An hypothesis in the field of ancient history is not a belief.Peter Kirby wrote:In this whole vein, the psychological research that evidence-based criticism of an (irrational) belief tends to make people more confident in the (irrational) belief comes to mind. Not only does one have the opportunity to rationalize the belief with excuses to overcome the evidence-based criticism, but one also grows contempt for criticism of that belief in general and a stronger attachment to the belief. Evidence against strengthens belief for.
Although it certainly may be in the field of Biblical History.
It is important to differentiate these two fields, as we shall see.
A mainstream hypothesis is one held to be true by a consensus of scholarship.
As such it may behave like a paradigm, and be accepted into a belief system.
Yet technically (at least in the field of ancient history) it remains a hypothesis.
An hypothesis may be considered which is antithetical to the mainstream paradigm.
In historiography this is often achieved by historical revisionism.
This is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations,
and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.
The hypothesis in the OP is about an historical event: the authorship of the non canonical literature.
It is antithetical to the mainstream hypothesis in one critical aspect: chronology of authorship.
The mainstream hypothesis is that the authorship of at least some of the non canonical books occurred prior to 325 CE.
The hypothesis of the OP is that there was NO authorship of the non canonical books prior to 325 CE,
and that the authorship of the non canonical books was triggered by the political publication of the canonical books and Constantine's "Christian Revolution".
In proposing an hypothesis which is antithetical to the mainstream I completely understand that I have a responsibility to examine all the evidence underpinning the mainstream paradigm and demonstrate that I am aware of why there is a consensus of confidence that the mainstream hypothesis is likely to be closer to the historical truth.
I have done this in this thread. Above, and possibly on more than one occasion for some of the elements, I have provided a list and discussion of detailed evidence items. Here is a summary below.
(4) Evidence in support of mainstream chronology falls into the following categories:
4.1 Literary references in the "church fathers" by which the existence of non canonical books may be inferred.
4.2 Papyri fragments of the text of non canonical books that have been dated [palaeography] prior to 325 CE.
4.3 Papyri fragments of the church fathers that have been dated [palaeography] prior to 325 CE.
4.4 Inscriptions that attest to the existence of non canonical books prior to 325 CE.
4.5 C14 dating evidence (Codex Tchacos).
4.6 Other forms of evidence in support of 3.1
4.7 Literary references after 325 CE by 4th century heresiologists.
All the effort up to this point was to exhaustively list the evidence upon which the mainstream hypothesis is based.
YES. I called if anyone could provide further evidence. And thanks everyone for these contributions.
ADDRESSING THE EVIDENCE
After collecting this evidence I have always been aware that it is also my obligation to explain a different evaluation of each evidence item such that it is admitted by my opponents that:
1) Questioning and re-evaluating the evidence is a critical stage of hypothesis testing and theory formation.
2) That in every case of evidence provided it's evaluation admits a post-Nicene chronology.
3) That the likelihood of a post-Nicene chronology for the entire corpus of the non canonical books is not insignificant.
4) Perhaps that a post-Nicene chronology for the non canonical books is quite possible.
All this process I am obliged to address because I have known it was necessary to do this.
CHALLENGING THE MAINSTREAM HYPOTHESIS
The OP hypothesis (not a belief) challenges not just the mainstream hypothesis, but the entire mainstream worldview which has been generated by implication on the basis that the mainstream hypothesis is true.
One of the implications of the OP is that the "church organsiation" rewrote the history of the conflict it once had with the authors of the non canonical books. This is not novel. Bart Ehrman writes:
"The victors in the struggles
to establish Christian Orthodoxy
not only won their theological battles,
they also rewrote the history of the conflict"
So everyone is generally aware that the church fabricated pseudo-historical narratives.
But the open questions are:
1) how did they rewrite their pseudo-history and
2) what was the historical truth which they passed over?
The answers to these questions I have suggested lies in the political history of the 4th century.
- "The science of politics is the one science that is deposited by the streams of history,
like the grains of gold in the sand of a river; and the knowledge of the past, the record
of truths revealed by experience, is eminently practical, as an instrument of action and a power
that goes to making the future ...............and remember .....
where you have a concentration
of power in a few hands,
all too frequently
men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
History has proven that. Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902)
If you actually examine the presentation of evidence in this thread, as I have outlined above and summarised, I have been required by the historical method to obtain all the evidence FOR and AGAINST both the mainstream hypothesis (at least some of the non canonical books were authored before 325 CE) because the hypothesis I am exploring is antithetical to it.(a) LC doesn't do very good, thorough research into the evidence for or against his particular ideas and (b) LC generally gets the disconfirming evidence pointed out to him by others (which is itself an issue) and then quickly dismisses it (which is a worse issue).
This is not arguing for some psychological belief as you have inferred.
It is seeking the historical truth via the historical method and the evaluation of ALL the evidence.
- "But I have good reason to distrust any historian
who has nothing new to say or who produces novelties,
either in facts or in interpretations,
which I discover to be unreliable.
Historians are supposed to be discoverers of truths.
No doubt they must turn their research into some
sort of story before being called historians.
But their stories must be true stories. [...]
History is no epic, history is no novel,
history is no propaganda because in these literary genres
control of the evidence is optional, not compulsory."
~ Arnaldo Momigliano, The rhetoric of history, Comparative Criticism, p. 260
There is no doubt that the hypothesis that the non canonical literature is post-Nicene is a controversial one. There is a world-view already attached to the mainstream hypothesis, which itself is based on various categories of evidence summarised and detailed in the above.
None of this is "irrational belief".
The "church organisation" has simply corrupted the history of its (political) literary opponents. What's new?
LC