| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity |
| Editors | D Hunter, P van Geest, B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte |
| Place of Publication | Leiden |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Pages | 335-339 |
| Volume | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2024 |
Abstract
In their discourse on lying and lies, classical and early Christian authors tried to define the lie in precise terms:
1. They aimed to distinguish between different types of lies.
2. They also reflected on the question of the morality of lying: may a lie be told, and if so, in what circumstances?
Without striving for completeness, this article will discuss crucial passages in the works of philosophers and early Christian authors in chronological order in order to chart, according to the hermeneutics developed by W. Dilthey, key developments in thinking about lying and lies. A radical caesura is marked by Augustine of Hippo in his De mendacio (On Lying) and Contra mendacium (Against Lying [to Consentius]): Augustine does not find lies acceptable under any circumstances.
1. They aimed to distinguish between different types of lies.
2. They also reflected on the question of the morality of lying: may a lie be told, and if so, in what circumstances?
Without striving for completeness, this article will discuss crucial passages in the works of philosophers and early Christian authors in chronological order in order to chart, according to the hermeneutics developed by W. Dilthey, key developments in thinking about lying and lies. A radical caesura is marked by Augustine of Hippo in his De mendacio (On Lying) and Contra mendacium (Against Lying [to Consentius]): Augustine does not find lies acceptable under any circumstances.