TedM

It occurs to me that understanding the reasons behind interpolations and fraudelent books could be very enlightening--and could possibly help one get closer to figuring out the "truth" about many of the mysteries of early christianity. Does anyone know of any study that focuses on this issue?

ted

DCHindley

I am not aware of any. The problem is that many historians are squeamish about trying to understand the motivations of the authors of their sources. Not that it isn't done, especially among some in the literary crowd, who believe that they can tease out clues from aporias (inconsistencies of subject matter and reasoning) and standard grammatic formulae characteristic of the narratives, and others who would like to use social-psychological-economic theories to explain the tendencies of these sources. There are others who think that the motivations of authors are irrelevant to what their narratives mean to readers, and can thus be legitimately ignored.

DCH

Toto

I don't know of any study that announces this as its purpose, but I think that this is implicit in some studies. But most scholars do not go out on a limb by labeling an ancient text a "fraud," as that usually goes beyond the evidence.

Could you clarify which texts you consider to be frauds? If mountainman and aa ruled the academic world, all Christian texts would be considered frauds, but still might be used for some sort of insight into early Christianity.

TedM

One example might be some of the works of "Ignatius" which are now considered to be fraudulent, I understand. It seems like one could figure out the purpose of such frauds from the content, and that in and of itself could be educational.

aa5874

You are mis-representing me, again. I have never proposed that all Christians texts are fraud or are considered to be fraud. My position is that Jesus, his disciples and Paul were frauds or were deliberately fabricated to distort history both in chronology and reality.

For example, I am of the opinion that whoever placed the word "Christ" in "Antiquities of the Jews", at 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, did so deliberately, therefore fraudulently, but I do not think that the writings of Josephus are fraudulent.

And, presently I do not consider Justin Martyr's "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho", Theophilus to Autolycus, or Athenagoras' "A plea for the Christians" as fraudulent.

mountainman

What about Leucius Charinus?

NOTE: Ted, this is independent of fourth century invention. It is a separate argument about the relationship between the canon and the apocrypha, focusing on the theoretical output of Leucius Charinus.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, and regarding all other religions as well.

I assume that a good percentage of religious writings were due to innocent but inaccurate revelations, not to interpolations and fraud.

In my opinion, it is much easier to determine what the truth is not than what the truth is. As an agnostic, I do not have any idea with the truth is, but I am reasonably certain that part of what the truth is not is supernatural claims in religious books. In order for supernatural claims in religious books to be part of the truth, that would mean that a God chose to use written records as a primary means of communicating with humans. I do not believe that a God would ever do that.

If a God exists, it seems to me that his motives are much more important than the motives of the writers of religious books.

mountainman

Hopefully this is directly relevant to your question in a general sense.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

andrewcriddle

There is a good deal of discussion in the literature of the motives behind the expanded and enlarged edition of Ignatius produced around 400 CE or shortly earlier.

It seems clear that the author/forger was attempting to rewrite Ignatius in order that he would support his side in the current debates about the Trinity and the Incarnation, and clear that (by later standards) the author/forger was unorthodox/heretical.

What is less clear is exactly which position the author/forger was defending. Most modern scholars think he was a neo-Arian but some have considered him an Apollinarian. If the author/forger was a neo-Arian he may have also written the Apostolic Constitutions on the basis of earlier works.

Andrew Criddle

Gamera

I don't know if these categories apply to the period at issue. Clearly the early church fathers were aware of the "problem" of unauthorized texts presented as scripture. This is the whole impetus behind the development of the canon, and various church fathers comment on forgeries and various other liberties taken with what they considered inspired writings.

But on the other hand, outside of scripture, the idea of authorship was highly ambiguous until more recent times. Indeed, anonymity was the norm for writers until the late medieval period. "Augmenting" other authors' works wasn't really considered unethical or particularly pernicious. Indeed, it was considered a helpful way to transmit older writings to a current audience. It could even be seen as the industry of clerics for many centuries, as they redacted and augmented and modernized and supplemented older works they deemed important.

So what are you talking about -- scripture (a special category that arose pretty early in historical Christianity) or commentary about scripture, which wasn't really subject to fraud or forgery as we know it.