judge

This should be more than just a rhetorical question though. It demands an explanation, if one is to suggest it happened.


One might turn this around and ask why did they keep certain works. They kept certain works because they used them in teaching. As Celsus's works were not used in teaching they were not kept.

Solo

It is quite conceivable, and as a matter it happens all the time. There are certain brain pathologies in which a person is literally unaware that he/she is making things up. The most common form of pathogenic lying which has an organic cause is the Korsakoff's Syndrome. It occurs among most frequently among chronic alcoholics, as a natural compensation for short-term memory loss.

Pathogenic, involuntary lying - with psychogenic roots - has also been known to psychiatry for over a century. Fantastic lying is a common symptom in many forms of dementia and there are many forms of tendency to lie compulsively in which there are no obvious signs that the subject is aware of the delusional nature of their claims. When confronted with facts they become either combative or incoherent or create another fantastic explanation to convince the interloctor in the verity of their position. Psychoanalysis understands such forms of lying or confabulation as complex defence mechanism.

Further, the NT pseudoeponymous epistle writing was likely sanctioned by the church authority in which the writer operated or may have been even requisitioned in recognition of the writer's ability and conduct. And you have to remember: within the milieu anything was possible through the agency of the Holy Spirit, even calling Paul or Peter from the dead to give opinions on matters of urgent nature.

This being said, there appears some prominent tipping of a hat in at least two cases. The would-be Paul of 2 Thessalonians 2:2, is warning the congregations of a 'letter purporting to be from us to the effect that the day of the Lord has come'. This would be evidence of pathological "preemption" i.e. a knowledge that there is a bogus claim to speak in Paul's name elsewhere. However, again we should not be hastily concluding that this is the writer's problem, or exclusively his problem. It could be that within the beliefs of the community not all of those pretending to be Paul were thought to be equally bogus.
2 Peter 1:16 also wishes to preempt, this time not the competition but the reader's scepticism. It says, we have not followed a cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord. In psychology, this is the classic lie known as "hello, I am my brother !" If Peter was the writer of the epistle and he was telling the truth, such statement would have been totally unnecessary. The idea of swearing an affidavit to the verity of one of the inaugural events of the faith simply would have not entered the head of a church primate. But, even here, with frankly astounding naivete in dissimulation, one cannot conclude rashly the author was fully aware.

But you see, the fact that there was an entity called Moroni in his claims, would tell any competent observer he/she was dealing with a confabulatory agenda. What Mr Smith actually knew to be true or untrue, would have to be demonstrated.

There were most likely hallucinations with a persistent theme.

“Joseph had a stone which was dug from the well of Mason Chase, twenty-four feet from the surface. In this stone he could see many things to my certain knowledge. It was by means of this stone he first discovered these plates.”

- High Priest Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Tiffany’s Monthly, Aug. 1859 (v. 5, no. 4), p. 163

Jiri

aa5874

So Joseph Smith forgot the truth and remembered fiction. Very interesting.

Minimalist

You are omitting the potentiality of mental illness, my friend. "Crazy" is not a modern development.

aa5874

I don't think a person has to be mentally ill to make a false statement.

And I think it is generally easy to detect when a mentally ill person is making a false statement.

Chili

They are called mythakers, aren't they?

Roger Pearse

Or to look at it another way -- which of us keeps every book we have ever bought, or been given? (And, if we do, do we think our heirs will to so with our books, when we die?) If we don't feel that we must do so, then why do we suppose that anyone else 'must'? There is no conspiracy involved in what books I dispose of; they are boring or useless ones which I don't want to pay to store. Questions of how many other copies exist in the world don't even impinge on my thought -- how would I know?

So it has always been, and so it was during the dark ages. The poverty-stricken and starving monks who tried to earn enough to eat by selling nails etc and wrapped each sale in a page torn out of a useless book in their library were not *intentionally* vandals. They had no way to know that they were ripping out pages from the last known copy of one of the Latin classics.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on

People make shit up all the time.

Take a look around the internet, keeping in mind that, though the medium has changed, people have, for the most part, stayed the same.

jules?

Perhaps someone can inform me as to what the differance is in the messages of the real Paul letters and that of the forged. 'crazy' forgers would probably just repeat the same message but conspiritorial ones would be looking to influence church policy.

As for celsus' work simply ending up being unread and lost as a possibility just seems unlikely as book burning is well documented. alex library, Nag H, etc.

Solo

You should spend some time with psychiatric patients. You would learn things you never had an inkling existed. Some can be very persuasive and can maintain semblance of solemn determination, composure and dignity. All the while, they are seriously demented. How Smith could convince scores of people that he (and they) can acquire visionary powers by placing a seer- stone in a hat and burying his face in it is a mystery. Yet that's how Mormonism started.

Jiri