Freethought & Rationalism Archive

AtheistGamer · 10-24-2009, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This looks like it might be how Josephus worked. But again, it's not clear if this was really considered legitimate.

The best commentary on historiography in this area is on Neil Godfrey's blog, Vridar.

I read his blog. Most christians would simply say that Jesus told the apostles about what he did when he was alone. From an atheist perspective though that is pretty good evidence that the authors used creative freedom.

mountainman · 10-25-2009, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

The first is that there was a tradition of writing pseudonymous pieces in someone else's name, in order to give the writer the authority behind the name. This was apparently considered legit back in the day (roflol! If this is truly the environment that the gospels were written under then that is more than enough to cast doubt on the whole New Testament.)

Anyway can anybody present clear cut cases where these things are known to have happened. Mack doesn't bother to do it, sadly.

The first class probably includes all the new testament apocryphal literature. In this instance, with the NHC included, there are over 100 texts, many attributed to various characters who appear in the Constantine Codex (NT). Not one name is at this stage in the game has been successfully attributed to any of these hundred plus texts, except the name of Leucius, surnamed Charinus by Photius.

AtheistGamer · 10-25-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

A.G.,

With regard to a tradition to write pseudonymous (falsely attributed) books, I am certain Mack was thinking not of NT criticism (that would be circular), but examples such as the books of Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, etc, all of which we can be fairly certain were not written by Enoch the 7th from Adam, or Baruch the associate of Jeremiah, or Ezra the scribe. There are also pagan examples galore.

Critics have reasoned that the writers of these works, who explicitly state or imply that they were those ancient and revered figures from the past, wanted to take advantage of the popular "goodwill" those names carried in order to lend credence to the peculiar ideas the authors expressed in the books.

If you'd like, find a copy of volume 2 of R. H. Charles' Apocrypha & Stereography of the Old Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1913, about $38, volume 2 covers the Stereography) as I recall he provides a pretty comprehensive survey of Typographical literature and how critics were seeing it as a genre. This was published, I think, in 1913, but includes very detailed critical translations of the main ones known at that time.

There is also likely something along this line in the introduction to the first volume of Charlesworth's Old Testament Stereography (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1983, about $30 per volume), which is the most recent comprehensive volume on the subject (including English translations of most of them, far more than in Charles' volume).

I don't have Mack's Who Wrote the NT, but I'm willing to bet the NT works he might call pseudepigraphical were the Pastoral epistles and maybe a few of the church letters of Paul, maybe Hebrews, certainly James, Jude and maybe Revelation, which since the 18th-19th century scholars have suspected of being written after the supposed authors time and attributed to them simply to legitimize them. He may also be thinking of the names Matthew, Mark, Luke & John becoming associated with the various canonical gospels, and Paul's name with Hebrews, although these works do not explicitly state who the authors were. Technically the latter are not pseudepigrapha, just misattributions of anonymous works. Hebrews straddles the line, as it doesn't state it is by Paul, but does appear to be implying it in the way the end of it imitates the salutations he always gives. Later books usually called "Christian Apocrypha," such as apocryphal acts and gospels, do expressly claim to be written by this or that apostle, disciple, Pilate, etc, and would correctly be called pseudepigrapha (except that critics generally avoid this term like the plague when the work is Christian).

As for the second question, Roger is correct that ancient historians liked to create speeches that they felt captured the essence of the man to whom it is attributed. This sort of creative license goes back at least to Thucydides accounts of the Greek wars. The various ancient historians also had different approaches, and some were more particular about accuracy of detail than others. Some openly stated what they used as sources and how they treated them, while others did not. Some included legendary materials along with the hard facts, others did not.

For this issue, I'd suggest taking a look at Donald Kelley's Faces of History: From Herodotus to Herder (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1998, about $25).

Have fun ...

DCH

PS: As with all multi-volume, technically-oriented books that are out in hardcover as well as paperback, Amazon and Barnes & Noble and the other booksellers may and probably do completely and totally confuse them, so make sure you have found the paperback edition and/or got the cheapest price available, unless you intend to show it off to your friends on a fine mahogany bookshelf but never actually break the spine and read it.

Ok those books are officially on my reading list. Right after I finish the three unread books I currently have sitting on my shelf. Thanks.

aa5874 · 10-25-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

Hey there. I've been reading Mack's book "Who wrote the New Testament? (or via: amazon.co.uk)"

He says two things in his book which he never really gets around to backing up.

The first is that there was a tradition of writing pseudonymous pieces in someone else's name, in order to give the writer the authority behind the name. This was apparently considered legit back in the day (roflol! If this is truly the environment that the gospels were written under then that is more than enough to cast doubt on the whole New Testament.)

Pseudonymous pieces were not considered legit at all. They were characterised as forgeries, even the Church writers bitterly complained of forgeries.

As far as I recall, a Church writer claimed some one was severely castigated and ridiculed for writing under the name of Paul.

But, this is Jerome in Apology Against Rufinus.

Quote:

....If, I reply, we admit that everything in a book which is offensive is corruptly inserted by others, nothing will remain belonging to the author under whose name the book passes, but everything can be assigned to those by whom it is supposed to have been corrupted.

But then it will not belong to them either, since we do not know who they were: and the result will be that every book belongs to everybody and nothing to any one in particular.

In this confusion which this method of defence introduces, it will be impossible to convict Marcion of error, or Manichæus or Arius or Eunomius; because, as soon as we point out a statement of their unbelief, their disciples will answer that was not what the master wrote, but was corruptly inserted by his opponents.

According to this principle, this very book of yours will not be yours nor mine. And as to this very book in which I am making reply to your accusations, whatever you find fault with in it will be held not be written by me but by you who now find fault with it.

And further, while you assign everything to the heretics, there will be nothing left which you can assign to churchmen as their own.

Pseudonymous writings were not regarded as legit but forgeries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

The second (which is closely related to the first) is that back then historians were given "freedom of expression" when it came to filling in the gaps in the stories. In other words historians would gather up rumors and then embellish the whole thing in order to fill up space within their histories.

Even today unless dialogue has been recorded, a writer is likely to make stuff up based on the information gathered.

Do you think that the wife or any close associates of the former President George Bush Senior can remember exactly every single word spoken by him or what they all said to one another?

Some writers of antiquity may have been fundamentally truthful while some, especially the the authors of the NT, wrote fiction under the guise of history.

Examine the "Lives of the Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius and then look at the life of Jesus as written by the four authors of the Gospels.

You may find that the life of Jesus was just an empty space.

AtheistGamer · 10-27-2009, 02:49 PM

I see aa5874...

So writing in someone else's name was considered bad then. Thanks.

aa5874 · 10-27-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

I see aa5874...

So writing in someone else's name was considered bad then. Thanks.

It was definitely considered bad.

This is Tertullian in "On Baptism'' where a presbyter was removed from office for using the name of Paul.

On Baptism 17

Quote:

But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul's name, claim Thecla's example as a licence for women's teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! Let them be silent, he says, and at home consult their own husbands.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2009, 02:49 PM	#15
AtheistGamer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Central Iowa Posts: 128	I see aa5874... So writing in someone else's name was considered bad then. Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.