stephan huller

Irenaeus was in the library or a library in Carthage - I think a public library - because his works are cited by Tertullian and Cyprian. They wrote in the third century. Since Tertullian acknowledges the existence of Irenaeus and mentions him specifically by name it would stand to reason that a massive conspiracy would be needed to explain all the emerging references to Christian writers related to one another. Hence the fourth century conspiracy theory of mountainman - i.e. where all these interconnected references were produced in a 'factory' of sort for reasons that no one can fathom except Pete.

mountainman

Eusebius (our only source) would like us to accept as true the hypothesis that the books of Irenaeus (writing in Lyons, Gaul) were available to Tertullian and Cyprian (writing in Carthage). None of these characters nor any of their books are mentioned by the pagans, so we have no corroborating evidence. This does not necessarily imply a forgery mill, but ......

"He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past."

George Orwell

stephan huller

another diversion from the defeat of your hypothesis

mountainman

The idea was to find an analogy where those who hold or held power who are writing a history (or an epitome) are inclined to add bits and pieces of their own hegemonic traditions to the picture they are painting. I was purposefully trying to avoid religions but ....


What can I say?

Its kind of inevitable that those in power attempt in some way (small or large, innocently or fraudulently) try and add to their own power base.

mountainman

No - the hypothesis in the microcosm (with the Christian reference in Cassius Dio's epitome) and the hypothesis in the macrocosm (with the study of Christian references in the entire body of literature of the pagans in the first three centuries of the common era) is governed by this principle as expressed in the Orwell quote.

watersbeak

Thanks for your reply.

I am uncertain about the palaeographic dating of "second" century texts. I think that many of those texts have been re-examined, and found to be third century, or later... Thanks for your time.

Sam

aa5874

Your claim is absurd. You alone cannot determine that everyone is tired of any debate. Perhaps you are tired.

Your claim is illogical that , "There are no original documents from the second century"[. You have no idea what is original or not. How in the world can you prove that a fragment dated to the 2nd century is not from an original?

Precisely the point. You have immediately contradicted yourself. You really don't know if there are original documents from the 2nd century.

aa5874

You seem not to understand what you yourself have written in English.

Only nut cases would pose as historians when they have No data to support their "history".

You seem not to understand that historians REQUIRE data just like Scientists to develop proper hypotheses of the PAST.

Scientists and historians ALL RECONSTRUCT the Past BASED on collected DATA.

stephan huller

No his claim is not absurd and you misuse English terminology because of your unfamiliarity with the language. Absurd is a monkey playing a piano. Toto saying that we are tired of ignorant, and mostly irrational people arguing by assertion here at the forum is not akin to watching a musical monkey. The contents of most of your posts engaging in disjointed and irrational arguments by assertion is in fact thoroughly absurd and utterly intolerable.



These posts are built upon assumptions which are utterly untenable.

STUPID POINT RECYCLED AT THE FORUM AD INFINITUM: PLEASE EXPLAIN THE CONNECTION BETWEEN A LACK OF MANUSCRIPTS DATED TO THE SECOND CENTURY AS A PROOF THAT THE MATERIAL WHICH CLAIMS TO SURVIVE FROM THE SECOND CENTURY IS FALSE OR SPURIOUS.

When I read Shakespeare I don't use manuscripts from the sixteenth century. I read texts that were generally printed four hundred years after the time he wrote. What's the problem with manuscripts surviving from the tenth and eleventh century for material originally from the second century? Please attempt a rational argument rather than your usual methodology of screaming at the other person.

aa5874

See post #195.

There is something wrong with Toto's statement. It has some error because it does not make sense in English---"the consensus in science of usually correct......