Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I think you treat history as entertainment. I am in the entertainment business and I treat history as history. It's not supposed to inspire, entertain or move people. It's mostly just a repeating theme with some variation, but not much. There's no hidden conspiracies, sinister cabals pulling the wool over people's eyes.

1. Jesus never existed

That's quite possible.

2. the gospel was written late 2nd century

That's also quite possible since there is no physical primary evidence until at least the 3rd century. And if you think there is feel free to adduce it.

3. the Pentateuch was written c 270 BCE from books in the library of Alexandria

That's also quite possible since, according to Yonatan Adler, there's no evidence for Judaism until the mid 2nd century BCE

4. that there was a "forgery factory" of Patristic literature c 4th century and later

That's actually a fact since it is admitted by all parties including the church that the Pseudo-Isidore Latin forgery mill in the 9th century was still pumping out fake letter exchanges between ante Nicene bishops.

Wow and I am the anti-intellectual in the conversation.

A self-serving person making self-serving, bullying, bad taste, ad hominem arguments which are characterised by attacking the authors -- not the arguments -- of books which you have never read, and of posts relating to ideas that do not resonate with your sick, myopic pseudo-intellectual world-view.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:09 pm So according to Neil

1. Jesus never existed
2. the gospel was written late 2nd century
3. the Pentateuch was written c 270 BCE from books in the library of Alexandria
4. that there was a "forgery factory" of Patristic literature c 4th century and later (citing your support of Pete and this theory)

Why do you keep repeating these falsehoods about what I have argued despite my many attempts to demonstrate to you that they are false. I do not claim Jesus never existed; I do not claim the gospel was written in the second century.

And my support for a fair and honest treatment of views that challenge the conventional wisdom is interpreted by you as my personal conviction of those ideas. If I think someone, even someone with wrong ideas, is being misrepresented and treated dishonestly and abusively then I will defend them -- because I think such bullying and dishonesty have no place in a forum like this. Whether the arguments are sound or fallacious can be decided by means of rational argument and evidence. But you resort to insults and accusations of character defects. And trolling, harassment, foul language, "manly bombast".

When you argue against ideas without reading them or the evidence cited for them then your arguments are dishonest. That goes without saying. I gave Pete a fair hearing to try to understand his views. So you accuse me of believing in his views???

I am open to the existence of Jesus and you can find arguments to that effect on my blog. I have no idea when the gospels were written and usually write on the assumption that they were written in the late first century.

But I am also deeply conscious of methods of historians outside the field of biblical studies and know that biblical scholars use methods that are nowhere acceptable among mainstream historians (nonbiblical) -- and that if we use those historical methods on the question of Christian origins we are led to far more questions than answers.

If you are going to keep repeating these falsehoods, along with your false claims about my background and motivations, then I will consider those comments as evidence that you have no intention of stopping your harassment of me.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:30 pm

1. Jesus never existed

That's quite possible.

2. the gospel was written late 2nd century

That's also quite possible since there is no physical primary evidence until at least the 3rd century. And if you think there is feel free to adduce it.

3. the Pentateuch was written c 270 BCE from books in the library of Alexandria

That's also quite possible since, according to Yonatan Adler, there's no evidence for Judaism until the mid 2nd century BCE

Exactly. Possibilities are advanced, questions are asked, and some people simply have meltdowns as a result.

Let me be clear about my response to Andrew that led to this renewed meltdown and series of outrages by SA. Andrew has very often followed up a comment (whether by me or another) that is from a scholarly challenge of the traditional wisdom with a simple statement that implies that some basic detail, some taken for granted datum, is sufficient to support the conventional wisdom and that the challenge is clearly based on ignorance and has no merit. That is the repeated response that I was attempting to respond to. It is a response that comes across as based on incredulity that conventional wisdoms can be seriously challenged.

I think a healthier approach to testing our conventional beliefs and new ideas is to be open to questions about them. Just implying that they can be shut down by reference to a taken-for-granted datum is not a way to deepen our understandings and convictions of the old or new.

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.

Peyote is about possibilities. History is about probabilities.

History is about evidence.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:26 pm 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.

It's also the complete opposite to doing research.
I can't say it often enough: if content from A is met solely by context from B, then already B has conceded to A

Yes, and then there is a saying in the Netherlands that one fool can ask more questions then ten wise men can answer, but providing content usually is about providing answers. Although there are many exceptions to that rule, especially out here

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:26 pm Let me be clear about my response to Andrew that led to this renewed meltdown and series of outrages by SA. Andrew has very often followed up a comment (whether by me or another) that is from a scholarly challenge of the traditional wisdom with a simple statement that implies that some basic detail, some taken for granted datum, is sufficient to support the conventional wisdom and that the challenge is clearly based on ignorance and has no merit. That is the repeated response that I was attempting to respond to. It is a response that comes across as based on incredulity that conventional wisdoms can be seriously challenged.

I think a healthier approach to testing our conventional beliefs and new ideas is to be open to questions about them. Just implying that they can be shut down by reference to a taken-for-granted datum is not a way to deepen our understandings and convictions of the old or new.

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.)

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.

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

Andrew Criddle

In modern times there have been manuscript finds of additional genuine writings by Augustine.
And some writings (not the Confessions) falsely ascribed to Augustine have been shown to be forgeries.
Scholars specializing in Augustine have a lot to work with.