you've replaced one set of assumptions with another. According to what you've written above, you regard both sets of assumptions as viable but unproven. Further evidence is required for both sets of assumptions.

I'm thinking out loud here. As you say, further evidence is required. So I'm not sure if there is any way forward if no further evidence is forthcoming. Questioning something is not evidence. It may be that a Bayes Theorem approach might be useful, along the lines of what Carrier did in On the Historicity of Jesus. At the least, it would identify key points of contention between the two sets of assumptions that can be evaluated independently.

Let's take the first item in your list of three classes:

1) New Testament Canonical literature (NTC)

What does that actually mean? I'm guessing you mean:

(1) physical copies of medieval documents that purport to be New Testament Canonical literature (NTC)

An explicit definition was provided in the texts listed here:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... ament.html

I'll open the first item in the list: "The Gospel of Matthew". https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

I've extracted some of the notes from that page:

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark... It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew...

We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience...

There are two passages in Ignatius that show knowledge of Mt 15:13, and these are Trall. 11:1 and Phld. 3:1. Massaux states (op. cit., p. 88): "Of the evangelists, only Mt. recalls this saying of Christ. I find here, as I did in Ignatius, the word φυτεια related to the Father."

Other passages in which there are allusions to Matthew in the letters of Ignatius are: Eph. 5:2 (Mt 18:19-20), 6:1 (Mt 10:40; 21:33-41), 10:3 (Mt 13:25), 11:1 (Mt 3:7), 14:2 (Mt 12:33), 15:1 (Mt 23:8), 16:2 (Mt 3:12), 17:1 (Mt 26:6-13), 19 (Mt 2:2, 9); Magn. 5:2 (Mt 22:19), 8:2 (Mt 5:11-12), 9:1 (Mt 27:52); Trall. 9:1 (Mt 11:19); Rom 9:3 (Mt 10:41-42, 18:5); Phld. 2:1-2 (Mt 7:15), 6:1 (Mt 23:27), 7:2 (Mt 16:17), Sm. proem (Mt 12:18), 6:1 (Mt 19:12), 6:2 (Mt 6:28); Pol. 1:1 (Mt 7:25), 1:2-3 (Mt 8:17).

Thus, Kummel argues to date the Gospel of Matthew in the last two decades of the first century

I'm guessing some or most of that analysis would be useful if not consistent with your theory (gMatthew dependent on gMark, author unknown, Ignatius's allusions to gMatt). How would you define the text we call gMatthew in terms of your theory?

I have argued that the NTC could be a product of century 1, 2, 3 or 4 but we do not know for sure which. I reject the claim that we know for sure the NTC is from century 1 or 2. My argument is that a late date should be left on the table and not dismissed.

Isn't "for sure" straw-manning the mainstream position? That the earliest physical copies mosty date from medieval times is a known position. I think "as far as we can tell" is a more accurate description.

Any and all theories will necessarily require a lot of assumptions because so much is unknown. The authors of the NTC and the NTA are unknown. The century of composition of the NTC and NTA is not known. Where these texts were authored is unknown.

That's not quite true though... depending on one's set of assumptions. There is internal evidence, comments within the texts, that will sometimes point to a date or a place, with varying degrees of confidence. Though it may be as meaningless as acknowledging that Spiderman was from New York, depending on what set of assumptions are being used.

We have a paradigm handed down through the history of scholarship that the NTC is a product of the 1st/2nd century and that the NTA is a product of centuries 2 to 4, or 1 to 4. But proof (by means of the production of physical evidence) of these paradigms is not forthcoming.

In the absence of such proof I have devised an alternative theory that both the NTC and the NTA are products of the 4th century. I can't prove this at the moment. But what I can do at the moment is to insist that the alternative theory is not disproved or falsified by the physical evidence.

I have to agree that you do have a point. I'll sometimes see something dated to the Second Century (like the Roman catacomb tombs) and then I'll see a note that says it might actually be dated to the Fourth Century after all, and I think of you!

[Leucius Charinus]

How would you define the text we call gMatthew in terms of your theory?

Thanks for this question - I will provide an answer separately.

We have a paradigm handed down through the history of scholarship that the NTC is a product of the 1st/2nd century and that the NTA is a product of centuries 2 to 4, or 1 to 4. But proof (by means of the production of physical evidence) of these paradigms is not forthcoming.

In the absence of such proof I have devised an alternative theory that both the NTC and the NTA are products of the 4th century. I can't prove this at the moment. But what I can do at the moment is to insist that the alternative theory is not disproved or falsified by the physical evidence.

I have to agree that you do have a point. I'll sometimes see something dated to the Second Century (like the Roman catacomb tombs) and then I'll see a note that says it might actually be dated to the Fourth Century after all, and I think of you!

May I suggest G'Don that you also think of Pope (and Pontifex Maximus) Damasus who, after his army assisted him to become Bishop of Rome, renovate some of the Roman catacombs in the later 4th century as part of the implementation of the empire wide "Holy Relic Trade" and the PETER-WAS-HERE Roman tourist industry. His "pupil" Jerome prepared the Vulgate at this time in history.