avi

So there are two leaps of faith here in this sentence:

a. Tertullian had access to "Irenaeus" ' (supposedly original) Greek (and not Latin???) manuscript;

--> and the evidence for this leap, is....?


b. "Irenaeus" ' original Greek text survives today in the 14th century version of Hippolytus text: "Refutation of All Heresies"....
Yes, thanks Jay. And, thanks also to DCHindley!!

Umm, as one of those most guilty of submitting nonsense to the forum, rather than presenting good "historical conclusions", allow me to ask you both:

HOW do you establish which manuscripts Tertullian possessed?

Thanks DCHindley, for pointing out what Westcott and Hort thought, very interesting, BUT, that remains, their opinion, not a fact.

If one wishes to draw "historical conclusions", then, from my narrow minded perspective, one ought to have some historical data to draw upon, instead of a modestly delimited, tightly constrained, collection of vague recollections, surmises, and will o' the wisp conjectures.

Where's the data to confirm that Tertullian had the "original" Greek version of "Irenaeus" (and not, for example, a Latin version, from which a Greek copy was produced, subsequently)?

Where's the data to confirm that the manuscripts found on Mt. Athos in a Greek monastery in 1842 represent a faithful replica of what Hippolytus wrote, let alone "Irenaeus"?

Why would we suppose that the documents found in 1842, on Mt. Athos, attributed to Hippolytus, though extant in "such a fragmentary condition", correspond to the identical text of "Irenaeus" used by Tertullian?

Is it not VERY reasonable, even logical, to assume, since we are obliged to assume something, that both "Irenaeus" and "Hippolytus", represent works created by the same fourth century architect? Let's put the question, differently: If one knew, absolutely, without any doubt, that Eusebius had created both "Irenaeus" and "Hippolytus", what documents would we have today, by way of evidence supporting such a "historical conclusion"? How are those hypothetical, imaginary, historically conclusive documents different, from what we DO possess today? It is precisely those differences, which permit differentiation of one hypothesis, from another, though I will grant you, that this process is not the same, as creating good "historical conclusions".

Far from gaining access to the peak, we appear to me, to be sliding backwards, down the slippery slope, headed for a crash into the ice on Lake Erie....

avi

aa5874

It can be shown that Church writers who supposedly wrote AFTER "Irenaeus" used sources that CONTRADICTED "Against Heresies".

These contradictions tend to indicate that virtually ALL the Church writers, except the historian of the Church Eusebius, did NOT use the writings of Irenaeus or that ALL or parts of the writings of "Against Heresies" were unknown to many of the Church writers.

No Church writer BEFORE or AFTER the supposed writings of Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified.

And this can be CLEARLY demonstrated in the "Stromata" by Clement of Alexandria when this author used the very same passage of Luke 4.19 or Isaiah 61.2 to prove Jesus was 30 years old and Irenaeus used the very passage to claim Jesus was NOT 30 years old at crucifixion.

"Stromata" 21
"Against Heresies"2.22.1 Clement of Alexandria is CLEARLY not AWARE of "Against Heresies" 2.22.1.

So, Tertullian in "Prescription Against Heresies" was NOT AWARE of the list of Popes in "Against Heresies", and Clement of Alexandria was NOT aware that "Irenaeus" used gLuke 4.19 and Isaiah 61.2 to argue that Jesus cloud NOT be thirty old when he was crucified.

And further, Justin Martyr had already claimed in the middle of the 2nd century that Jesus was crucified under Tiberius when Pilate was governor so Irenaeus seemed not to know who was Emperor when Jesus was crucified or that Christians in the 2nd century were claiming, just like the so-called heretics, that Jesus was about 30 years old when he was crucified.

This is Justin in "First Apology" XIIL This is Irenaeus in "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" 74 The list gets longer. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexander used sources that CONTRADICT Irenaeus.

Next, Hippolytus was NOT aware that Irenaeus claimed Marcion used parts of gLuke, he claimed Marcion plagerised Empedocles.

This is Hippolytus in "Refutation of ALL Heresies"
This is Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" 3.

Hippolytus used a source that CONTRADICTED Irenaeus or he was NOT AWARE of "Against Heresies" .

Origen was NOT aware that Irenaeus claimed Marcion mutilated gLuke, he claimed it was the followers of Marcion who altered the gospels.

This is Origen in "Against Celsus" 2.27 Again Origen used a source that CONTRADICTED or was NOT aware of Irenaeus' "Against Heresies".

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus and Origen ALL used sources that CONTRADICTED Irenaeus and appear NOT to be aware of "Against Heresies".

It would appear that ALL or parts of "Against Heresies" and "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" was UNKNOWN up to the middle of the 3rd century or AFTER the writings of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus and Origen.

avi

Thank you aa, for introducing Clement of Alexander, into this discussion of "Irenaeus".

I wonder if you have any opinion, (perhaps playing "Devil's advocate", for a moment, using your encyclopedic breadth of knowledge of these "patristic" writers of the first three centuries,) to express, regarding Andrew's comment:

My question, as yet unaddressed, is how do we know that Tertullian had access to "Irenaeus"?

You, aa, have contradicted Andrew. I think, maybe in error, that your reason for disputing Andrew's opinion that Tertullian did have access to the writings of "Irenaeus", is based on a list of Popes, which is not referenced by Tertullian. Is that correct? But, should we conclude something about references available, based upon failure to cite?

Is it Tertullian's failure to present chronologically, a summary of Roman Popes corresponding to a similar list given by "Irenaeus", that leads you to contradict Andrew, or is there some other evidence available?

Are you suggesting that Tertullian did not know of Adversus Haereses simply because of his failure to cite the same list of popes as "Irenaeus"?

What possible evidence from the writings attributed to "Irenaeus" and Tertullian, would have persuaded Andrew that the original Greek text of the former author was in the possession of the latter?

avi

aa5874

Once you read "Against Heresies" and understand what the author was claiming it can CLEARLY be demonstrated the VERSION of "Against Heresies" that we have today was UNKNOWN to Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen.

It is NOT only the list of Bishops that Tertullian completely contradicts but there are MASSIVE FUNDAMENTAL contradictions regarding the age of JESUS and the Emperor when Jesus was crucified.

It is TOTALLY inconceivable that Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen could have SEEN or HEARD the MOST HERETICAL argument by Irenaeus and then made no comment whatsoever.

Irtenaeus, if he lived in the 2nd century, MUST have been PREACHING and TEACHING for YEARS that Jesus was about 50 years and that the apostle John did also PREACH AND TEACH that Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified.

The HERETICS and CHRISTIANS of the same opinion in the 2nd century should have heard the CLAIMS of Irenaeus.

But, there is NOTHING at all. ZERO. This SILENCE is consistent with forgery and fraud. The very same silence can be demonstated in the "TF" Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 where significant HISTORICAL claims are made of Jesus and yet was NOT addressed or used by any Church writer until the 4th century.

The VERSION of "Against Heresies" of today does NOT appear to have been known by Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus since Irenaeus himself would have been a HERETIC who PREACHED and TEACHED for YEARS that Jesus was about 50 years old, suffered under CLAUDIUS, and that the apostle John Preached and Teached the very SAME HERESY for years when he lived in Ephesus.

The author of gJohn CONTRADICTS Irenaeus' HERETICAL and ERRONEOUS claim.

In gJohn Jesus was CRUCIFIED when Caiaphas was the high priest and Pilate was the governor of Judea.

John 18:24 - John 19:1 - This is Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" 2.22.6
No gospel or Church writer show that Jesus was about 50 years when he was crucified.

Irenaeus would have NOT only been a HERETIC but also a LIAR and would have PREACHED and TEACHED his HERESY and LIES for YEARS and go completely UNDETECTED by the Church and was even made BISHOP.

There is ZERO evidence from the CHURCH writers that anyone of them was AWARE of today's VERSION of "Against Heresies".

DCHindley

Jay,

I've been slicing & dicing the texts for a day or so. I earlier mentioned the edition of the Latin translation of Irenaeus' AH by Massuet. Per Hitchcock (p 347):

Massuet says, "there are some who believe that Irenaeus himself first wrote in Greek and then translated it into latin. But such have little regard for his credit. For he would at least have followed the sense. It was probably some Greek person little versed in the Latin tongue who made bad Latin out of good Greek, and put a wrong construction on his author more than once. Whoever it was, it is certain that the version is most ancient and was published either during the lefe or shortly after the death of Irenaeus." The reasons given for this opinion are

(1) the resemblences between it [AH] and the Latin of Tertullian's treatis [c. Velentinianos], especially between the passages of the [Irenaeus'] treatis (1.2.3.) (sic, 1,11,3) beginning "ante omnes Proarche" and that in Tertullian beginning "ante omnia Proarche" (c. 37), and

(2) the mistakes common to both works, which originated with the translator of Irenaeus, for where he made a slip Tertullian followed suit. Both writers [the Latin translator of Irenaeus' AH and Tertullian] mistook the name EPIFANHS for an adjective (clarus, Iren., insignior, Tert.); both failed to understand SUN TW EPIGIGNOMENW PAQEI (cum appendice passione, Iren.; appendicem passionem, Tert); and both rendered APOSTAURWQHNAI [a perimeter fence of posts] which means "vallo cingi" [defensive perimeter] by crucifixam.

Regarding reason #1 above, I decided to compare the two passages mentioned (Latin AH 1,11,3 and Tertullian Adversus Valentinainos chapter 37). First, here are the English translations from the Ante Nicene Fathers volumes:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies	Tertullian, Adversus Valentinainos
1.11.3 There is another, who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows:	1.37 Now listen to some other buffooneries of a master who is a great swell among them, and who has pronounced his dict with an even priestly authority. They run thus:
There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things,	There comes, says he, before all things Proarche,
surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature,	the inconceivable, and indescribable, and nameless,
whom I call Monotes (unity).	which I for my own part call Monotes (Solitude).
Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness)	With this was associated another power, to which also I give the name of Henotes (Unity).
This Henotes and Monotes, being one,	Now, inasmuch as Monotes and Henotes--that is to say, Solitude and Union--were only one being,
produced, yet not so as to bring forth [apart from themselves, as an emanation]	they produced, and yet not in the way of production,
the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being,	the intellectual, innascible, invisible beginning of all things,
which beginning language terms "Monad."	which human language' has called Monad (Solitude).
With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (One).	This has inherent in itself a consubstantial force, which it calls Unity?
These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen	These powers, accordingly, Solitude or Solitariness, and Unity, or Union,
produced the remaining company of the AEons.	propagated all the other emanations of AEons.

Next, the Latin texts compared. I got Latin Irenaeus from a page at Ben Smith's Text Excavation site, which has PDF images of the edition of W. Wigan Harvey. The Latin text of Tertullian came from Mark T Riley's dissertation page at Roger Pearse's site:

Latin Irenaeus	Tertullian
I.11.3 Alius vero quidam, qui et clarus est magister ipsorum, in majus sublime, et quasi in majorem agnitionem extensus, primam quaternationem dixit sic:	I.XXXVII accipe alia ingenia circulatoria insignioris apud eos magistri qui et pontificali sua auctoritate in hunc modum censuit:
est quidem ante omnes Proarche,	"est (inquit) ante omnia Proarche
Proanennoetos, et Inenarrabilis, et Innominabilis,	inexcogitabile et inenarrabile innominabile
quam ego Monotetem voco.	quod ego nomino Monoteta.
Cum hac Monotete est virtusd, quam et ipsam voco Honotetem.	cum hac erit alia virtus quam et ipsam appello Honoteta.
Haec Henotes et Monotes cum sint unum,	Monotes et Henotes, id est Solitas et Unitas, cum unum
emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint,	essent protulerunt non proferentes
principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoratum,	initium omnium intellectuale innascibile invisibile
quam Archem sermo Monada vocat.	quod Sermo Monada vocavit.
Cum hac Monade est virtus ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et eam voco Hen.	huic adest consubstantiva virtus quam appellat Unionem.
Hae autem virtutes, id est Monotes, et Henotes, et Monas, et Hen,	hae igitur virtutes, Solitas, Unitas Singularitas, Unio,
emiserunt reliquas emissiones Aeonum.	ceteras prolationes Aeonum propagarunt."

The next table compares the Greek text of Irenaeus' AH 1.11.3 as preserved by Epiphanius (also from Harvey) to the English in the ANF series volume:

Greek Irenaeus (quoted by Epiphanius)	English Irenaeus (ANF volume 1)
ESTI TIS PRO PANTWN PROARCH,	There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things,
PROANENNOHTOS, ARRHTOS TE KAI ANONOMASTOS,	surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature,
hHN EGW MONOTHTA ARIQMW.	whom I call Monotes (unity).
TAUTH TH MONOTHTI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW hENOTHTA.	Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness).
AUTH hH hENOTHSM hH TE MONOTHS,	This Henotes and Monotes, being one,
TO hHN OUSAI, PROHKANTO, MH PROEMENAI,	produced, yet not so as to bring forth [apart from themselves, as an emanation]
ARCHN ETI PANTWN NOETHN, AGENNHTON TE KAI AORATON,	the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being,
hHN ARCHN hO LOGOS MONADA KALEI.	which beginning language terms "Monad."
TAUTH TH MONADI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS OMOOUSIOS AUTH, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW TO hEN.	With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (One).
AUTAI AI DUNAMEIS, hH TE MONOTHS KAI hENOTHS, MONAS TE KAI TO hEN,	These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen
PROHKANTO TAS LOIPAS PROBOLAS TWN AIWNWN.	produced the remaining company of the AEons.

Lastly, a table comparing the Greek AH with the Latin AH with the version of it preserved in Tertullian:

Greek Irenaeus (as cited by Epiphanius)	Latin Irenaeus (ed. Massuet)	Tertullian
ESTI TIS PRO PANTWN PROARCH,	est quidem ante omnes Proarche,	"est (inquit) ante omnia Proarche inexcogitabile
PROANENNOHTOS, ARRHTOS TE KAI ANONOMASTOS,	Proanennoetos, et Inenarrabilis, et Innominabilis,	et inenarrabile innominabile
hHN EGW MONOTHTA ARIQMW.	quam ego Monotetem voco.	quod ego nomino Monoteta.
TAUTH TH MONOTHTI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW hENOTHTA.	Cum hac Monotete est virtusd, quam et ipsam voco Honotetem.	cum hac erit alia virtus quam et ipsam appello Honoteta.
AUTH hH hENOTHS hH TE MONOTHS,	Haec Henotes et Monotes cum sint unum,	Monotes et Henotes, id est Solitas et Unitas, cum unum
TO hHN OUSAI, PROHKANTO, MH PROEMENAI,	emiserunt, cum nihil emiserint,	essent protulerunt non proferentes
ARCHN ETI PANTWN NOETHN, AGENNHTON TE KAI AORATON,	principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoratum,	initium omnium intellectuale innascibile invisibile
hHN ARCHN hO LOGOS MONADA KALEI.	quam Archem sermo Monada vocat.	quod Sermo Monada vocavit.
TAUTH TH MONADI SUNUPARCEI DUNAMIS OMOOUSIOS AUTH, hHN KAI AUTHN ONOMAZW TO hEN.	Cum hac Monade est virtus ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et eam voco Hen.	huic adest consubstantiva virtus quam appellat Unionem.
AUTAI AI DUNAMEIS, hH TE MONOTHS KAI hENOTHS, MONAS TE KAI TO hEN,	Hae autem virtutes, id est Monotes, et Henotes, et Monas, et Hen,	hae igitur virtutes, Solitas, Unitas Singularitas, Unio,
PROHKANTO TAS LOIPAS PROBOLAS TWN AIWNWN.	emiserunt reliquas emissiones Aeonum.	ceteras prolationes Aeonum propagarunt."

It looks to me like Latin AH transliterates a lot of Greek words, whereas Tertullian give the proper Latin equivalents.

The Latin AH seems to very closely follow the Greek (as preserved by Epiphanius), but the translator's use of transliterations suggests he was not familiar enough with Latin to know the correct equivalents.

Tertullian does appear to be using Irenaeus, as the accounts are much too similar to be chance. He also seems to phrase the matters a little differently than Latin AH. I cannot tell if Tertullian 1) made an independent translation from the Greek AH, or 2) resolved defects he found in the Latin AH.

What I think needs to be resolved is 1) whether the Latin of Tertullian's version is better than Latin AH, and if so 2) whether the Latin of Tertullian's citation from Irenaeus' AH is up to par with his normal style, as it is still possible for Tertullian to have used Latin AH as his source, as poor as it was, and even with improvements still reflects it's defective style.

Where are Andrew Criddle and Ben Smith when you need them? I hope one or both might be willing to comment.

I cannot get into massuet's reason #2 tonight, as it is almost 1:00 am, I'm tired, and I have to go to work tomrrow.

G'night

DCH

aa5874

I find it very amusing that people here, as if naive, do not understand that writings from the Church and even in the Canon were heavily interpolated and re-worked by other unknown authors although what appears to be the original author's name is STILL retained.

All the Versions of today's Gospels appear to have been re-worked so to claim that any person of antiquity copied from any Gospel called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John may not be really true since the Version of the Gospel, although bearing the name of the same author, may have re-worked.

Justin Martyr's "Memoirs of the Apostles" contains many passages from what appears to be the Synoptics but that does not mean that Justin had a version or versions of today's Synoptics.

The author who wrote the long version of gMark may not have been the same author of the short-version.

The Pauline writings are another example where supposed Church writers from Ignatius to Eusebius, excluding Justin Martyr, appear to have completely ERRED in their attribution to a single writer.

The version of of today's "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus appears to be a different version to the 1st century "Antiquities" since no Church writer used the "TF" " "AJ" 18.3.3 before the 4th century.

The version of Tacitus "Annals" appears to be a different version to the 2nd century "Annals" since no Church writer, even pass the 5th century, used "Annals" to claim Pilate executed a character called "Christus".

Let us NOT appear to be NAIVE.

It is has ALREADY been deduced that writings of the Church and Canon may have been deliberately wrongly attributed thereby creating an erroneous history of the Christian cult.

It is when one reads Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen and then compares their writings with those of Irenaeus that it can be EASILY DEDUCED that the VERSION of "Against Heresies" as found today was NOT known to them.

In today's version of "Against Heresies" Irenaeus is CLEARLY HERETICAL by the very arguments he put forward and is also a LIAR, INCOMPETENT and ignorant of the teachings of the Church and the so-called gospel writers. He is also ignorant of Roman history with regards to the lineage of Emperors of Rome and governors of Judea.

Such a person could NOT have been a bishop of the Church.

The contradictions of "Against HERESIES" are so blatant that it is just not conceivable that the Church writers could have missed them.

It was claimed Tertullian later became a Montanist due to his writings but what was Irenaeus when his writings are EXAMINED carefully?

What Christian cults or gospel writers in the 1st century or during the time of Trajan claimed that the apostle John Teached and Preached that Jesus was crucified under CLAUDIUS when he was about 50 years old?

Irenaeus would have BEEN the LAUGHING STOCK of the 2nd century if the so-called 2nd century HERETICS had a copy of today's version of "Against Heresies".

avi

Bravo.
FINE WORK.
Excellent. Thank you very much.
I agree, however, we shall soon need to include DCHindley among that august group of cognoscenti.

Questions:
Who was W. Wigan Harvey? Where did he find these "fragments" attributed to "Irenaeus"? How are these fragments related to the seven volumes (out of ten) of Epiphanius, which date from the 14th century (our oldest extant copy of his writing, if I have understood Andrew correctly)?

avi

DCHindley

I fell asleep last night before looking it up, but that edition of Irenaeus' Against Heresies would be Libros quinque adversus haereses. Edidit W. Wigan Harvey. Cantabrigiae, Typis Academicis, 1857. Don't be put off by the Latin title and publication details, as the intro and comments are all in English. However, the texts themselves are all left untranslated.

Volume 1 can be viewed or downloaded from Google Books here.

Volume 2 can be viewed or downloaded from Google Books here.

Harvey's format is to place any Greek fragments (Epiphanius, Hippolytus, whoever), where they exist, in the top area of each page. The center area has the Latin text. The lower area of the page is full of notes and comments, mostly about content, and only minimally about textual issues.

What I hope common folks (like you, me or anyone with half a brain, really) can do with tables like that is at least identify some Greek and Latin words and phrases, and maybe use Greek and Latin Grammar books available from booksellers physical and online (both new and used, some of them free or really cheap) to get a feel for what is actually there. This way, when we read the interpretations of historians and grammarians and editors in the books by the likes of Unger/Dillon, Hitchcock, Hort, Wiley, et al, we have a frame of reference to work from based on facts, not just the assertions of these critics.

DCH (taking that short break mandated by our glorious union, boss)

aa5874

Again, once today's version of "Against Heresies" is carefully examined the date of writing must be questioned. The ERRORS of Irenaeus are so blatant that it cannot be conceived that Irenaeus PREACHED and TEACHED these massive ERRORS and then documented them without being DETECTED.

Examine this statement in "Stromata" 21 by Clement.

Now examine this statement in "Against Heresies" 3.21.3 by Irenaeus Surely the author of "Stromata" 21 did NOT use "Against Heresies" 3.21 to claim the Lord was born in the 28th year of the reign of Augustus.

And further, once Irenaeus claimed the Lord was born in the 41st year of the reign of Augustus then Jesus would have to be [crucified in the reign of NERO and NOT CLAUDIUS to be 50 years old.

How is it possible that NO church writer supposedly AFTER Irenaeus detected the BLATANT MASSIVE ERRORS in "Against Heresies"?

When did other Church writers claim Jesus was born in the 41st year of Augustus, was crucified under CLAUDIUS and was STILL 50 years old?

One answer is that today's version of "Against Heresies" was NOT known to the Church writers and so-called Heretics.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

Even as fiction, we should be able to date most early Christian works. They should reflect in some ways some things of the time period that they were constructed.

All of Charlie Chaplin's films are fiction. Some of the copyright dates are missing from the fiilms, probably because projectionists reedited the films while showing them. Also, in cinema history, when synch sound came in, many of his silent films were re-released with sound effects and music, so we cannot always trust the copyright dates on the works themselves. This does not stop us from recognizing their dates from our knowledge of historical customs and events portrayed in the films themselves.

For example, his first film "Kid Auto Races at Venice" shows kids racing little home built cars. Looking at the models of the cars, it is easy to pinpoint the film to around 1914 when it was made. The movie "Easy Street" shows ghetto conditions that were unique to the early 20th century and "The Immigrant" shows a transatlantic boat crossing that could only be from the early 20th century when poor European immigrants came to America on great ocean liners by the hundreds.

Likewise, "Shoulder Arms" which shows American soldiers fighting in World War I could not have been made before 1917 when the United States actually sent troops to fight in World War I.

"Modern Times" shows the efforts of ruthless capitalists to use modern technology to speed up factory labor. It can only be from the early 1930's. "The Great Dictator" makes fun of Hitler and contains references to the 1937 laws forcing Jews into Ghettos and the beginning of World War II, it can be seen to be about conditions in Germany in 1939, when it was made.

"Monsieur Verdoux"(1946) meditates on the new atomic bomb among other things and thus has a terminus post quem of 1944.

So, if we are careful and pick out the right information, even fiction can generally be accurately dated.

Once dated we can get an idea of how works were intended to affect reality and why.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin (AKA Philosopher Jay)