The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The First Millennium Revisionist Archive
How Fake Is Church History?
The Gregorian Coup and the Birthright Theft
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

This is the second of three articles drawing attention to major structural problems in our history of Europe in the first millennium AD. In the first article (“How fake is Roman Antiquity?”), we have argued that the forgery of ancient books during the Renaissance was more widespread than usually acknowledged, so that what we think we know about the Roman Empire — including events and individuals of central importance — rests on questionable sources. (We have not claimed that all written sources on the Roman Empire are fake.)

We have also argued that the traditional perspective of the first millennium is distorted by a strong bias in favor of Rome, at the expense of Constantinople. The common representation of the Byzantine Empire as the final phase of the Roman Empire, whose capital had been transferred from the Latium to the Bosphorus, is today recognized as a falsification. Politically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously, Byzantium owes nothing to Rome. “Believing that their own culture was vastly superior to Rome’s, the Greeks were hardly receptive to the influence of Roman civilization,” states a recent Atlas de l’Empire Romain, mentioning only gladiator combats as a possible, yet marginal, debt.[1]Claire Levasseur et Christophe Badel, Atlas de l’Empire romain : Construction et apogée: 300 av. J.-C. – 200 apr. J.-C., Édiions Autrement, 2020 , p. 76.

The assumption that Western civilization originated in Rome, Italy relies partly on a misunderstanding of the word “Roman”. What we now call “the Byzantine Empire” (a term that only became customary in the sixteenth century) was then called Basileía tôn Rhômaíôn (the kingdom of the Romans), and for most of the first millennium, “Roman” simply meant what we understand today as “Byzantine”.

Our perception of Rome as the origin and center of Western civilization is also linked to our assurance that Latin is the mother of all Romance languages. But that filiation, which became a dogma in the mid-nineteenth century,[2]Most influential was Émile Littré with his Histoire de la langue française, 1862. is under severe attack (we thank the commenters who directed us to this documentary and that one, to Yves Cortez’s book Le Français ne vient pas du latin, and to Mario Alinei’s work). It seems that Dante was correct when he assumed in De vulgari eloquentia (c. 1303), the first treatise on the subject, that Latin was an artificial, synthetic language created “by the common consent of many peoples” for written purposes.[3]Angelo Mazzocco, Linguistic Theories in Dante and the Humanists: Studies of Language and Intellectual History in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Italy, E.J. Brill, 1993, p. 175 (read on books.google.com).

The distortions that produced our textbook history of the first millennium have both a geographical and a chronological dimension. The geographical distortion is part of that Eurocentrism that is now being challenged by scholars like James Morris Blaut (The Colonizer’s Model of the World, Guilford Press, 1993), John M. Hobson (The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, Cambridge UP, 2004), or Jack Goody (The Theft of History, Cambridge UP, 2012). The chronological distortion, on the other hand, is not yet an issue in mainstream academia: historians simply do not question the chronological backbone of the first millennium. They don’t even ask themselves when, how and by whom it was created.

So far, we have formulated the working hypothesis that the Western Roman Empire is, to some extent, a phantom duplicate of the Eastern Roman Empire, conjured by Rome in order to steal the birthright from Constantinople, while concealing its debt to the civilization that it conspired to assassinate. The Roman Empire, in other words, was a dream rather than a memory, exactly like Solomon’s empire. But, one will instantly object, while archeologists have found no trace of Solomon’s empire, the vestiges of Augustus’ empire are plentiful. True, but are these vestiges really from Antiquity, and if so, why are medieval vestiges nowhere to be found in Rome? If Rome was the beating heart of medieval Western Christendom, it should have been busy constructing, not just restoring.

The Commune of Rome was founded in 1144 as a Republic with a consul and a senate, in the wake of other Italian cities (Pise in 1085, Milano in 1097, Gene in 1099, Florence in 1100). It defined itself by the phrase senatus populusque romanus (“the Senate and the Roman people”), condensed in the acronym SPQR. Beginning in 1184 and until the early sixteenth century, the city of Rome struck coins with these letters. But, we are told, SPQR was already the mark of the first Roman Republic founded in 509 BC and, more incredibly, it was preserved by emperors, who apparently didn’t mind being thus ignored. As outrageous as it sounds, one cannot easily brush aside the suspicion that the ancient Roman Republic, known to us thanks to Petrarch’s “piecing together” Titus Livy’s History of Rome,[4]In the words of Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo, Oxford UP, 2010, p. 66, as already quoted in “How Fake is Roman Antiquity?” is an imaginative portrait of late medieval Rome in antique garb. Petrarch was part of a circle of Italian propagandists who celebrated Rome’s past glory. “His intentions,” writes French medievalist Jacques Heers, “were deliberately political, and his approach was part of a real struggle.” He was “one of the most virulent writers of his time, involved in a great quarrel against the papacy of Avignon, and this relentlessness in fighting determined his cultural as well as political options.”[5]Jacques Heers, Le Moyen Âge, une imposture, Perrin, 1992, pp. 55-58.

In the first article, we have questioned the objectivity and even the probity of those humanists who claimed to resurrect the long forgotten splendor of Republican and Imperial Rome. In this second article, we turn our attention to ecclesiastical historians of earlier times, who fashioned our vision of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Their history of the Christian Church, peopled with miracle-performing holy men and diabolical heretics, is hard to connect with political history, and secular historians specialized in Late Antiquity are generally happy to leave the field to “Church historians” and teachers of faith. That is a shame, because the credibility of this literature has largely gone unchallenged.

The pontifical forgery factory

“Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature is the degree to which it was forged.” So Bert Ehrman begins his book Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Throughout the first four centuries AD, he says, forgery was the rule in Christian literature, and genuine authorship the exception. Forgery was so systemic that forgeries gave rise to counterforgeries, that is, forgeries “used to counter the views of other forgeries.”[6]Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, Oxford University Press, 2013 (on books.google.com), pp. 1, 27. If forgery is part of the DNA of Christianity, we can expect it to continue throughout the Middle Ages.

One of the most famous medieval forgeries is the “Donation of Constantine.” By this document, Emperor Constantine is supposed to have transferred his own authority over the Western regions of the Empire to Pope Sylvester. This forgery of outrageous audacity is the centerpiece of a whole collection of about a hundred counterfeit decrees and acts of Synods, attributed to the earliest popes or other Church dignitaries, and known today as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals. Their aim was to set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church, as well as over kings and emperors.

These documents were not used until the middle of the eleventh century, and it is not before the twelfth century that they were incorporated by Gratian into his Decretum, which became the basis of all canon law. Yet the scholarly consensus is that they date back from the time of Charlemagne. For that reason, Horst Fuhrmann, a specialist in medieval forgeries, classifies them as “forgeries with anticipatory character,” which “have the characteristic that at the time they were written, they had hardly any effect.” According to him, these fakes had to wait, depending on the case, between 250 and 550 years before being used. Heribert Illig rightly protests against this theory of forgeries allegedly written by clerics who had no immediate use of them and did not know what purpose their forgeries could serve a few centuries later. Forgeries are produced to serve a project, and they are made on demand when needed. The Donation of Constantine and other false Decretals are therefore most probably pure products of the Gregorian reform. Their “anticipatory character” is an illusion created by one of the chronological distortions that we have set out to correct.[7]Heribert Illig, “Anomalous Eras – Best Evidence: Best Theory,” June 2005, on www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/illig_paper.htm.

Emperor Constantine’s donation to Pope Sylvester illustrated
Emperor Constantine’s donation to Pope Sylvester illustrated

The Gregorian reform, which started with the accession of Pope Leo IX in 1049, was a continuation of the monastic revival launched by the powerful Benedictine Abbey of Cluny, which a century after its foundation in 910 had developed a network of more than a thousand monasteries all over Europe.[8]Herbert Edward John Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform, Clarendon, 1970. The Gregorian reform can be conceived as a monkish coup over Europe, in the sense that celibate monks, who used to live at the margin of society, progressively took the leadership over it.

It is worth insisting on the revolutionary character of the Gregorian reform. It was, wrote Marc Bloch in Feudal Society, “an extraordinarily powerful movement from which, without exaggeration, may be dated the definite formation of Latin Christianity.”[9]Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, vol. 1: The Growth of Ties of Dependance, University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 107. More recently, Robert I. Moore wrote in The First European Revolution, c. 970-1215: “The ‘reform’ which was embodied in the Gregorian program was nothing less than a project to divide the world, both people and property, into two distinct and autonomous realms, not geographically by socially.” The reform triumphed at the Fourth Lateran Council convoked by Innocent III in 1215. The world created by Lateran IV was “an entirely different world — a world pervaded and increasingly moulded by the well-drilled piety and obedience associated with the traditional vision of ‘the age of faith’, or medieval Christianity.” Yet in a sense, Lateran IV was only a beginning: in 1234, Innocent III’s cousin Gregory IX instituted the Inquisition, but the great period of witch-hunting — the last battle against paganism — was still two centuries away.[10]Robert I. Moore, The First European Revolution, c. 970-1215, Basil Blackwell, pp. 11, 174.

In his book Law and Revolution, the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Harvard UP, 1983), Harold Berman also insists on the revolutionary character of the Gregorian reform, by which “the clergy became the first translocal, transtribal, transfeudal, transnational class in Europe to achieve political and legal unity.” “To speak of revolutionary change within the Church of Rome is, of course, to challenge the orthodox (though not the Eastern Orthodox) view that the structure of the Roman Catholic Church is the result of a gradual elaboration of elements that had been present from very early times. This was, indeed, the official view of the Catholic Reformers of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries: they were only going back, they said, to an earlier tradition that had been betrayed by their immediate predecessors.”[11]Harold Berman, Law and Revolution, the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Harvard UP, 1983, pp. 15, 108. The Reformers, in other words, established a new world order under the pretense of restoring an ancient world order. They created a new past in order to control the future.

For that, they employed an army of legists who elaborated a new canonical legal system to supersede customary feudal laws, and made their new legal system appear as the oldest by producing forgeries on a massive scale. Besides the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals and the false Donation of Constantine, they crafted the Symmachian forgeries, destined to produce legal precedents to immune the pope from criticism. One of these documents, the Silvestri constitutum, contains the legend of Pope Sylvester 1st curing Constantine the Great of leprosy with the waters of baptism, and receiving in gratitude Constantine’s imperial insignia and the city of Rome. Charlemagne’s father was also made to contribute with the false Donation of Pepin. It is now admitted that the vast majority of legal documents supposedly established before the ninth century are clerical forgeries. According to French historian Laurent Morelle, “two thirds of the acts entitled in the name of the Merovingian kings (481-751) have been identified as false or falsified.”[12]Laurent Morelle, “Des faux par milliers” L’Histoire, n° 372, February 2012. It is very likely that the real proportion is much higher, and that many documents which are still deemed authentic are forgeries: for instance, it is our view that the wording of the foundation charter of the Abbey of Cluny, by which its founder William I (the Pious) renounced all control over it, cannot possibly have been dictated or endorsed by a medieval duke of Aquitaine (virtually a king).[13]Reproduced from from F. Henderson, (Ed.), Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, George Bell and Sons, 1910 (on archive.org), pp. 329-333.

These fake documents served the popes on several fronts. They were used in their power struggle against the German emperors, by backing up their extravagant claim that the pope could depose emperors. They were also powerful weapons in the geopolitical war waged against the Byzantine church and empire. By bestowing on the papacy “supremacy over the four principal sees, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth,” the false Donation of Constantine justified Rome’s claim for precedence over Constantinople, which led to the Great Schism of 1054 and ultimately the sack of Constantinople by the Latins in 1205. By a cruel irony, the spuriousness of the Donation of Constantine was exposed in 1430, after it had served its purpose. By then, the Eastern Empire had lost all its territories and was reduced to a depopulated city besieged by the Ottomans.

It is little known, but of great importance for understanding medieval times, when ethnicity played a major part in politics, that the Gregorian reformers were Franks, even before Bruno of Egisheim-Dagsburg gave the first impulse as pope Leo IX. That is why Orthodox theologian John Romanides blames the Franks for having destroyed the unity of Christendom with ethnic and geopolitical motivations.[14]John Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay Between Theology and Society, Patriarch Athenagoras Memorial Lectures, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981, on www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm In Byzantine chronicles, “Latin” and “Frank” are synonymous.

The fake autobiography of the Latin Church

It should now be clear that the very concept of a Gregorian “reform” is a disguise for the revolutionary character of the reformers’ project; “the idea that Gregorians were rigorous traditionalists is a serious oversimplification,” argue John Meyendorff and Aristeides Papadakis; “the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction.” In fact, before the twelfth century, “the pope’s fragile hold upon Western Christendom was largely imaginary. The parochial world of Roman politics was actually the papacy’s only domain.”[15]John Meyendorff and Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 55, 167, 27. Aviad Kleinberg even argues that, “until the twelfth century, when the pope’s status was imposed as the ultimate religious authority in matters of education and jurisdiction, there was not really an organization that could be called ‘the Church’.”[16]Aviad Kleinberg, Histoires de saints. Leur rôle dans la formation de l’Occident, Gallimard, 2005, p. 72. There certainly were no “popes” in the modern sense before the end of the eighth century: this affectionate title, derived from the Greek papa, was given to every bishop. Even conventional history speaks of the period of the “Byzantine papacy,” ending in 752 with the conquest of Italy by the Franks, and teaches that civil, military and even ecclesiastical affairs were then under the supervision of the exarch of Ravenna, the Greek representative of the Byzantine Emperor.[17]Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752, Lexington Books, 2009, p. 43.

This means that the first-millennium history of the Western Church written by itself is a complete sham. One of its centerpieces, the Liber Pontificalis, a book of biographies of the popes from saint Peter to the ninth century, is today recognized as a work of imagination. It served to ascertain the pope’s claim to occupy the “the throne of saint Peter” in an unbroken chain going back to the first apostle — the “rock” on which Jesus built his kingdom (Matthew 16,18).

As the story goes, in the second year of Claudius, Peter went to Rome to challenge Simon Magus, the father of all heretical sects. He became the first Catholic bishop and was crucified head downwards in the last year of Nero, then buried where St. Peter’s Basilica now stands (his bones were found there in 1968). That story appears in the works of Clement of Rome, the fictional travelling companion and successor of Peter, whose prolific literature in Latin contains so many improbabilities, contradictions and anachronisms that most of it is today recognized as apocryphal and renamed “pseudo-clementine”. Peter’s story is also the theme of the Acta Petri, supposedly written in Greek in the second century but surviving only in Latin translation. It is also told by Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202 AD), another author supposedly writing in Greek but known only through defective Latin translations.

There is no reason to take that story as reliable history. It is self-evident propaganda. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the New Testament, which says nothing of Peter’s travel to Rome, and assumes that he simply remained the head of the Jerusalem church. The legend of saint Peter in Rome tells us nothing about real events, but informs us about the means deployed by the Roman curia to steal the birthright from the Eastern Church. It is fake currency minted to overbid on Constantinople’s genuine claim that the unity of the Church had been achieved in its immediate vicinity, at the so-called “ecumenical” councils (Oikouménê designated the civilized world under the authority of the basileus), whose participants were exclusively oriental.

Although we cannot delve here into the editorial history of the New Testament, it is interesting to note that the story of Paul’s travel to Rome also bears the mark of falsification. If we remember that the Byzantines called themselves “Romans”, we are intrigued by the fact that, in his “Epistle to the Romans” (written in Greek), Paul calls the Romans “Greeks” to distinguish them from Jews (1,14-15; 3,9). Moreover, if we look up on a map the cities addressed by Paul in other epistles — Ephesus, Corinth, Galata, Philipae, Thessaloniki (Salonica), Colossae — we see that Italian Rome was not part of his sphere of influence. Paul’s trip to Rome in Italy in Acts 27-28 (where Italy is explicitly named) belongs to the “we section” of Acts, which is recognizably foreign to the first redaction.

Our main source for the early history of the Church is Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History in ten volumes. Like so many other sources, it was supposedly written in Greek, but was known in the Middle Ages only in Latin translation (from which it was later translated back into Greek). Its Latin translation was attributed to the great saint and scholar Jerome (Hieronymus). Saint Jerome also produced, at the request of Pope Damasus, the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate, which would be decreed the sole authorized version at the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century.

Eusebius is our main source on the conversion of Constantine to Christianity. Two panegyrics of Constantine have been preserved, and they make no mention of Christianity. Instead, one contains the story of a vision Constantine had of the sun-god Apollo, “with Victory accompanying him.” From then on, Constantine placed himself under the protection of Sol invictus, also called Sol pacator on some of his coins.[18]Michel Kaplan, Pourquoi Byzance ?: Un empire de onze siècles, Folio/Gallimard, 2016, p. 55. What Eusebius writes in his Life of Constantine about the battle of the Milvian Bridge is obviously a rewriting of that earlier pagan legend. When marching on Rome to overthrow Maxentius, Constantine “saw with his own eyes in the heavens a trophy of the cross arising from the light of the sun, carrying the message, ‘by this sign, you shall win’.” The following night, Christ appeared to him in his dream to confirm the vision. Constantine had all his troops paint the sign on their shields and won the battle. Eusebius describes the sign as the Greek letters Chi and Rho superimposed, and tells us it represents the first two letters of Christos. This Chi-Rho sign is found in a great variety of mosaic and reliefs up to the time of Justinian, and it is especially common in the Pyrenean region, often with the addition of a sigma, as documented in this monography.[19]Robert Favreau, Bernadette Mora and Jean Michaud, “Chrismes du Sud-Ouest,” CNRS Editions, 1985 (Corpus des inscriptions de la France médiévale, 10), on www.persee.fr Some hypothesize that it carried in pagan time the meaning pax. Whether that is the case or not, there is no evidence that the Chi-Rho was of Christian origin.

What does Chi-Rho have to do with Christ?
What does Chi-Rho have to do with Christ?

I hope to have shown that there is ample cause for radical skepticism regarding the autobiography of the Roman Church. It is not just legal documents that were forged. The whole underlying narrative could be phony. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, one man, Jesuit librarian Jean Hardouin (1646-1729), spent a lifetime researching and questioning Church history, until he came to the conclusion of a massive fraud originating in Benedictine monasteries in the thirteenth century. His conclusions were published posthumously in Ad Censuram Veterum Scriptorum Prolegomena (1766). According to Hardouin, all the works ascribed to Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan, and Gregory the Great, were in fact written just decades before the cunning Boniface VIII (1294-1303) promoted them as the “Latin Fathers of the Church.” Eusebius’ history translated by Jerome is a web of fiction according to Hardouin.

The Prolegomena of Jean Hardouin were translated in English in the nineteenth century by Edwin Johnson (1842-1901), who built up on Hardouin’s insights in his own works, starting with The Rise of Christendom (1890), followed one year later by The Rise of English Culture. Johnson argued for a medieval origin of most literary sources ascribed to Antiquity or Late Antiquity, and insisted that the whole first-millennium history of the Roman Church was fabricated by the Roman curia in its effort to impose its new world order.

The medieval origin of these texts, Johnson says, explains why their supposed authors are fighting heresies that so much resemble the heresies fought by the medieval Church. The Manicheans and Gnostics attacked by Tertullian, Augustine and Irenaeus of Lyon are like the ghosts of those attacked under the same denominations by twelfth and thirteenth-century popes. According to Patricia Stirnemann, the oldest manuscript of Augustine’s Contra Faustus, written and preserved in the abbey of Clairvaux, is the witness of the struggle against “the resurgence of a neo-manicheism in the 12th century” (she doesn’t question the authorship of the work, but gives us additional reason to do so).[20]Patricia Stirnemann, Saint Augustin, Contre Faustus”, sur www.bibliotheque-virtuelle-clairvaux.com, quoted in Wikipedia.

The context of the Latin colonization of the East by the crusaders is transparent in many spurious sources from Late Antiquity, according to Johnson. Jerome’s biography is a case in point: “he is made to travel from Aquileia to Rome, and from Rome to Bethlehem and to Egypt. He settles at Bethlehem, is followed by Roman ladies, who found there a nunnery, and there he dies. This is a reflection of something that was happening during the later Crusades.”[21]Edwin Johnson, The Rise of Christendom (1890), on archive.org, p. 360. The same goes for Constantine: the legend of his military conquest by the sign of the Crucified bears the mark of the age of the crusades, “when military men came under monkish influence.”[22]Edwin Johnson, The Rise of Christendom, op. cit., p. 50.

If all first-millennium Church history is bogus, how can we reconstruct the real history of the Church before the Gregorian reform? Johnson says there was no Western Christianity then: the Western Church was “a purely Mediaeval institution, without either literary or oral links with the past,” and its fables “were not heard of in the world until the epoch of the Crusades.”[23]Edwin Johnson, The Rise of Christendom, op. cit., pp. 7, 80. A less radical hypothesis is that Christianity only became a dominant force in the West with the Gregorian reform. In any case, there is ample evidence that it imposed its religious hegemony not so much by the destruction of pagan traditions as by their appropriation. The cult of Notre Dame, which owes much to Bernard de Clairvaux (1090–1153), was superimposed on cults of Diane and Isis.

What the Gregorian reformers did was rewrite history in order to create the illusion that Christianity was 1000 years old in Europe. Not all sources were written from scratch. Many were simply heavily edited. One example is the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Bede the Venerable (672-735). James Watson has shown that it was originally a History of the English People with no mention of Christianity; it was heavily interpolated during the tenth century, Watson says, when “most of the ecclesiastical notices in the work have been engrafted with the original history.”[24]James Watson, Interpolations in Bede’s Ecclesiastical history and other ancient annals affecting the early history of Scotland and Ireland, Peebles, 1883 (archive.org), p. 9. A somewhat different case is the Christianization of Boethius (c. 480-524), turned into a Christian theologian and martyr at the time of Abélard, although his famous Consolation of Philosophy doesn’t contain the slightest mention of his supposed Christian faith.

As for the History of the Franks, supposedly written at the end of the sixth century by Gregory of Tours, and virtually our only source on Clovis’ conversion to Catholicism, it is most probably a clerical forgery from the Gregorian period, possibly using earlier sources. It is interesting to note that our pseudo-Gregory of Tours (perhaps Odilo of Cluny, who wrote a Life of Gregory) believed it possible for a medieval power to orchestrate the systematic rewriting of all books: he writes that King Childeric introduced new signs into the Latin alphabet, and “wanted all the old manuscripts to be erased with pumice stone, to make other copies, where the new signs would be used” (chapter IV).[25]Grégroire de Tours, Histoire des rois francs, Gallimard, 1990, chapitre IV, p. 103

Chroniclers of the eleventh century are important sources for understanding the Christianization of Europe. Thietmar of Merseburg spoke in his Chronicon of a new dawn illuminating the world in 1004, and the French monk Rodulfus Glaber wrote:

“At the approach of the third year after the year 1000, in almost all the earth, especially in Italy and in Gaul, the churches were rebuilt. Although they were in a good state and did not need it, the whole Christian people competed for possession of the most beautiful churches. And it was as if the world itself, shaking the rags of its old age, covered itself on all sides with a white mantle of churches. Then, at the initiative of the faithful, almost all the churches, from the cathedrals to the monasteries dedicated to the various saints, and down to small village oratories, were rebuilt, only more beautifully” (book IV, §13).[26]Raoul Glaber, Histoires, éd. et trad. Mathieu Arnoux, Turnhout, Brépols, 1996, IV, §13, pp. 163-165.

Since Rodulfus writes under Cluniac supervision (he dedicates his work to the abbot of Cluny Odilo), we must be wary of his claim that what appeared new was in fact old, for this was the pretense of the Gregorian “reformers”. Because he says the churches were “in a good state”, their “rebuilding” may be an understatement for their rededication to a new cult. Gregory the Great (590-604), who seems to be a duplicate of Gregory VII, is reported to have recommended that pagan temples be exorcised and reused for Christian worship, and many local traditions in France assert that Romanesque churches were originally pre-Christian sanctuaries.[27]Thomas Creissen, “La christianisation des lieux de culte païens : ‘assassinat’, simple récupération ou mythe historiographique ?”, Gallia – Archéologie de la France antique, CNRS Éditions, 2014, 71 (1), pp. 279-287, on hal.archives-ouvertes.fr As for the “basilicas”, their name derives from a Greek word designating a royal building, more precisely a chamber of justice under the authority of the basileius. Textbook history says that, as the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, the basic architectural plan of the basilica was adopted for major church buildings throughout Europe, but that explanation has the ring of a flinch.

The Byzantine Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna
The Byzantine Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna

In reality, Western Christianity was in its infancy in the year 1000 AD. As for its birth in the East, it is shrouded in mystery, for whatever genuine Greek source could inform us has either been destroyed or heavily edited. The subject is beyond the scope of this article, but let us simply ask: Is it conceivable that the great basilica built by Justinian in the sixth century was dedicated to Christianity and named Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom)? Sophia is the goddess of philosophers, not priests, and no “saint Sophie” promoted by Jacques de Voragine in the thirteenth century can hide that fact. Edwin Johnson argued that Christianity and Islam were born in the same period. A case can be made that Hagia Sophia was Christianized during the reign of the iconoclast basileus Leo III the Isaurian (717-741), when it was stripped of all its icons and sculptural work, or in 842, when it was redecorated.

We have now reached a point where one of the working hypotheses of our first article can be reconsidered: although French scholar Polydor Hochart was fully justified to question the prevailing theory that Christian monks copied pagan books on precious parchments,[28]Polydor Hochart, De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite, 1890 (on archive.org), pp. 3-5. we must consider the alternative theory that those who copied in the ninth to eleventh centuries the manuscripts that humanists discovered in the fourteenth century were actually not Christians. This will become clearer in our the next.

The theft of Constantinople’s birthright

Where shall we go from here? Assuming that the history of the first millennium is heavily distorted by the forgeries of pontifical scribes and later humanists, can we evaluate the degree of that distortion and reconstruct a credible picture? The best we can do is to position ourselves in the eleventh century, the earliest period for which we have a good amount of chronicles. For that period, we can perhaps trust historians to give us a generally accurate picture of the European, North-African, and Near-Eastern world, and, looking back a couple of centuries away, we can try to discern the movements of history that led to that world. Beyond that, everything is blurry.

Geographically, we might as well position ourselves at the center of the world we are seeking to understand. That center was not Rome. Despite Roman propaganda praising the Mirabilia Urbis Romae (“the wonders of the city of Rome”) in the tenth and eleventh centuries, the political, economic, cultural and religious center of the civilization that included Rome, was Constantinople (with Alexandria in second position).

In the eleventh century, the walls of Constantinople could have contained the ten largest cities of the West. Its size, architectural masterpieces, and wealth so impressed Western visitors that, in the French novel Partonopeu de Blois, Constantinople is the name of paradise. The economic prosperity of Constantinople rested on its situation at a crossroads of the great trade routes, on a monopoly in the trade of luxury products like silk, on a considerable gold money supply, and on an efficient tax administration (the kommerkion was a ten-percent tax on any transaction in the city’s port).

Greek culture was radiating from Constantinople to the four corners of the world, from Persia and Egypt to Ireland and Spain. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there was a vast movement of translation from Greek to Latin of philosophical and scientific works (medicine, astronomy, etc.). Greek books were also translated into Persian and Syriac, and, from there, into Arabic. In his book Aristote au mont Saint-Michel. Les racines grecques de l’Europe chrétienne, Sylvain Gouguenheim defeats the common idea that the spread of philosophy and science in the Middle Ages was due mainly to Muslims. In reality, the Greek heritage was transmitted to Italian cities directly from Constantinople, that is, in the opposite direction of the fictitious translatio imperii of Constantine.[29]Sylvain Gouguenheim, Aristote au Mont Saint-Michel. Les racines grecques de l’Europe chrétienne, Seuil, 2008.

The basileus maintained good relations with the Fatimid caliphate of Egypt, which had conquered Jerusalem and lower Syria from the Abbasids in the 960s. In the early 1070s, the alliance between Byzantines and Fatimids was reinforced by a common threat: the incursions of the Seljukid Turks, who had taken control of the caliphate in Badhdad. In 1071, they defeated the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert and established in Anatolia the Sultanate of Rum, with their capital city in Nicaea, just one hundred kilometers from Constantinople. Then they took a part of Syria, including Jerusalem, from the Fatimids.

Until recently, it was commonly believed that the crusades were the generous response of the Roman Church to a desperate plea for help from Byzantine Emperor Alexios Komnenos. This is how Western contemporary chroniclers presented it, using a forged letter of Alexios to the count of Flanders, in which the former confessed his powerlessness against the Turks and humbly begged for rescue.[30]Einar Joranson, “The Problem of the Spurious Letter of Emperor Alexis to the count of Flanders,” The American Historical Review, vol. 55 n°4 (July 1950), pp. 811-832, on www.jstor.org. In fact, the emperor was in no desperate situation, and his request was just for mercenaries to fight under his command and help him reconquer Anatolia from the Seljukids. The Byzantines had always drawn in warriors from foreign nations to serve under their banner in return for imperial largesse, and Frankish knights were highly appreciated in that quality.

Instead, Urban II (a former abbot of Cluny), wanted to raise an army that would immediately set out to conquer Jerusalem, a city on which Alexios had no immediate claim, and that he would have happily given back to the Fatimids. An army of crusaders under the order of a papal legate was never what Alexios had called for, and the Byzantines were worried and suspicious when they saw it coming. “Alexios and his advisers saw the approaching crusade not as the arrival of long-awaited allies but rather as a potential threat to the Oikoumene,” writes Jonathan Harris. They feared that the liberation of the Holy Sepulcher was a mere pretext for some sinister plot against Constantinople.[31]Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, Hambledon Continuum, 2003, p. 56.

The first crusade succeeded in establishing four Latin states in Syria and Palestine, which formed the basis of a Western presence that was to endure until 1291. At the end of the twelfth century, Jerusalem having been recovered by Saladin, Pope Innocent III proclaimed a new crusade, the fourth in modern numbering. This time, the Byzantines’ fear of a hidden agenda proved fully justified. Instead of going to Jerusalem via Alexandria, as officially announced, the Frankish knights, indebted by the tricky Venetians (and mainstream historians do speak here of a “Venetian conspiracy”), moved toward Constantinople. The huge army of the crusaders penetrated into the city in April 1204 and sacked it during three days. “Since the creation of this world, such great wealth had neither been seen nor conquered,” marveled the crusader Robert de Clari in his chronicle.[32]Robert de Clari, La Conquête de Constantinople, Champion Classiques, 2004, p. 171. Palaces, churches, monasteries, libraries were systematically pillaged, and the city became a shambles.[33]Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades (1954), Penguin Classics, 2016, p. 123.

The new Franco-Latin Empire, built on the smoking ruins of Constantinople, lasted only half a century. The Byzantines, entrenched in Nicaea (Iznik), slowly regained part of their ancient territory, and, in 1261, under the commandment of Michael VIII Palaiologos, chased the Franks and Latins from Constantinople. But the city was but the shadow of its past glory: the Greek population had been slaughtered or had fled, the churches and the monasteries had been profaned, the palaces were in ruins, and international trade had come to a stop. Moreover, Pope Urban IV ordered that a new crusade be preached throughout Europe to retake Constantinople from the “schismatics”.[34]Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, op. cit., p. 50. There were few volunteers. But in 1281 again, Pope Martin IV encouraged the project of Charles of Anjou (brother of King Louis IX) to take back Constantinople and establish a new Catholic empire. It failed, but the Fourth Crusade and its aftermath had inflicted on the Byzantine civilization a mortal wound, and it collapsed one century and a half later, after one thousand years of existence, when the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II took Constantinople in 1453. The renowned medieval historian Steven Runciman wrote:

“There was never a greater crime against humanity than the Fourth Crusade. Not only did it cause the destruction or dispersal of all the treasures of the past that Byzantium had devotedly stored, and the mortal wounding of a civilization that was still active and great; but it was also an act of gigantic political folly. It brought no help to the Christians in Palestine. Instead it robbed them of potential helpers. And it upset the whole defense of Christendom.”[35]Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3, op. cit, p. 130.

The Horses of Saint Mark, looted from Constantinople by the Venetians
The Horses of Saint Mark, looted from Constantinople by the Venetians

How Ancient is Classical Greece?

However, for the West, and Italy in particular, the sack of Constantinople kicked off an astounding economic growth, fed initially by the vast quantities of plundered gold. In the early thirteenth century the first gold coins appeared in the West, where only silver coinage had been issued so far (except in Sicily and Spain).[36]Edwin Hunt, The Medieval Super-Companies: A Study of the Peruzzi Company of Florence, Cambridge UP, 1994. The cultural benefits of the Fourth Crusade were also impressive: in subsequent years, whole libraries were pillaged, which Greek-speaking scholars would then start to translate into Latin. It can be said without exaggeration that the rise of humanism in Italy was an indirect effect of the fall of Constantinople.

The Council of Florence in 1438, the last attempt to reunite the Catholic and Orthodox churches, is an important date in the transfer of Greek culture to the West. Byzantine Emperor John VIII Paleologus and the Patriarch Joseph II came to Florence with a retinue of 700 Greeks and an extraordinary collection of classical books yet unknown in the West, including manuscripts of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Euclid, and Ptolemy. “Culturally, the transmission of classical texts, ideas, and art objects from east to west that took place at the Council was to have a decisive effect on the art and scholarship of late 15th-century Italy.”[37]Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo, Oxford UP, 2010, p. 103. And when, after 1453, the last bearers of Constantinople’s high culture fled Ottoman rule, many came to contribute to the blooming of the Italian Renaissance. In 1463, the Florentine court of Cosimo de’ Medici made acquaintance with the Neoplatonic philosopher George Gemistos, known as Pletho, whose discourses upon Plato so fascinated them that they decided to refound Plato’s Academy in Florence.[38]In his book Re-Dating Ancient Greece (2008), Sylvain Tristan points to intriguing paralells between Plato’s and Pletho’s lives, and makes the hypothesis that Plato is in reality a fictional personae of Pletho. They named Marsilio Ficino as its head, supplying him with Greek manuscripts of Plato’s work, whereupon Ficino started translating the entire corpus into Latin.

At the same time as they appropriated the Greek heritage, the Italian humanists affected to ignore their debt to Constantinople. As a result, until very recently, medieval studies overlooked the Byzantine influence on the West, and even the importance of the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages. Cambridge professor Paul Stephenson commented in 1972: “The excision of Byzantine history from medieval European studies does indeed seem to me an unforgivable offense against the very spirit of history.”[39]Paul Stephenson, The Byzantine World, Routledge, 2012, p. xxi. One aggravating factor is that “practically all the archives of the imperial and patriarchal chanceries of Byzantium perished either in 1204, when the city was sacked by the Crusaders, or in 1453, when it fell under the Turks.”[40]John Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, Cambridge UP, 1981, p. 2. Byzantium was killed twice: after sacking it in 1204, the Latin West strove to erase it from its collective memory. As Steven Runciman writes:

“Western Europe, with ancestral memories of jealousy of Byzantine civilization, with its spiritual advisers denouncing the Orthodox as sinful schismatics, and with a haunting sense of guilt that it had failed the city at the end, chose to forget about Byzantium. It could not forget the debt that it owed to the Greeks; but it saw the debt as being owed only to the Classical age.”[41]Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge UP, 1965, p. 190.

It must be emphasized, however, that at this stage, scholars did not possess a consistent global chronology to date precisely the Greek classical age; that would be a project of the Jesuits in the sixteenth century, as we will document in the next article. French byzantinist Michel Kaplan makes the interesting remark that Western humanists who studied the Greek literature imported from Constantinople from the fourteenth century, “did not distinguish between the works of classical and Hellenistic Greece and those of the Byzantine era.”[42]Michel Kaplan, Pourquoi Byzance? Un empire de onze siècles, Folio/Gallimard, 2016, p. 39. The implicit assumption is that modern scholars are now able to clearly make that distinction. But are they really?

The same questions we have raised about Latin sources in our earlier piece can be applied to Greek sources. What proof do we have that the works ascribed to Plato, for instance, date from about 2500 years ago? It has been solidly established that all of Plato’s known manuscripts derive from a unique archetype, dated from the period of the great Patriarch Photios (c. 810-895). It was at that time that Byzantine emperor Leo the Philosopher “rediscovered” and promoted knowledge of Plato, as well as of his disciples Porphyry, Iamblichus and Plotinus, whom we now call Neoplatonists and ascribe to seven centuries later than Plato. Then there is the linguistic issue: Greek scholars such as Roderick Saxey II of Ohio State University are puzzled by “how little the language had changed, even in well over three millennia.”[43]Roderick Saxey II (1998-99), “The Greek language through time,” http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/report...k.html According to Harvard professor Margaret Alexiou, “Homeric Greek is probably closer to demotic [modern Greek] than twelfth-century Middle English is to modern spoken English.”[44]Margaret Alexiou, “Diglossia in Greece,” in William Haas, Standard Languages: Spoken and Written, Manchester UP, 1982. If we assume that the evolution of languages follows universal laws, Homeric Greek should not be much older than Middle English.

In his stimulating book stimulating book Re-Dating Ancient Greece, Sylvain Tristan explores how the Franks who ruled much of Greece after the Fourth Crusade, may have contributed not only to the transmission of classical Greek culture to the West, but to its elaboration.[45]Sylvain Tristan, Re-Dating Ancient Greece: 500 BC = 1300 AD?, independently published, 2008. Tristan also notes that the architectural vestiges of Frankish Greece are not as easy to distinguish from those of the Classical Age as one would expect. On the Acropolis used to stand a tower known locally as the Frankish Tower, probably built by Othon de la Roche, founder of the Duchy of Athens in the early thirteenth century. Although it was made of the same stones as the adjacent building, Heinrich Schliemann deemed it anachronistic and had it demolished in 1874.

The Acropolis with its Frankish Tower in 1872
The Acropolis with its Frankish Tower in 1872

According to our textbook chronology, the Parthenon was built 2,500 years ago. Its current state may seem consistent with such old age, but few people know that it was still intact in 1687, when it was blown up by a bomb shot by a Venetian mortar. The French painter Jacques Carrey had made some fifty-five drawings of it in 1674, which served later for its restoration.

The Parthenon in 1674, and exploding in 1687
The Parthenon in 1674, and exploding in 1687

In ancient times, we are told, the Parthenon housed a gigantic statue of Athena Parthenos (“Virgin”), while in the sixth century it became a church dedicated to “Our Lady or Athens,” until it was turned into a mosque by the Ottomans. Strangely enough, historian William Miller tells us in his History of Frankish Greece that the Parthenon is not mentioned in medieval texts before around 1380, when the King of Aragon describes it as “the most precious jewel that exists in the world.” The Acropolis was then known as “the Castle of Athens.”[46]William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566), P. Dutton & Co., 1908 (on archive.org), pp. 315, 327. Could it be a medieval fortified city from the start? Is Ancient Greece a fantasy? Or is it simply wrongly dated?

In the framework of our hypothesis that, between the eleventh and the fifteenth century, Rome invented or embellished its own Republican and Imperial Antiquity as propaganda to cheat Constantinople of its birthright, it makes sense that Rome would also invent or embellish a pre-byzantine Greek civilization as a way of explaining its own Greek heritage without acknowledging its debt to Constantinople. To explain how Greek culture had filled the world before reaching Rome, Alexander the Great and his Hellenistic legacy were also invented.

Alexander is a legendary figure. According to his most sober biography, due to Plutarch, at the age of 22, this Macedonian prince (educated by Aristotle) set out to conquer the world with about 30,000 men, founded seventy cities, and died at the age of 32, leaving a fully formed Greek-speaking civilization that stretched from Egypt to Persia. Sylvain Tristan remarks, after Anatoly Fomenko, that the Seleucids (Seleukidós), who ruled Asia Minor after Alexander, bear almost the same name as the Seljukids (Seljoukides) who controlled that same region from 1037 to 1194. Is the Hellenistic civilization another phantom image of the Byzantine commonwealth, pushed back in the distant past in order to conceal Italy’s debt to Constantinople? Such hypothesis seems farfetched. But it becomes plausible once we realize that our chronology is a relatively recent construction. In the Middle Ages, there existed no accepted long chronology scanning millenniums. If today Wikipedia tells us that Alexander the Great was born on July 21, 356 BC and died on June 11, 323 BC, it is simply because some sixteenth-century scholar declared it so, using arbitrary guesswork and a biblical measuring tape. However, with the recent progress of archeology, the problems met by our received chronology have accumulated into a critical mass.

Here is one example, mentioned by Sylvain Tristan: the “Antikythera mechanism” is an analogue computer composed of at least 30 meshing bronze gear wheels, used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendar and astrological purposes decades in advance. It was retrieved from the sea in 1901 among wreckage from a shipwreck off the coast of the Greek island Antikythera. It is dated from the second or first century BC. According to Wikipedia, “the knowledge of this technology was lost at some point in Antiquity” and “works with similar complexity did not appear again until the development of mechanical astronomical clocks in Europe in the fourteenth century.” This technological chasm of 1,500 years is perhaps easier to believe when one already believes that the heliocentric model developed by Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos in the third century BC was totally forgotten until Nicolaus Copernicus reinvented it in the sixteenth century AD. But skepticism is here less extravagant that the scholarly consensus.

The number of skeptics has grown in recent years, and several researchers have set out to challenge what they call the Scaligerian chronology (standardized by Joseph Scaliger in his book De emendatione temporum, 1583). Most of these “recentists,” whom we will introduce in our next article, focus on the first millennium AD. They believe that it is much too long, in other words, that Antiquity is closer to us than we think. They actually find themselves in agreement with the Renaissance humanists who, according to historian Bernard Guenée, thought of the “middle age” between Antiquity and their time (the term media tempestas first appears in 1469 in the correspondence of Giovanni Andrea Bussi) as “nothing but a parenthesis, an in-between.”[47]Bernard Guenée, Histoire et culture historique dans l’occident medieval, Aubier, 2011, p. 9. In 1439, Flavio Biondo, the first archeologist of Rome, wrote a book about this period and titled it: Decades of History from the Deterioration of the Roman Empire. Giorgio Vasari thought of it as a mere two centuries when he wrote in his Life of Giotto (1550), that Giotto (1267-1337) “brought back to life the true art of painting, introducing the drawing from nature of living persons, which had not been practised for two hundred years.”[48]David Carrette, L’Invention du Moyen Âge. La plus grande falsification de l’histoire, Magazine Top-Secret, Hors-série n°9, 2014, pp. 43, 53.

If our Middle Ages have been artificially stretched by seven or more centuries, does that mean that most of it is pure fiction? Not necessarily. Gunnar Heinsohn, using comparative archeology and stratigraphy (explore his articles or watch his video conference), argues that events spread throughout Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages were in fact contemporary. In other words, the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire, and the Germanic Roman Empire must be resynchronized and seen as parts of the same civilization which collapsed a little more than ten centuries ago, after a global cataclysmic event that caused a commotion of memory and a taste for apocalyptic salvation cults.

Notes

[1] Claire Levasseur et Christophe Badel, Atlas de l’Empire romain : Construction et apogée: 300 av. J.-C. – 200 apr. J.-C., Édiions Autrement, 2020 , p. 76.

[2] Most influential was Émile Littré with his Histoire de la langue française, 1862.

[3] Angelo Mazzocco, Linguistic Theories in Dante and the Humanists: Studies of Language and Intellectual History in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Italy, E.J. Brill, 1993, p. 175 (read on books.google.com).

[4] In the words of Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo, Oxford UP, 2010, p. 66, as already quoted in “How Fake is Roman Antiquity?”

[5] Jacques Heers, Le Moyen Âge, une imposture, Perrin, 1992, pp. 55-58.

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, Oxford University Press, 2013 (on books.google.com), pp. 1, 27.

[7] Heribert Illig, “Anomalous Eras – Best Evidence: Best Theory,” June 2005, on www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/illig_paper.htm.

[8] Herbert Edward John Cowdrey, The Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform, Clarendon, 1970.

[9] Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, vol. 1: The Growth of Ties of Dependance, University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 107.

[10] Robert I. Moore, The First European Revolution, c. 970-1215, Basil Blackwell, pp. 11, 174.

[11] Harold Berman, Law and Revolution, the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Harvard UP, 1983, pp. 15, 108.

[12] Laurent Morelle, “Des faux par milliers” L’Histoire, n° 372, February 2012.

[13] Reproduced from from F. Henderson, (Ed.), Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, George Bell and Sons, 1910 (on archive.org), pp. 329-333.

[14] John Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay Between Theology and Society, Patriarch Athenagoras Memorial Lectures, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981, on www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm

[15] John Meyendorff and Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 55, 167, 27.

[16] Aviad Kleinberg, Histoires de saints. Leur rôle dans la formation de l’Occident, Gallimard, 2005, p. 72.

[17] Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752, Lexington Books, 2009, p. 43.

[18] Michel Kaplan, Pourquoi Byzance ?: Un empire de onze siècles, Folio/Gallimard, 2016, p. 55.

[19] Robert Favreau, Bernadette Mora and Jean Michaud, “Chrismes du Sud-Ouest,” CNRS Editions, 1985 (Corpus des inscriptions de la France médiévale, 10), on www.persee.fr

[20] Patricia Stirnemann, Saint Augustin, Contre Faustus”, sur www.bibliotheque-virtuelle-clairvaux.com, quoted in Wikipedia.

[21] Edwin Johnson, The Rise of Christendom (1890), on archive.org, p. 360.

[22] Edwin Johnson, The Rise of Christendom, op. cit., p. 50.

[23] Edwin Johnson, The Rise of Christendom, op. cit., pp. 7, 80.

[24] James Watson, Interpolations in Bede’s Ecclesiastical history and other ancient annals affecting the early history of Scotland and Ireland, Peebles, 1883 (archive.org), p. 9.

[25] Grégroire de Tours, Histoire des rois francs, Gallimard, 1990, chapitre IV, p. 103

[26] Raoul Glaber, Histoires, éd. et trad. Mathieu Arnoux, Turnhout, Brépols, 1996, IV, §13, pp. 163-165.

[27] Thomas Creissen, “La christianisation des lieux de culte païens : ‘assassinat’, simple récupération ou mythe historiographique ?”, Gallia – Archéologie de la France antique, CNRS Éditions, 2014, 71 (1), pp. 279-287, on hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

[28] Polydor Hochart, De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite, 1890 (on archive.org), pp. 3-5.

[29] Sylvain Gouguenheim, Aristote au Mont Saint-Michel. Les racines grecques de l’Europe chrétienne, Seuil, 2008.

[30] Einar Joranson, “The Problem of the Spurious Letter of Emperor Alexis to the count of Flanders,” The American Historical Review, vol. 55 n°4 (July 1950), pp. 811-832, on www.jstor.org.

[31] Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, Hambledon Continuum, 2003, p. 56.

[32] Robert de Clari, La Conquête de Constantinople, Champion Classiques, 2004, p. 171.

[33] Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades (1954), Penguin Classics, 2016, p. 123.

[34] Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, op. cit., p. 50.

[35] Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3, op. cit, p. 130.

[36] Edwin Hunt, The Medieval Super-Companies: A Study of the Peruzzi Company of Florence, Cambridge UP, 1994.

[37] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road to Michelangelo, Oxford UP, 2010, p. 103.

[38] In his book Re-Dating Ancient Greece (2008), Sylvain Tristan points to intriguing paralells between Plato’s and Pletho’s lives, and makes the hypothesis that Plato is in reality a fictional personae of Pletho.

[39] Paul Stephenson, The Byzantine World, Routledge, 2012, p. xxi.

[40] John Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, Cambridge UP, 1981, p. 2.

[41] Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453, Cambridge UP, 1965, p. 190.

[42] Michel Kaplan, Pourquoi Byzance? Un empire de onze siècles, Folio/Gallimard, 2016, p. 39.

[43] Roderick Saxey II (1998-99), “The Greek language through time,” http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/greek.html

[44] Margaret Alexiou, “Diglossia in Greece,” in William Haas, Standard Languages: Spoken and Written, Manchester UP, 1982.

[45] Sylvain Tristan, Re-Dating Ancient Greece: 500 BC = 1300 AD?, independently published, 2008.

[46] William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566), P. Dutton & Co., 1908 (on archive.org), pp. 315, 327.

[47] Bernard Guenée, Histoire et culture historique dans l’occident medieval, Aubier, 2011, p. 9.

[48] David Carrette, L’Invention du Moyen Âge. La plus grande falsification de l’histoire, Magazine Top-Secret, Hors-série n°9, 2014, pp. 43, 53.

 
Hide 728 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. American Citizen 2.0 says:

    I am really enjoying these two articles mainly because they force me to think about what I believe about the history of Western Europe, i.e. Germany, France and England. I am old enough to have been subjected to the “western civilization” curriculum back in the before-times of this kind of revisionism.

    First, the fact that these articles are being published anonymously is suspicious. The overall ideological slant of the writing seems to be what you would expect from a former KGB officer in Moscow. The idea seems to be to undermine the legitimacy of the Catholic Church by delving into every imaginable conspiracy and twist of the historical record to confuse people. The KGB produced this kind of Anti-Catholic propaganda for decades. It is fun to read but the whole effect is basically on par with what you get from Alex Jones and the interdimensional lizard aliens theory of who runs international banking.

    Second, let me grant everything you say about the forged and fictional underpinnings of Roman Catholicism and Europe. Now, in that context the question I would like to have answered from this revisionist perspective is: How did the Anglo-Saxons and Irish get converted to Catholicism in the Dark Ages before any of these forgeries existed? Why would Christianity appear at the edge of the Empire in it’s recognizably Catholic form if all of it was just made up by entrepreneurial Italians in the 1400s.

    I think it’s a lot more likely that the usual history we learn is closer to the truth, i.e. Alaric sacked Rome and thus began the dark ages on the continent and it took a few hundred years for Europe and the Church to recover from it. Still, even if that’s not true, the question remains “why were the English and Irish converts to Catholicism long before any of these forgeries existed?”

  2. Interesting article. A ravening hit piece, but interesting. The problem with most Orthodox (and the author is at least sympathetic to Orthodoxy, if not at least nominally Orthodox himself) historiography, apologetics and polemics is how biased against and unfair toward anything “Western ” they tend to be. This piece is no exception. It takes many good and important points about the fraudulence surrounding and novelty of the Gregorian Reform, then undermines it case by throwing in a kitchen sink of distortion and obvious falsehoods.

    Just a few of these errors: Peter was not the head of the Church in Jerusalem, the proof of this is how while Peter was present at the Council at Jerusalem described in Acts 15, he did not preside. James “the Brother of Jesus” did. Peter is held by tradition to have been head of the Church in Antioch, attested to by the tradition of the Antiochian Church both Catholic and Orthodox, the existence of the ancient 1st century church there dedicated to him, and the wide witness of the Fathers.

    He is also attested to by the Fathers (Tertullian, Ignatius, etc.) has having gone to Rome and been martyred there. Peter writes “from Babylon” in 1 Peter 5 which in scripture – to include Revelation – is understood to be code for Rome.

    Also, “Western” or “Latin” bishops did attend most of the Seven Ecumenical councils. The bishop of Rome is attested to have sent legates to them, who were accorded some precedence due to Rome’s recognized primacy. The Arian council at Rimini was held to northern Italy, and one can assume that many of the bishops in attendance were “Western” or “Latin” in so far as that anachronistic distinction (most of them probably spoke Greek, anyway) had any force at the time.

    I personally think the revisionism attempted here is interesting and important. You undermine its force, however, by being too stridently critical (no Christian should reject any part of canonical scripture as fraudulent, for example) and obviously polemical. This strikes me as more propaganda than nuanced, dispassionate scholarship.

    • Agree: American Citizen 2.0, James N. Kennett
    • Thanks: Ivan
    • Replies: @LYDIA
    , @Alden
  3. fritz59 says:

    A case can be made that Hagia Sophia was Christianized during the reign of the iconoclast basileus Leo III the Isaurian (717-741), when it was stripped of all its icons and sculptural work, or in 842, when it was redecorated.

    Can anybody point me to sources (books, articles, papers) that discuss the pagan past of the Hagia Sophia in more detail?

    • Replies: @SOL
    , @SIMP simp
  4. Ano4 says:

    First, the fact that these articles are being published anonymously is suspicious. The overall ideological slant of the writing seems to be what you would expect from a former KGB officer in Moscow. The idea seems to be to undermine the legitimacy of the Catholic Church by delving into every imaginable conspiracy and twist of the historical record to confuse people. The KGB produced this kind of Anti-Catholic propaganda for decades

    Russians did it!

    • Troll: American Citizen 2.0
    • Replies: @Ano4
  5. Ano4 says:
    @Ano4

    Russian trolls everywhere!

    Run for your life! Save your soul (and do not think about what you have just read in the article or examine the sources on which the reasoning behind this article was built upon).

    If there is a doubt about the validity of the narrative that you’ve been fed since very young, just blame on some pesky Russkie and poof it’s gone!

    How convenient (how American…)

    • Replies: @Icy Blast
  6. dearieme says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    The Britons had become Christian during and after the Roman occupation. They – especially Patrick – converted the Irish and they, largely, converted the English. Such is the standard account. The direct role of the Catholic Church on the continent doesn’t seem to have been dominant – some people refer to the British/Irish Church as pursuing Celtic Christianity, but that seems to refer mostly to the fact that it was dominated by monks rather than bishops and priests.

    (And, of course, the Catholic Church of the time was not Roman Catholic; that started in 1054 – if you believe the histories we are being invited to disbelieve – when the Pope flounced out from the other four patriarchs.)

    The argument that the yarns about Peter going to Rome are baloney is very likely true, but not remotely new. Similarly I have the impression that historians almost universally believe that common claims about early Popes of Rome and their powers are fake.

  7. Vinnie O says:

    Peace and joy. I thought that I had spent 20 years reading history. Now you explain to me that these were CAREFULLY crafted LIES. Clearly I’m gonna need another 20 years to re-educate myself. Churchmen are CLEARLY the biggest liars we have ever known. The fact that they pushed a FAKE religion at the expense of the ENTIRE history of Europe is beyond evil.

    • Replies: @runeulv
    , @profnasty
  8. Svevlad says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    Perhaps because the Vatican are a bunch of subhuman pedo bloodspillers we should have taken to Nuremberg if it weren’t for that Anglo-Polish cretin Tito

  9. This all sounds similar to the Phantom Time Hypothesis:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Phantom_time_hypothesis

    • Thanks: Ivan
    • Replies: @gT
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  10. Fakie, you nearly hooked me. I have seen Runciman’s The First Crusade, knew the Crusaders were Frankish barbarians, think even today the Lebanese call their Christians the Franks, was pleased to see you rename the Romish Church the Frankish Church, but still there are odd, suspicious things about the article.

    Apart from them, why are you anonymous? You needed to give us your academic credentials if you were going to debunk what credible historians have written. And you would have claimed authorship of a ground-breaking article such as this to add to those credentials. And who are the notorious fake revisionists of history? Ask Shlomo Sand. Read Israel Shahak.

    It appears that you are part of an ongoing onslaught, an organized subversion of our society, and here you are ripping away its foundations, as you think.

    • Agree: American Citizen 2.0
  11. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    • Thanks: Norbertus
    • Replies: @George F. Held
  12. gT says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Good point about the Phantom time hypothesis, but its worse than just a few hundred years. That Parthenon was supposedly built in BC yet someone could still sketch it standing in 1674. That is not possible, only the pyramids could survive that long more or less intact because the pyramids were built solid.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @Dutch Boy
  13. utu says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    “The overall ideological slant of the writing seems to be what you would expect from a former KGB officer in Moscow.” – You’ve got it.

    https://www.unz.com/article/how-fake-is-roman-antiquity/?showcomments#comment-3999316
    “A concerted attack on Western Civilization and its foundations like Ancient Rome and most importantly on Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular.. The chief beneficiaries of the operation are supposed to be Russians. It is is about the mighty and glorious Russians, Uber-Turbo-Russian prominence in history. It is about moving the Moscow from the Third Rome to the position of the First Rome. The project started still under the auspices of KGB in USSR. You can smell the stench of Lubyanka in it. Look up Anatoly Fomenko.”

    “During the Soviet years, Fomenko was frequently involved in the state-sponsored studies, an open source analysis, the subject of which was contemporary Western media news, which were analysed and searched for misinterpretations of actual events by mixed teams consisting of various Soviet scholars, using interdisciplinary approach and statistical analysis of textual information in particular. They routinely received the latest translated issues of the New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC dispatches, etc., as well as wide array of various national and local newspapers, radio and television transcripts, and other open sources, searched them carefully for discrepancies and inconsistencies, preparing the consolidated reports for the official use only.”

    -Wiki

    Now, the question is why does Ron Unz publish this KGB vomit? Is it because he wants to render his American Pravda articles and Unz Review irrelevant? Is he planning to plea innocence by the reason of insanity once ADL and SPLC finally decide to come after him?

    • Agree: John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, American Citizen 2.0
    • Disagree: V. K. Ovelund
    • LOL: Ano4
  14. Pft says:

    Much of the english written history of Western Civilization is distorted by a pro protestant (anti-catholicism) and anti religious bias. History is mostly written by the victors/majority. Also, events are recorded by those employed by the ruling elite, so you have their contemporary bias on top of historical interpretive bias.

    I suppose its useful to get an Orthodox interpretation of events

    At least the church left records and a history that can be revised. Good luck finding a thorough first millennial recording and history of Judaism following the destruction of the second temple written before the last couple of hundred years.

    Frankly we don’t even have an accurate history of the last 100 years (heck even 20 years), so forget about knowing what exactly transpired 1-2,000 years ago. Its fun trying though and there is little chance of blow back going after Catholic history. Nobody is going to protect them, they are fair game.

    • Agree: Not Raul, Hiram of Tyre
    • Replies: @Anon
  15. Some Roman history can be dated geologically like the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum. They did get pulverised nearly 2000 ybp. So therefore all parts of Pompeii dug up are genuinely dated to 79 AD by science not medieval monks. This is not to say much other stuff has fake dates. I think it is a big ask to right he whole Roman Greek empire of as fake. I have suspected before some things look too ‘renaissance’ to be too over 2000 years old. China has better records.

    • Agree: Ano4
    • LOL: GazaPlanet
  16. “Politically, culturally, linguistically, and religiously, Byzantium owes nothing to Rome.”

    Say what? Are you The Saker? I thought after the last installment it couldn’t get any worse. I was wrong.

  17. Virgil S says:

    Unlike the case with your first article, I agree with much of what you are saying here.

    I look forward to your article debunking the existence of Jesus Christ as a historic person.

  18. Alba.. says:

    Your central idea have been proved wrong a year ago when they published the genome of hundred of samples of the italian peninsula that expand 10000 years

    https://ibb.co/F0Y2Vr7

    From sardinian farmer like individuals in the bronze age to the mix of bell beakers with those farmer in the iron age that give birth to the romans , a population that resembled genetically frenchs and north italians .

    Is in late republican era( end of punnic wars) and in the imperial era when the masive number of inmigrants and slave changed the demografic completely making rome clustering with the levant , a process unparalleled in the rest of empire and the reason is obvious rome changed demografically like any other easternly region because rome was the core , the center , the magnet the capital of the empire.

    Genetics have proved point by point what all those ancient historians told us more than 2000 years ago.

    Unz review need a good geneticist in their team right now and all these nonsense would have been aborted at birth

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  19. This screed is entirely untrustworthy for the fundamental reason that its author presumes to use the royal “We.” In that there may lie a clue to its having been contrived not by a single author but by a committee or, I daresay, by a conspiracy of some sort.

    If it looks like, if it feels like, if it sounds like, if it smells like, if it tastes like . . . , well, you get the picture.

  20. @Peripatetic Commenter

    “Phantom time hypothesis [AD 614 to 911]”

    Take this mainstream meme about the anomaly of the technological progress of Europe, and cut out the extra years in the center and push the edges together so the graph follows the expected curve.

    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @Mefobills
  21. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Apart from them, why are you anonymous?

    Good point, Mr. Mouse.

  22. @utu

    state-sponsored studies…of…Western media news, which were analysed and searched for misinterpretations of actual events… using interdisciplinary approach and statistical analysis

    They routinely received the latest…issues of the New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC,…searched them carefully for discrepancies and inconsistencies, preparing the consolidated reports for the official use only

    So the KGB thought the NYT and BBC would “misinterpret actual events” and conducted studies? Is this department still running and can I see their reports? I have occasionally been suspicious that a New York Times writer might have inadvertently misinterpetated an actual event in his story and would like to see some cross-checking.

    • LOL: FB
  23. SOL says:
    @fritz59

    Hagia Sophia does not refer to a Saint “Sophia”; sophia is also the Greek word for Wisdom and Hagia Sophia is named after the Wisdom of God who is Jesus Christ. In English the translation would be “Holy Wisdom.”

    That error alone is enough to make me not bother with the rest of essay.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    , @syonredux
  24. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Perhaps Deep Blue got sick of something as simple as beating humans at chess and took to rewriting history.

  25. Ivan says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Don’t take it seriously. It is just a summer rabbit hunt.

  26. GeeBee says:
    @gT

    That Parthenon was supposedly built in BC yet someone could still sketch it standing in 1674

    Americans! They have such a short perspective on these things.

    Point no. 1: there are several buildings and structures in Europe that were built by the Romans nearly two thousand years ago, and which still stand more or less intact today. To name only those that I have personally visited, there’s the amphitheatre at Orange, in Provence; the amazing aqueduct known as the Pont du Gard, also in the south of France; the amphitheatre at Arles, again in the south of France and perhaps the most astonishing, the Pantheon at Rome.

    Point no. 2: the Parthenon was largely destroyed just thirteen years after Jacques Carrey, a Flemish artist, drew it in 1674, when the attacking Venetians scored a direct hit on it. At the time the building was being used to store gunpowder, which exploded when the Venetian shell struck, destroying much of the building. So until this unfortunate event, the Parthenon had stood largely intact for well over two thousand years.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Lurker
  27. Ivan says:
    @utu

    It is possible that Ron is aiming to gather all the conspiracy nuts like myself : Kennedy, 9/11… Covid , Elders of Zion , anti-capitalists, Lurian Jews, Shia Maadists, Catholic antisemites, moon landing fakers , Forrestal , in short anyone who has ever thought there was conspiracy somewhere here into the vortex and burn them out in an Ironman show eventually. 😄

  28. Christianity is the New Testament.

    All else is gravy or farce.

    • Replies: @gay troll
    , @Anonymous
  29. When the Flavians* conquered Jerusalem they went about the task of defanging Jewish Messianism.

    They did this by rewriting Judas the Galilean as “Jesus Christ” : a Roman-loving pacifist.

    So it’s ALL pretty much fake.

    * Tiberius Alexander, Josephus, Berenice, Agrippa

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  30. marylinm says:

    In the third installment of that divagation we are going to learn that Rome was actually one of the many failed attempts at a Zion Empire. And that 2020 is merely yet another episode, likewise, about to detonate itself. Or perhaps, yet another cosmic cataclysm will befall us, and save us from yet another incarnation of a Paradise?

  31. Indeed it’s perplexing how big an axe to grind these Orthodox have against Rome, Papists, Catholics, whatever it is, they call us.

    And the odd thing is coming from westermost Europe, I never even had the the slightest notion. The Schism in school is presented to us lightly, as a theological disagreement and not much else.

    I think most people, including any Catholic men of letters that I have read, bear any ill will against Orthodox, certainly not on the level we’ve been seeing here.

    What a good way to change that!

    Hey assholes, we know nothing about your stupid feud, and we don’t care! Take it up with the Poles or whomever it is you are butthurt against. Sort your own crap out, and leave us and our grandparent’s religion out of it.

    You sound like the “we waz kangz” peeple. We get it, you were kangz and the evil papists stole the greatness from you. You can have it back: I declare in name of all Catholic tradition that You were the greatest kangz of religion.

    Now go in Christ’s peace and get off our lawn!

    • Thanks: zimriel
    • LOL: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @ivan
    , @Ann Nonny Mouse
    , @Anon
    , @Dule
  32. @utu

    Please check out “cognitive dissonance.”

  33. Thanks for another superb article.

    It is good to remind oneself that the very word “history” in itself (a tale that is told) does not claim to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. History is not a science and is not really objectively verifiable in the way that physics are. Anyone who has ever done any serious historical research, including archival research on the basis of historical documents, surely will have abandoned the childish belief that what he once was taught in school is an immutable truth.

    Most historians still working in the treacherous, volatile and increasingly dangerous modern universities just lack the moral and physical courage to be honest and call a spade a spade.

    As for those commenters here who are shocked and angry (“it’s the Russians!”), they might do well to read up a bit on the philosophy of history.

  34. True, but are these vestiges really from Antiquity, and if so, why are medieval vestiges nowhere to be found in Rome?

    The medieval Romans were busy at work converting the contemporary pagan infrastructure to its current theological role, a time consuming process, and one not aided by the emergence of post-Senatorial elite kleptocrats like the Anicii, whose neglect single-handedly submerged 1/6th of the city.

    My graduate thesis was on the Curia Julia (Imperial Senate House), for example, which showcases conversion and re-conversion numerous times from 536AD onward. The current understanding is that most of the rapidly silting Augustan forum fell under the grip of this particular Senatorial family thanks to sweetheart deals with Justinian. They were content to not pay for sewage repairs (evidenced by a steep decline of workman graffito present in the pipes in that area) but still stick their names on whatever was left standing in the muck — much like our elites do today with tincan sports stadiums.

    Church had to spend the next 300 years prying it from these Byzantine turncoats, and later, the Exarchs — who in spite of losing formal dominion over the city paid large gangs of circus thugs (similar to the Blues and Greens back East) to collect taxes, embezzle most of it, and then send token sums off to Ravenna to maintain some form of Imperial legitimacy.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  35. GMC says:

    Enjoyed Part II as much as Part I. As we are in a writers era, aiming to bring the Truth to the populace, concerning our Histories, Alt media is leading the way. And as the Zionists are closing down all avenues of the truth and past historic facts, we see ISIS looting the Middle East, of every document they can get their bloody hands on. This coincides with the censuring the internet from the past truths. These anonymous articles are telling us about the reality, that we have had many civilizations on Earth , and we’ve been conned about most of them.

  36. eknibbs says: • Website

    I am one of the leading scholars on the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, and indeed their current editor. I am happy to find my favorite subject cited here, and entertained to see Illig’s Phantom Time Hypothesis reworked in this way. I do not think these views are at all supportable, but I also understand that’s perhaps not the point. Here I hope to put right a few errors and misunderstandings related to Pseudo-Isidore’s inventions, their date and their purpose.

    1. The “Donation of Constantine” is included by Pseudo-Isidore in his vast corpus of forgeries, but it is not by any means the “centerpiece” of his inventions. Most scholars would say that the Donation is not by Pseudo-Isidore and predates his forgeries. Pseudo-Isidore has a rather worse Latin text of the donation than that offered by the independent tradition (Paris ms. lat. 2777). I understand the distinctions of “earlier” and “later” will not matter for somebody who believes that all time between the 7th and early 10th centuries is fictional, but I thought I would state this anyway.

    2. The primary aim of the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries is to protect rank-and-file bishops from legal jeopardy by elaborating a long and complex array of procedural protections should they be accused of any crime or tried. It is for this reason that Pseudo-Isidore entrusts the bishop of Rome with the power to hear appeals from across Christendom and oversight over church councils. The forger hopes that this distant bishop, on the margins of Carolingian influence, will provide some means of protection or escape for French and German bishops accused of crimes or subject to political pressure. Pseudo-Isidore has basically nothing to say about secular authority at all, which shows how much he differs from the Gregorian reformers.

    3. It is not true that Pseudo-Isidore “was not used until the middle of the eleventh century”. He was cited extensively from 857 onwards and his inventions were a key issue in major quarrels surrounding the career and policies of Archbishop Hincmar of Reims. The Revisionist here mischaracterizes Fuhrmann’s argument. He means two things: First, the forgeries did not exercise any major influence on the legal tradition until the eleventh century. (In their own time, they were probably too radical.) They were, however, cited extensively from the middle of the ninth century. Second, there appears to have been a delay of several years, from the moment Pseudo-Isidore first completed his inventions (around 851) and the moment they are first cited (857), which perhaps suggests that something happened to interrupt Pseudo-Isidore’s project or divert him from circulating his work. Again, I recognize that these chronological distinctions will not matter for Illig’s disciples. Another point is that we have manuscripts of all major Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries from the middle of the ninth century. This places them two centuries before the Gregorian reformers. I know the author will dispute everything we know about Latin scripts and codicology, but that is another grave difficulty of the “Pseudo-Isidore-as Gregorian-reformer” hypothesis for reasonable people.

    4. The Gregorian reformers do not actually use the forgeries as intended. They were primarily interested in their statements about Rome and the pope. Pseudo-Isidore’s procedural material for bishops is a matter of purely secondary interest to them. The forgeries don’t anticipate their use in later centuries and are actually very firmly enmeshed in ninth-century politics and history.

    5. The Symmachian forgeries are not about making the pope “immune…from criticism”, but about making him immune from legal condemnation or trial. They were clearly developed in the sixth century (before Illig’s Phantom time even applies), as is obvious from their highly distinct Latin style and their relevant for events surrounding the disputed pontificate of Pope Symmachus. Pseudo-Isidore knows the Constitutum Sylvestri (one of these forgeries) and uses it as a source. This Constitutum does not contain “the legend of Pope Sylvester 1st curing Constantine the Great of leprosy with the waters of baptism”. It merely alludes to this legend. The proper source of the legend is the fifth-century Actus Sylvestri.

    • Thanks: Ann Nonny Mouse
  37. More lies. It relies on sheer size to make it hard for people to deliberately correct all the tripe.

    I sent your original article to a classicist, who laughed at how you’ve apparently never heard of Mommsen.

    This crap is so bad it makes me wish Ron would post more moon landing stuff instead.

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Thanks: zimriel
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  38. Regarding the ‘celibate’ monks of the Gregorian ‘reform’ who apparently began fabricating so many documents –

    It is likely that, as gay historians sometimes say, ‘spiritual celibacy’ was a cover for a group gay lifestyle which could be cleverly financed by devout sheeple making ‘religious donations’ … this is perhaps partly true historically of ‘celibate monks’ around the world

    And maybe it is time to take a really good critical look at the entire foundation and nature of ‘Abrahamic’ religions

    • Replies: @Ano4
    , @BlackDragon
    , @Dannyboy
  39. 7 points:

    1. The Gospels weren’t written until 40 – 80 CE, according to Biblical scholarship. How reliable were people’s memories, say 10 – 50, years after the Crucifixion & Resurrection?
    2. Paul wrote the Letter to The Romans in Greek, which in the very least, indicates that it was, in fact, Greek that was the lingua franca of the Empire. This leads to the current speculation that it was actually the Roman Church that excommunicated itself in the Great Schism.
    3. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the Celtic Church actually originated independently of Rome. So, it could well transpire that Celtic Christianity sat in the House of the Apostle John, and the Roman Church sat in the House of Peter, if you like. The importance of this is, Celtic Christianity retained a belief in reincarnation (like Hinduism & Buddhism) but references to reincarnation were removed from the Bible by Emperor Constantine.
    4. 2000 years down the road, we’ve ended up with Pauline Christianity based on the writings of St Paul – rather than the Jesus teachings which emphasized a means (or methodology) to have a mystical experience with the Divine – without the need for intermediaries: priests or rabbis.
    5. Many details of the Jesus story have been omitted, e.g., nowhere in the NT can one find any mention of the desert sect, the Essenes, into which both Mary and Jesus were birthed. We need to access the most unlikely of sources to obtain a more complete picture.
    6. We have the problem of the Apostolic Succession.
    7. More recently, the RC Church suffered a coup in 1958 and has been infiltrated to achieve geopolitical goals. We saw this in the ‘election’ of Pope John Paul II used as a lightning rod to help end ‘communism’ in the former Warsaw Pact countries, particularly Catholic Poland – and currently in the ‘election’ of the Argentinian Pope Frances while the USA conducted its Operation Condor 2.0 for regime change of leftist governments that had been elected in Latin America.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    , @Kapyong
  40. Robjil says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    We are still exploring the Torah/ Old Testament since 12.23.1913.

    So, nothing has changed.

    That latest gimmick is Destroy Seven Nations for Israel part 2.

    The first Israel was created that way in the Torah.

    I think we are in a darker time than then.

    We can’t even travel anywhere anymore.

    At least people could travel in the so-called dark ages.

    • Agree: Ano4
  41. Robjil says:

    This article is trying to destroy all history.

    This will make it OK to build the Third Temple. Since all history is bunk except the Torah, according to the dictates of the Zion era that we lived in since 12.23.1913.

    History must be destroyed. Rioters destroy history all over the world for Zion MSM. The burning of churches all over the world in the past few days. Notre Dame 4.15 2019 started it all.

    The Temple Mount also had a burning problem on 4.15.2019.

    Hagia Sophia turned in a mosque. Covering up centuries old world heritage representative art is OK.

    All is OK if it leads to the Third Temple being rebuilt.

    What is so great about the Third Temple?

    Killing goats, cows, and chickens is the deal on a massive scale.

    Gee, we will really be in the dark ages if this happens

    A grocery store has the same stuff.

  42. Emslander says:

    If this mental self-abuse is the price we pay for the absence of pop-ups on Unz, I’m fine with it.

  43. FB says: • Website

    Absolutely fascinating…!

    The facade of bullshit that we know as ‘western civilization’ continues to crumble, under the weight of this meticulous scholarship…

    There is much about the Eastern Roman civilization [Byzantine] that we are only beginning to hear about because of centuries of Roman Catholic Jihad against the Eastern Church and its civilization…

    The author notes that the ten biggest cities in the west could fit within the walls of Constantinople…in 1,000 AD it was a metropolis of one million people and ruled a vast territory that encompassed millions of square kilometers and tens of millions of subjects…it was the undisputed center of European civilization and its glories enthralled the western mind for centuries…its vast and opulent architecture, libraries, universities, public baths, circuses and much more…

    The author [whose identity I am sure of now] mentions just one piece of its technological prowess with the Antikythera mechanism, probably the first mechanical computer…but there is also Greek Fire a flamethrower used in naval warfare to devastating effect…as well as in land warfare both in siegecraft and in defense against same…

    Use of a cheirosiphōn (“hand-siphōn”), a portable flamethrower, used from atop a flying bridge against a castle. Illumination from the Poliorcetica of Hero of Byzantium.

    It makes perfect sense that the arriviste western civilization springing up around the turn of the millennium would have an envious hatred of the Byzantine culture from which it sought to appropriate a manufactured glory and heritage to cloak itself in…the church of course leading the way with its massive falsifications…

    A tour de force article…can’t wait for the final installment…

    • Agree: Ano4, Jazman
    • Replies: @Sya Beerens
    , @ivan
  44. @Afterthought

    That’s interesting, Aftie. Can you tell us more? Records? Witnesses?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  45. ivan says:
    @A Portuguese Man

    Sometimes you just cant understand the Orthodox – if you think they are playing with a full deck. When John Paul II was the Pope one his dearest projects was to effect a reconciliation with the Orthodox Church. He was proclaiming that the Western and Eastern Churches were the two lungs of Christendom and such like. He had wanted to take the icon of the Virgin of Kazan to Russia to make up with the Russkies. But the KGB man (I cannot recall his name) who was parading as the Orthodox Patriarch would have none of it. Being a Slav, Karol Wojtiwa wanted to reconcile with his fellow Slavs. It was a simple gesture really, one that a supposed Christian should be able to recognise as a token of friendship, but the Russkies made a big song and dance about it. Ever since then I had doubts about the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church. But the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople had no such problems with the Catholic Church. And later Pope Benedict was able to effect some sort of reconciliation with his fellow German Lutherans. The genial Francis has already gone so far as to indicate that the Pope was merely first among equals to Bishop Welby of the Church of England. But for many of these holiest of Christians, the (ex-KGB shills) parading as leaders of the faithful in Russia, nothing the Catholics do is good enough. Methinks they doth protest too much.

  46. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) knew only one language all his life: Latin. He stuck to Jerome’s Latin Vulgata translation in a dogmatic manner and never paid true attention to the original Greek and Hebrew. This dogmatic Augustinian way of thinking in Latin was even upheld by the first Protestants in Europe, the followers of Jan Hus. For them just the thought of the Vulgata being a ‘translation’ was simply unbearable. They were so deeply in love with Jerome’s Ciceronian Latin, that they abhorred to disengage themselves critically from the Vulgata. So during the Middle Ages there existed not only a scholarly grudge against the original languages Greek and Hebrew, but a staunch dogmatic resistance.

    Augustine has become famous because of his Confessiones and his conversion to Christian faith. But judge for yourself: if you possessed a slave concubine wife and even begot a son from her, how ‘Christian’ is it to dismiss this wife and disown this ‘bastard’ son without any side-thought, when your mother has found a wealthy heiress (with nobility birth certificate) for you? Well, this happened with Augustine and his paganly scheming mother Monica. The heiress happened to be underage and Augustine had to wait. So his mother arranged another concubine slave woman for his sexual addiction. In the Bible Abraham recognized Hagar as the mother of his son Ismael. But Augustine’s and Monica’s behavior was just pagan, together with the slave-culture (that cannot be reconciled with Christian freedom).

    The idea of Augustine as a ‘Christian’ thinker needs critical revision. It took centuries before the humanists and Calvinists established the study of Greek and Hebrew in the theological faculties. Even the humanist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam translated parts of his famous Greek New Testament from Jerome’s Vulgata (because he did not posses all the Greek documents).

    • Replies: @David
  47. @A Portuguese Man

    Read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Ask yourself why the Thirty Years War lasted so long, who ended it, who was outraged that it ended, and why.

  48. FB says: • Website
    @American Citizen 2.0

    The overall ideological slant of the writing seems to be what you would expect from a former KGB officer in Moscow.

    And maybe the KGB and Russian scholars were spot on about the massive bullshit of the Roman Church…?

    Just like they were right about the bullshit about oil coming from ‘fossils’ 50 years before current deep drilling practice has now proved that concept a laughable fabrication, and now extracting oil from kilometers beneath the surface where no form of life has ever existed…

    • Replies: @American Citizen 2.0
  49. Ano4 says:
    @SOL

    The Wisdom of God was primarily a Neoplatonic and Gnostic concept. In Aramaic the word for “Ghost” is feminine. Jesus and his apostles spoke Aramaic. Therefore for them the Holy Ghost was feminine. For the Gnostic it was God’s Wisdom, Sophia who was equated with the Holy Ghost. The first Trinity, the Gnostic Trinity, would be Father, Sophia (Mother), Son which corresponds to the first neoplatonic Triad.

  50. SIMP simp says:
    @fritz59

    It’s complete nonsense, like almost everything in this article. The concept of Sophia appears first in pagan writers but that doesn’t mean that it was not important in Christianity. There were other churches dedicated to Holy Sophia including one that gives its name to the bulgarian capital and another one in Kiev which is the oldest Russian church.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  51. Ano4 says:
    @Patagonia Man

    You are absolutely correct, except that you should probably replace Essenes with the Therapeutae.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae

  52. SIMP simp says:

    These are the theories of a russian nutjob named Anatoly Fomenko.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko#Historical_revisionism

    What I wonder is why Unz is publishing this bullshit.

  53. Ano4 says:
    @brabantian

    And maybe it is time to take a really good critical look at the entire foundation and nature of ‘Abrahamic’ religions

    That would result in much kvetching.

    But Laurent Guyenaut has done his part and a lot of stuff he dug out seems absolutely correct.

    • Agree: Robjil
  54. Seraphim says:

    The author makes a little ‘tour de passe-passe’. Saint Paul does not call the ‘Romans’ Greeks. His Epistle is addressed to “all AT Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints”, irrespective whether they are Judaei or Gentiles (Hellenes and Barbaroi). Jews at Rome were speaking Greek.

    “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ/ πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ρώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”/ omnibus qui sunt Romæ, dilectis Dei, vocatis sanctis. Gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Jesu Christo” (1:7).

    “I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” /῞Ελλησί τε καὶ βαρβάροις, σοφοῖς τε καὶ ἀνοήτοις ὀφειλέτης εἰμί· 15 οὕτω τὸ κατ᾿ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελίσασθαι. 16 Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ· δύναμις γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ ῞Ελληνι/ Græcis ac barbaris, sapientibus, et insipientibus debitor sum:15 ita (quod in me) promptum est et vobis, qui Romæ estis, evangelizare.16 Non enim erubesco Evangelium. Virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti, Judæo primum, et Græco” (3:14-16)..

    “What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin…Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also”/ Τί οὖν; προεχόμεθα; οὐ πάντως· προῃτιασάμεθα γὰρ Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ ῞Ελληνας πάντας ὑφ᾿ ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι… ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ Θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἔθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν/Quid ergo? præcellimus eos? Nequaquam. Causati enim sumus Judæos et Græcos omnes sub peccato esse… An Judæorum Deus tantum? nonne et gentium? Immo et gentium” (3:9-10; 3:29).

    Irenaeus, who wrote certainly in Greek (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 405 is a fragment from a copy dating to c. 200 AD of ‘Against Heresies’) doesn’t tell “Peter’s story” as it is told in the ‘Acta Petri’ (written in Greek) but says only that:
    “tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul… The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric” (Adversus…III,3, 2-3).
    No doubt that the tradition of Peter as the first bishop is the first of the many falsifications of history by the Popes, but Irenaeus was not part of it.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  55. Wielgus says:
    @Ano4

    Grammatical gender need have nothing to do with physical gender. “Girl” is neuter in German, for example. The Greek word for bravery, ανδρεία is derived from άνδρας “man”, but ανδρεία is grammatically feminine.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  56. Must be nice to have a religion where the leaders care more for their own race than third worlders.

  57. O, those clever fake Romans

    They even forged the testimonies of the Saints treasured and celebrated in the East

    https://ebougis.wordpress.com/my-eastern-papist-florilegium/

    • Thanks: ivan
  58. Seraphim says:
    @SIMP simp

    And when you think that ‘Sophia’ appears in the Bible too: Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon! In the Septuagint, where is the translation of Chokhmah.

  59. @Ano4

    The Holy Ghost ain’t a girl and Jesus, the second person of The Blessed Trinity, knows that The Holy Ghost is the third person of The Blessed Trinity and knows that He ain’t a girl

    Do you pray The Our Mother like some feminists do?

    • Replies: @Ano4
  60. Ron Unz says:

    Well, some of the commenters here seem to think this article is part of an old KGB plot aimed at discrediting the Catholic Church. That seems a little far-fetched to me, but I’m certainly no expert on early Church history, so can’t really judge that part of it.

    But I once did have a very strong background in Classical History, including publishing major articles in top academic journals, and that part of this long article seems like utter and total lunacy to me.

    As I told the author, he seems to be claiming on the basis of very weak and tenuous evidence that Ancient Greece, Alexander the Great, and the Roman Empire never existed, and that our primary sources—Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus, Livy, Plutarch, etc.—amounting to many millions of words were all forged by Renaissance swindlers. As one of the minor elements, he seems to think that the Athenian Parthenon was probably built by Frankish Crusaders around 1300 AD or so.

    While I can’t absolutely say this theory is wrong, I’ve told him it seems considerably less likely than the competing hypothesis that the Venusians came down to Earth and used their super-science to forge all those Classical texts and build the Parthenon just to play a practical joke on us Earthlings.

    This simply underscores the explicit fact that this website does NOT stand behind the correctness of the articles it publishes, and that individual readers should decide for themselves.

    However, I certainly stand behind my own works, and for so those interested, here’s a link to several of my own academic journal articles from the 1980s:

    https://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/classical-history/

    • Agree: Poco
    • Thanks: John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, American Citizen 2.0
    • LOL: FB
  61. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    I like the site and Mr Unz’s articles.

    Yet one can but wonder if the only thing in common all Jews have (the believers, the atheists, the russophobes, the non-russophobes..) is a knee-jerk reaction against Europe’s Mater et Magistra.

    In one of his comments, he said that while himself non-religious, one of his better commenters, Talha, had sensibly pointed out that Islam and Christianity really had a lot of similarities.

    Given recent events, well recorded in this site (think PCraig Roberts new article about white men), one wrong phrase and cancel culture comes for you. So it is not about journalistic “balance”. The heading of the site does say, however, that UR is about controversial POV mostly excluded from MSM. Let’s hope it’s that and not schadenfreude.

  62. Russian troll ? Not sure at all. The article is well wrtitten. But I know a lot of orthodox russians, it ‘s not their style. For them this kind of resent is something old of the past. Last month a statue of the catholic Joan of arc has been inaugurated in St Petersburg with conservative russians. Yes the crusaders sacked Constantinople and where violent. Who weren’t at this time ? The turkoïd Attila had sacked Europe before, the muslims had attacked and sacked southern Europe before the crusades. In the end it’s not a problem of scholarship or forgery. People feel internaly that what Jesus said is true. So It can’t be erased or declared a forgery. In the end christianity is bottom up from the cavern of the nativity to the heights of Golgotha. Bottom up from the peasants to the Kings. The peasants where christians before The king Clovis due to anonymous Irish, romans or gallic monks travelling in Europe. The contrary of top down islam for example : Religion imposed by the sword of the rulers. That said, the present roman Church is quiet top down and there is a lot of problem, for sure…But still it’s not the same.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  63. @Hans Vogel

    As for those commenters here who are shocked and angry (“it’s the Russians!”), they might do well to read up a bit on the philosophy of history.

    Oh, great, another person, this time an apparent ethnic German, who has apparently never heard of Mommsen.

  64. @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    In all seriousness, if you’re going to publish people like this, then can we find someone with an interest in Bigfoot? Personally, I’m convinced Bigfoot is real and that governments – particularly game management bodies – have an interest in saying it’s fake. I find the Patterson-Gimlin footage absolutely unimpeachable.

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  65. @BlackDragon

    Are you thinking of the Pantheon? You ought to at least be able to mention one specific edifice that you believe is “too ‘Renaissance.’” if you expect to be taken seriously.

  66. @ivan

    The genial Francis has already gone so far as to indicate that the Pope was merely first among equals to Bishop Welby of the Church of England.

    Of course he did.

    I like the rest of your comment.

  67. @American Citizen 2.0

    The idea seems to be to undermine the legitimacy of the Catholic Church by delving into every imaginable conspiracy and twist of the historical record to confuse people.

    The Roman Catholic Church is doing a fine job itself of undermining its legitimacy, what with the installation of the globalist puppet, Francis, so whether this is Orthodox or Communist agitprop seems to be moot at this point.

    The history is nevertheless fascinating: The Vikings, unable to conquer Byzantium, were bought off by the Byzantines, and many even joined their ranks, becoming the Varangian guard, a principle defence asset of the Empire. News of the wealth no doubt spread through the Viking world to the Franks via their Norman cousins, who were hired as Frank mercenaries. The Franks, hearing of the vast wealth of Byzantium, would no doubt salivate at the prospect of getting in on the action. If there was a Papal call for a Crusade, it was merely a Christan fig leaf to justify a most un-holy war against other Christians.

    Christianity in the West almost certainly came from the east: A salient question is when. To paraphrase scholars of Christianity in Britain, the archeological evidence of Christians in Roman Britain is thin; in fact, that there were any is taken, at least figuratively, as an article of faith that Rome was a polytheistic society that might have allowed Christianity’s spread. Which of course turns the stories of widespread persecutions on their head. At best, the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman empire probably followed a line of propagation like many modern-day Christian sects, which is why you until recently saw a storefront in the outer parts of Heidelberg, Germany, for a group called Jesus World. Once the folks realised how lucrative business could be, its spread became inevitable, and later synods only served to firm up the business model and carve up the sales territories.

    • Thanks: American Citizen 2.0
  68. @Alba..

    Is in late republican era( end of punnic wars) and in the imperial era when the masive number of inmigrants and slave changed the demografic completely making rome clustering with the levant , a process unparalleled in the rest of empire and the reason is obvious rome changed demografically like any other easternly region because rome was the core , the center , the magnet the capital of the empire.

    Kind of like California, eh?

  69. Ron Unz says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    In all seriousness, if you’re going to publish people like this…

    Well, in all fairness, the author does seem to have read and referenced quite a lot of lengthy books to support his lunatic hypothesis.

    By contrast, a huge number of the commenters here have been zealous Flu Hoaxers, and the same is also true of several of our regular columnists, who had previously seemed quite rational. And while nobody is still around from 100 A.D. to say whether or not there was actually a Roman Empire, the very high excess death rates in numerous cities and regions seem difficult to square with Flu Hoaxery.

    Meanwhile, I still read my New York Times every morning, and lots of the stuff it regularly publishes seems almost as crazy as the notion that Ancient Greece never existed, and perhaps was fabricated by Venusians.

    So it seems a little unfair to denounce one sort of craziness without denouncing the others as well…

  70. American Citizen 2.0 says:
    @FB

    Thanks for mentioning the thing about oil. I wasn’t aware that there are theories about where oil comes from that could be called “abiogenic” until I googled it after reading your comment. It doesn’t look like anyone has “proved” that oil comes from abiogenic sources in large quantities though. And it definitely doesn’t seem to be a widely accepted theory. Oil that is several kilometers down could have gotten there from decaying organic matter being forced down through tectonic shifts and erosion and suchlike. Seems pretty likely that’s the real explanation for why it’s down there to me.

    The KGB definitely did use disinformation, propaganda, and other techniques to undermine the Catholic Church throughout Europe in the 20th century. One example that has been well documented was their attempt to characterize the church as being pro-Nazi after WWII.

    I will grant that I am perhaps overly sensitive to the influence of Russian spies on Western countries but you seem to be overly convinced that Russians figured everything out and that we all are just dummies living in the thrall of Catholics and Capitalists believing false origin stories about everything.

    When in Rome… agree to disagree I guess.

    • Replies: @FB
  71. So who really wrote this? Saker? Sounds like him. Strange syntax, like using ‘to immune’ as a verb:

    … destined to produce legal precedents to immune the pope from criticism.

    Or describing all Western Christians as ‘Latins’:

    … which led to the Great Schism of 1054 and ultimately the sack of Constantinople by the Latins in 1205 … In Byzantine chronicles, “Latin” and “Frank” are synonymous.

    Maybe that was the rule among Byzantine chroniclers, but people in Near East just referred to them as ‘Franks,’ which is what gave rise to modern terms for White people in the ME and Asia, such ‘farang’ and ‘ferengi’.

    And then there’s little gem:

    If all first-millennium Church history is bogus, how can we reconstruct the real history of the Church before the Gregorian reform? Johnson says there was no Western Christianity then: the Western Church was “a purely Mediaeval institution, without either literary or oral links with the past,” and its fables “were not heard of in the world until the epoch of the Crusades.”[23] A less radical hypothesis is that Christianity only became a dominant force in the West with the Gregorian reform. In any case, there is ample evidence that it imposed its religious hegemony not so much by the destruction of pagan traditions as by their appropriation. The cult of Notre Dame, which owes much to Bernard de Clairvaux (1090–1153), was superimposed on cults of Diane and Isis.

    So Bernard de Clairvaux was really promoting the worship of a Roman goddess? (By the way, we usually refer to the goddess with the Latin spelling of ‘Diana’ rather than with the French spelling of ‘Diane’.) And Isis? Really? So before their conversion to Christianity, the Franks were worshiping an ancient Egyptian goddess? Didn’t the Franks and the Gauls have their own Celtic/Germanic goddesses? Why would they to import them all the way from Egypt?

  72. Anon[262] • Disclaimer says:
    @A Portuguese Man

    Lol
    – zero previous post
    – try to redirect the conflict in a ortodox _ catholic perspective
    – ethnic name

    Holy fuck you are the most blatant fellow (((white))) that i have seen in the entire week .

    4chan tier or even worse

  73. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    That’s interesting, Aftie. Can you tell us more? Records? Witnesses?

    Why can’t you just take it on faith?

    • LOL: Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @anon
  74. Ano4 says:
    @Wielgus

    It has nothing to do with grammar or semantics, but everything to do with theology and semiotics.
    What is the gender of the Shekinah, what is her role in Judaic theology? The Gnostics simply added Neoplatonic philosophy Buddhist theory about the dharmas and the reincarnation to the theology of the early Judaic sects. That was a sensible thing to do for Hellenistic Jews living around the Silk Road’s Western end and trading with Hellenistic Central Asian Buddhist kingdoms.

    Read for yourself:

    http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

  75. David says:
    @All we like sheep

    Augustine several times mentions that his knowledge of Punic allowed him to pick out the meaning of Hebrew passages. He was well aware his ignorance of Greek shut him out of a wide swath of scholarly tradition, sometimes asking friends to translate Greek works for him, including Jerome. Augustine is most famous now for Confessions, but this work was not what made him “famous.” The woman he “dismissed” (with great and lasting sorrow) was not his wife, and he never parted company with the boy, upon whose death he mourned and, quoting Cisero, described him the one man in all the world he had hoped to see excel himself in all things — hardly the thought of a disinterested father. He did not take on another lover after his mistress of fourteen years.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @All we like sheep
  76. @Ron Unz

    Mr. Unz,

    I don’t think the point is that the article is part of a KGB plot but rather that it resembles that sort of thing.

    The context is the feud of some Orthodox people towards the Rome, or the Pope, or Catholicism. It’s hard to pinpoint which exactly.

    I first realised this at the Saker’s blog a couple years ago.

    IMO the real substantial conflict and bad blood here is between Poles and Russians, generally speaking. Everything seems just a pretext.

    I just don’t understand how the Orthodox/Russian side does not grasp that most Catholics outside the Slavic world simply don’t know about this conflict, and might even be sympathetic to Russia’s cause insofar as it may have some merit, but they will surely resent it if this is presented to them as rooted in religious difference instead of politics or even culture.

    Seems foolish to me.

    • Replies: @Old and Grumpy
  77. @FB

    ‘Jihad’ doesn’t equal ‘Crusade’.

  78. gay troll says:
    @Priss Factor

    The word Christ is used ~200 times in the Septuagint.

    • Replies: @Patagonia Man
  79. @Digital Samizdat

    On second thought, I think the author was probably Laurent Guyénot.

  80. ivan says:
    @FB

    Spare us your bullshit man. The Antikyera mechanism is universally regarded as a technical tour-de-force. But in what sense has it anything to do with Byzantium or the Orthodox? It is dated to around 100 BC or before, long before there were Christians of any kind on the ground. Is there no end to your crappery? And what are you doing about my suggestion to sell your advanced Russian VAPOURWARE to the Iranians : Have they taken kindly to it? You need some goddamed rest, that is what you need.

  81. Greek scholars such as Roderick Saxey II of Ohio State University are puzzled by “how little the language had changed, even in well over three millennia.”

    Are you sure that Saxey is puzzled?

    You know far more about the topic than I do, but I have followed your link [43]. Saxey does not sound very puzzled to me.

  82. @Ron Unz

    So it seems a little unfair to denounce one sort of craziness without denouncing the others as well…

    Yes. This is exactly why I read The Unz Review.

    • Agree: Haruto Rat
  83. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

    @ Catholics outside the Slavic world simply don’t know about this conflict, and might even be sympathetic to Russia’s cause insofar as it may have some merit, but they will surely resent it if this..

    Very true. Catholics like European civilization, and see Russia as part of Europe. The situation today is such that Catholics like political leaders who stand up for Christianity, and like Putin for doing/appearing to do that.

    For me, having had more contact with Protestants (a few even evangelicals), it has come as a surprise the amount of active anti-Catholic animosity on the part of otherwise perfectly agreeable orthodox commenters.

  84. @Patagonia Man

    There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the Celtic Church actually originated independently of Rome.

    Would you care to elaborate?

  85. Smith says:

    I wonder if anybody will do one about Asian history, specifically chinese history. That is one huge can of worm.

    I would be down to debate tge 3 strong of Asia at the times, China, Japan, Dai Viet.

  86. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @David

    Add also that Augustine is not best known for his Confessions. The Confessions are the most “modern” and accessible of his writings, in the sense that they are written in the first person singular, and most of the book consist of his personal journey to God. The very few paragraphs in which he talks about the loss of his concubine —who he movingly never mentions by name— are heart rending. His love for his son Adeodato is evident, his grief equal to his grief at losing his mother.

    He wrote enough to fill a library. And when the barbarians were at the gates of Hippo, and the Pope sent a ship to rescue him, Augustine chose to stay with his flock. The Pope then requested to have his writings sent back to Italy aboard the ship. Later his remains were recovered too, and today he rests in Pavia, near Milan.

    Augustine is best known for his work on Grace, on the Trinity and as the father of modern political philosophy, with City of God towering head and shoulders over subsequent writers until Aquinas. His grasp of the possibilities and limitations of human politics is as profound as his understanding of the History of Salvation.

    • Thanks: David
  87. @American Citizen 2.0

    “The idea seems to be to undermine the legitimacy of the Catholic Church by delving into every imaginable conspiracy and twist of the historical record to confuse people. The KGB produced this kind of Anti-Catholic propaganda for decades.”

    Yes.

    For the rest, the Church has remained united, consistent and strong in the past except for our days – it is an easily verifiable fact – when we can verify an infiltration among the clergy.
    But the Catholic Church is indestructible and there will always be a remnant.

  88. @Supply and Demand

    Agree. Thanks for this very rational and objective view about History.

  89. @Hans Vogel

    Agree. Thanks for this very objective view of History.

  90. @David

    Augustine was living with his slave concubine slave for many many years, but when his pious mother came forward with a 12 year old heiress, who was respectable & in possession of lots of worldly riches, Augustine behaved quite the same as Flavius Josephus did with his slave concubine wife. It means that the Roman pagan way of life with its all determinative split up between those whose fate it was to be slaves and those who were fortunate to be free persons was just honored 100% by Augustine and his mother. They as Christians could however have known better, because not only in Paul’s letters there are numerous elaborations about the freedom in Christ to be found, but the example of Abraham honoring the slave woman Hagar & recognizing Ismael as a son is nothing less but revolutionary in a pagan society, inside which Augustine and his mother had been raised. Alas, Augustine just adapted syncretically to the conditions. After the affair with the 12 year old Augustine all of a sudden turned into a celibate priest.

    • Replies: @David
  91. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    … so bad it makes me wish Ron would post more moon landing stuff instead.

    May I disagree?

    Ron Unz is great because he demands research and competent English of his writers. Unz does not abuse his editorial prerogative to project his own worldview.

    I find the author’s thesis hardly more persuasive than you do, but if Unz did not publish such articles then what would be the point of The Unz Review?

    • Agree: kerdasi amaq
  92. Good grief folks and commenters here! You do know that Christ AND the various apostles writing epistles predicted this kind of “historical” gibber-jabber he said-she said hate-provoking Orthodox-vs-Catholic-vs. Protestant garbage! No wonder so many non-Christians on Earth refuse to become believers on Christ–too much hate between Christians! And I thought Muslims had it bad!

    In the Holy Name of Jesus, I pray–cut the crap!

    And to Virgil S–I look forward to YOUR article “debunking” the existence of Christ as a historic person! And is your mate named “Archarya”? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

  93. Grisha says:

    Fascinating melange of good information and just out and out bs. Some sources are risible (including Romanides). This is what happens when you start with a thesis and selectively argue and dismiss to support it.

    Found the discussion on Peter to be fairly absurd. He was not the head of the church of Jerusalem. He appears to have consecrated a Bishop in Antioch (as noted by an earlier commenter) and then ended his life in Rome, though extant evidence suggests he was not the first Bishop of Rome, that would have been a certain Linus.

    The idea that Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) was not created as a Catholic Cathedral is absurdist. Holy Wisdom is a central theme of Christianity.

    The list goes on…

  94. John Long says:

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Another deconstructionist.

    Some thoughts:

    I would much rather live under Henry II’s England in 12th century Christendom than under Anglo-Zio-Globo Homo of today.

    I receive the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church because I believe. That’s all that matters to me. I believe: get it?

    Take your history and shove it up your ass. (Might need to confess that!)
    It’s good to have the option to relieve my conscience now and then, for real, and not some phony show of public virtue signaling.

    I know deep down I am a piece of shit and in need of a Savior to rescue me from my pitiful self. Jesus understood and understands the human condition. I’ll follow him.

    To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, “Every adult will someday have to deal with the person of Jesus Christ. Either he was a raving lunatic or he was what he said he was: God himself”

    We all will face the truth someday and know for sure.

  95. @A Portuguese Man

    It reminds me more like evangelical growing hatred of the Roman Catholic Church. According to the Rapture crowd Catholics are mere pagan idolaters with all their saints and statutes.

    • Replies: @A Portuguese Man
  96. Mefobills says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    The dark ages were the greatest depression. Gold and Silver metal money was consecrated to the vaults.

    Land was tied up into the hands of large land holders.

    Christianity actually teaches to release debts and return former small holders to their lands. The bible is miss-interpreted. Judaism is a new religion that teaches history is “linear” and that creditor must always be paid. Talmudic Judaism is propaganda emitted by the Pharisee creditor class.

    The idea that history is cyclical, and that debts grow beyond the ability of nature to pay, is not part of modern thinking. Releasing of debts is Christian, but Christianity failed in this regard as “creditors” fought back and won.

    Rome collapsed because of a creditor over debtor “linear” thinking. The Jewish creditor class of Pharisee’s were also ascendant, even to the point of making debtors sign away their rights during the jubilee year. This linear idea to history requires new lands to constantly be conquered to then pay old debts. New debtors pay old debtors, and new people and their lands can be enslaved or exploited to pay old debts.

    Rome fell from within as a creditor plutocracy arose and all the land was grabbed. Latifundia land holdings were worked by serfs, in a new feudalism that defined the dark ages.

    Hudson explains the cycle page 24, and forgive them their debts:

    Such proclamations…. (returning small holders to their lands during jubilee. which is in return for corvee labor to the palace). Such proclamations…saved indebted cultivators from being subjected to bondage and losing their land rights as MONEYLENDING became a predatory means of obtaining labor to work off the debt, and ultimately to acquire the debtors land. But, Royal authority to protect cultivators waned and flight from the land accelerated after fall of Babylonia c. 1595 BC. By Roman times the “Freedom” of MONEYLENDERS to break free from palace over-rides involved a loss of liberty and land for a widening swath of the population, stripping the Late Roman Empire of money as it descended into barter for most of the population.

    The east west mechanism was also at play, where Gold came from the East and Silver came from the West. The Caravan routes crossed over the Bosporus at Constantinople. Jewish Caravaneers took usury on the exchange rate differences between silver and gold. Byzantium also consecrated gold to the vaults to control the gold price of their Byzant gold coin.

    The greatest depression was over after fourth crusades 1202-1204. Constantinople was sacked and immense stores of gold were released from the vaults.

    • Replies: @Hugo Silva
  97. Anonymous[208] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Christianity is the bible, not some subset of it you approve of. I don’t understand how so many profess a religion they can’t even bother to read the basic text of.

  98. runeulv says:
    @Vinnie O

    “The fact that they pushed a FAKE religion at the expense of the ENTIRE history of Europe is beyond evil.”
    The Devil had placed all sorts of false claims everywhere that led the people straight to hell, so the true history needed to be published instead. The moral stand was that the flock were saved to the true faith, and went to heaven, not that what was history faked by previous generations old pagans and Devil worshipers were preserved.

    • Replies: @Vinnie O
  99. @eknibbs

    Thank you for these clarifications. Comments like yours are highly constructive, and do matter to me. I wish Illig had taken your points into account, for surely you communicated them to him. Nevertheless, they do not affect my general argument, only make the Gregorians less revolutionary in their forgery and in their new world order project. But actually, I would like to know where, who, and how do the dates 851, 857, “middle of the ninth century” come from, for I am here questioning the authority of such dates stamped by scholars on manuscritps, monuments, etc. Don’t you think these dates are questionable, and if not, why not? That is the whole point.
    On Fuhrman, I would like to know more precisely how Illig (and myself repeating him) mischaracterized him, when I wrote:
    Horst Fuhrmann, a specialist in medieval forgeries, classifies them as “forgeries with anticipatory character,” which “have the characteristic that at the time they were written, they had hardly any effect.” According to him, these fakes had to wait, depending on the case, between 250 and 550 years before being used.
    I would also like to read your opinion on the Donation of Constantine, since this is the document I am most concerned about. Is it not true that it only became of some use during the Gregorian Reform? Did not Fuhrman talk of its “anticipatory character”? How do you explain it? Who wrote the Donation, under whose instruction, and for what purpose? How do you tell the date of a document that was forged to look older than it is?
    Apart from that, since I have the opportunity to debate with an expert on Church history, may I also ask you to comment on, for instance, Eusebius’s History of the Church. Are you confident that it was written in Greek in the fourth century, and if you are, what makes you confident (apart from the opinion of other scholars)? What about Gregory of Tours? What is so outrageous or “not supportable” in the hypothesis that they are Gregorian forgeries (or pre-Gregorian forgeries of the 9th or 10th century)?

  100. @John Long

    I believe: get it?

    I don’t. Can you be more specific. What do you believe?

    • Replies: @A Portuguese Man
  101. @Grisha

    The idea that Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) was not created as a Catholic Cathedral is absurdist.

    So you believe Hagia Sophia was created as a Catholic Cathedral? Interesting…

    • Replies: @Grisha
  102. TV is the new Vatican, or T-Vatican, and people get their holy icons from that junk. They see the world in terms of holy Jews, homos, and Negroes versus cross-burners and nazis. Yes, the people are THAT dumb.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  103. Mefobills says:

    The fourth crusades (which ended dark ages) had geo-political motives as well.

    Turkish pressure: Seljuk Turks were putting pressure on Byzantium harming relations with other Moslems.

    Ending Jewish Trading Dominance between East and West: Jews in the 8’th century were under Moslem domination, but by 11’th century they had transferred from Asia to Europe. Much of the East West trade was controlled by Jews in Spain.

    Western Princes: Princely ambitions would be improved it they could re-take the Holy Land and establish more direct trading relations on their own.

    Papal Ambitions: Saracen Moslems had reached the Pope’s doorstep in 846AD when they besieged the Castello St. Angelo, the Vatican’s battlement on the Tiber River in Rome, less than a thousand yards from St. Peter’s Basilica.

    The Papacy also wanted to end dominance of the Basileus which was STILL recognized as the supreme religious authority of the West.

    ___________

    All of the high level objectives were met. Basilieus succeeded in ejecting Moslems from Jersualem for almost 100 years, and then forever from Spain. Mediterranean was re-opened to Christian traffic. Trade routes and trade links were set up especially by Knights Templar.

    Jewish control in international trade (around the Mediterranean) was drastically reduced.

    Gold was released from the Vaults.

    The Byzant no longer controlled gold price.

    Finger bones and body parts of the “saints” were removed to the West, bolstering the Papacy.

  104. gay troll says:

    Christians cling to their canonical gospels and epistles as “history” despite the fact that these documents were culled from a sea of literature whose balance was cast down as forgery and heresy. If the only difference between history and heresy is the vote of a council, how can that constitute the word of God? Known witnesses to the first century, such as Seneca and Philo, make no mention of the earth shaking advent of the Son of God. Furthermore, the philosophies of Seneca and Philo are actually plagiarized by the New Testament. Josephus, who witnessed the Roman-Jewish war, makes one passing reference to Christ, without corroborating a word of Gospel history. This reference is likely an interpolation, since Jesus Christ is mentioned nowhere in Josephus’ work, and his exposition of the 1st century Messianism of Judea proves that it was militant and not pacifist. The Gospel of Marcion is said to be bastardized from Luke, but more likely it was a prototype for the synoptic texts. The first citations of the synoptic gospels occur in 130-180 CE.

    In terms of the fakeness of Roman Antiquity, we should note that the Septuagint was written in Greek, and together with its mythical claim that it was identically translated from the Hebrew by 70 different individuals, and the fact that no earlier copy of the Hebrew scriptures exists, and the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of King Solomon’s existence, we might conclude that the Septuagint is the actual origin of Judaism. The New Testament is likewise written in Greek and not a Semitic language or in Latin. Thus the entire Judeo-Christian clusterfuck appears to be the product of a Hellenic priesthood, likely based in Alexandria.

    However carefully we may try to perceive history, the fact is that Christianity created an event horizon beyond which little can be perceived. They became the sole custodians of the written word of Western culture. They had strong material incentives to validate Gospel history and destroy everything else as heretical. They had the absolute power to amend and fabricate texts, in the same way that they fabricated relics.

    • Disagree: kerdasi amaq
    • Replies: @Ano4
  105. @Anon

    Gregorian Chants are generally best performed without instrumental accompaniment and when sung by French-speaking monks (not nuns). Cf. especially the recordings of the monks of the Abbey of Saint Pierre de Solesmes, of the Abbey of St. Maurice & St. Maur, of the Abbey of St. Martin, Beuron, e.g.,

    [MORE]










  106. Icy Blast says:
    @Ano4

    What you are doing here is obvious immediately: You are conflating the KGB with the Russian people. Try again.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  107. Ano4 says:
    @gay troll

    The Gospel of Marcion is said to be bastardized from Luke, but more likely it was a prototype for the synoptic texts. The first citations of the synoptic gospels occur in 130-180 CE.

    What about the Gospel of Thomas, I believe it was probably even older than the Gospel in Marcion’s redaction.

    Other than that I wholeheartedly agree with your comment, especially this:

    However carefully we may try to perceive history, the fact is that Christianity created an event horizon beyond which little can be perceived. They became the sole custodians of the written word of Western culture. They had strong material incentives to validate Gospel history and destroy everything else as heretical. They had the absolute power to amend and fabricate texts, in the same way that they fabricated relics.

    Spot on!

    Excellent comment!

    • Replies: @gay troll
  108. Ano4 says:
    @Icy Blast

    Дружок, ты совсем тупой или просто прикидываешся?

    Every time an American decries godless KGB or evil Commies it is Russian people and Russia he is aiming at.

    KGB has been disbanded and reformed in 1991 and yet here we are 30 years later, with Western moronic posters pretending that a text dealing with the history of the Roman Catholic Church is somehow, somewhat, somewhere connected to KGB.

    Why? Because reasons…

    For Christ’s sake, this is absolutely ludicrous.

    And totally American in its asinine stupidity.

    • Replies: @American Citizen 2.0
  109. syonredux says:
    @SOL

    That error alone is enough to make me not bother with the rest of essay.

    You’re missing out. Seriously, this “First Millennium Revisionist” fellow has written some of the most laugh-inducing idiocy that I’ve ever encountered.

    • Replies: @Sparkylyle92
  110. @Old and Grumpy

    IMO the root of the ill will of Protestantism towards Catholicism really is theological, grounded on a selective rejection of authority. The geopolitical aspects came after.

    On the contrary, this question really seems geopolitical at its core. I don’t think being Catholics and Orthodox really changed much in the conflict between the Polish and the Russian. Had they been the of same confession probably wouldn’t have made a difference. God knows Catholics were perfectly able to butcher one another.

    The thing is this feud and the viciousness it still raises were news to me. So far I’ve only ever seen the Orthodox side apologists, but I expect the other side to be no less vicious.

  111. Dutch Boy says:
    @gT

    My understanding is that ancient buildings converted to religious purposes (e.g., the Pantheon and Castel Sant’Angelo in Rome and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople) could survive quite well, since a a main cause of the destruction of ancient buildings was scavenging for stone and mortar. Another example would be the Greek temples of Paestum in Italy. which are in an area abandoned because of the great danger of malaria. The Colosseum in Rome was well on its way to complete destruction until it was declared a sacred site in the 18th century (because of the many martyrs executed there).

  112. Kapyong says:
    @Patagonia Man

    “The Gospels weren’t written until 40 – 80 CE, according to Biblical scholarship. “

    Only believers support dates before 70 AD (largely because the first Gospel, G.Mark, mentions the destruction of Jerusalem in that year.)

    The modern consensus places G.Mark probably in the 70s, G.Matthew and G.Luke probably in the 80s, with G.John probably from the 90s. (None by any eye-witness. There are zero writings from anyone who ever met or saw Jesus.)

    But even those dates are not certain – the earliest Christian writings (about 30 books from Paul to the Epistle of the Apostles c.140) make no mention of the Gospels or their Christian stories like the miracles or empty tomb or the virgin birth. Just Paul’s undated unplaced unconnected crucifixion and resurrection beliefs.

    Christian Aristides writing in 138-161 (or maybe 117-138), describes a singular written work, named simply “the Gospel”, which had only been preached “for a short time”, suggesting a recent creation.

    The first Christian to clearly quote from gospel writings in his possession was Justin Martyr in the 150s, (also the first to mention the empty tomb.) Writings he called “Memoirs of the Apostles” which were also called “Gospels” – but still un-named and un-numbered, and still somewhat different from modern Gospels.

    The first pagan writer to review a Gospel was Celsus in the 170s – who rejected it as “fabrications” and “monstrous lies” which were “based on myths”. (Christians burned his book, only fragments remain.)

    Also in the 170s Tatian numbered the still un-named Gospels as four with his harmony From Four (the DiaTessaron), presumably the four he inherited from his mentor Justin Martyr.

    Finally – the first Christian writer to name the canonical four Gospels was Iraneus in the 180s.

    So –
    The Gospels and their contents do not enter the written records – either of Christians or otherwise – until mid 2nd century. All originally anonymous and only named in the 180s. All of unknown provenance.

    Even if they were written as early as the 70s, they remained un-mentioned by the wider Christian community until early-mid second century. After that, they get mentioned and quoted ad nauseum to this very day.

    The Gospels, even so compromised and contradicting, are the critical sources for the Life of Jesus – yet they only appeared about a century after his time, from unknown authors from unknown places who never met the alleged Jesus.

    G.Mark was the first, as G.Luke and G.Matthew copy whole slabs word-for-word, with changes suiting their changing dogmas. (G.John is the latest and most supernatural and least reliable.) But G.Mark can be clearly seen as religious literature crafted from scenes and characters of the Jewish scriptures, with a sprinkling of Homer, and showing literary constructions such as chiasms (nested mirrored themes.)

    Turtles all the way down.
    I think the historicity of Jesus is headed the same way as for Adam and Eve, next was Moses, with Solomon and David now dead in the water.

    • Agree: Virgil S
    • Replies: @Ano4
  113. gay troll says:
    @Ano4

    If memory serves the gospel of Thomas is a collection of logia and makes no mention of Jesus’ campaign in Galilee, nor does it address Judaism. In Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord that we possess today, there are numerous historicizing elements including reference to 1st century Judea. However, if Marcion’s heresy of Docetism held that Christ was a spiritual power and had not been made flesh, why would he place Christ in Judea in the time of Pilate? It is reasonable to assume that Marcion’s original gospel was in fact docetic, and was used as a blueprint for the “good news” of Christ contained in the four canonical gospels, which are much more specific in their historical detail than Marcion. The shorter version of a text is more often the original, and the fact is that Luke et al are an expanded version of Marcion. The non-Docetic elements of the Gospel of the Lord may be later interpolations.

  114. Mefobills says:

    The commentators and this article are ignoring first principles, and getting caught up in irrelevant detail.

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    Who cares how much was forged? There are always humans trying to get-over and they will create false doctrine to self-aggrandize.

    There is a bottom line, and that is that religion is mostly law. Some religions go too far, and lock down their population into very strict behaviors (Pale of the Settlement? Some Islamic Regions?)

    Modern humans can easily look at legal principles coded within religion, and tell if they are BS or not, or if they are relevant to today.

    Just taking the bible on its own, it is a pretty good template for balancing credits and debts. That was Jesus’ mission. Jesus was going up against the pharisees, who were a “creditor class’ attempting a take-over.

    Anything else is a tempest in a teapot. What was Jesus’ mission?

    When Jesus unrolled the scrolls and proclaimed the good news, he was announcing his mission toward re-establishing the Jubilee and returning civilization to balance.

    The parallels are exact to today… where a creditor class of plutocrats is consolidating their control over the commanding heights of western economies.

    Rather than tearing down Christianity, it needs to be interpreted more properly, and to the understanding prevalent in that era.

    • Replies: @gay troll
  115. noname27 says: • Website

    God has no religion and Yashua Messiah (Jesus Christ) did not come to this earth in order to start a religion.

    The first century church was hijacked by satanic Hellenising philosophers, commencing in the mid-to-late first century.

    The first churches outside Jerusalem were planted in Britain in 35 AC by Joseph of Aremathea (Yashua Messiah’s great uncle) and predated Antioch.

  116. anon[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    Why can’t you just take it on faith?

    Sermon on the Mount, as an example, is “a witness” to the higher mind of its author(s). This is something that is neglected in talks that discuss fabrication of various scripture (East to West, in toto).

    There are some unreasonably profound and deeply insightful commentary about the human condition in this universe/reality we find ourselves in scripture. Marcus Aurelius can’t hold a candle to Jesus of Gospels, for example. Many people come to faith because of the written word. If these scriptures are fabricated by men, then these men were part of occult schools of knowledge, and imo must have been extremely sharp people.

    Who were these people? Why is such wisdom only dispensed in scripture? What is this phenomena of scripture getting under the skin of its readers? From whence this profound psychological insight into the ‘human soul’?

    To me this is by far the more interesting question than mere glib dismissal of ‘faith’ in a spiritual reality.

    • Replies: @Ano4
    , @paranoid goy
  117. Who were the Venetian looters? Were they the remnants of Judea and Samaria then residing in the city of canals?

  118. Ano4 says:
    @Kapyong

    Agree on all points. I would also include the Gnostic Gospels from Nag Hammadi into this picture. Although they are currently considered as posterior to the synoptic Gospels, they might have been produced as soon or even earlier than the four that the Church added into its cannon. And anyway, the Gospel of John shows many Gnostic influences.

  119. @brabantian

    Sounds like this Abraham was a schizophrenic nut job!

  120. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Thats geological bullshit! Geology doesnt pander to religion or nutcase theories. Most geologists are pretty sane people.

  121. Ano4 says:
    @gay troll

    The shortest version is probably the Thomas Gospel. The logia might have been presented without context because people who consulted this scripture well familiar with the events That would mean that this Gospel might have been used among the first group of Christian believers.

    You can find the text here:

    http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

    I didn’t know that the Marcion’s redaction of the Gospel has survived. Will look it up.

  122. gay troll says:
    @Mefobills

    There is a bottom line, and that is that religion is mostly law.

    Religion is mostly male chauvinist law justified by false history.

    Just taking the bible on its own, it is a pretty good template for balancing credits and debts. That was Jesus’ mission. Jesus was going up against the pharisees, who were a “creditor class’ attempting a take-over.

    The only people trying to take over Judea were the Romans. They were a form of creditor class, because their subjects always owed them taxes. They were tolerant of diverse religions, but they insisted on subjection to Caesar, which the Jews refused. There was a real messianic movement in first century Judea, but it was militant and opposed to Roman rule. Josephus describes a dozen Jesuses running around, and it must have been a common name because it means SAVIOR, and the Jews expected salvation. Even the Bible says Jesus Christ was held prisoner with another man named Jesus Barabbas, which means, Savior Son of the Father. But the real messianic Jews did not turn the other cheek, their savior did not come despite the glut of Yehoshuas, and they were destroyed by Titus along with the city of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Jesus supposedly predicted this event about 40 years earlier. He said that not a generation would pass before he would return in judgment of the wicked. He said that Jerusalem would be encircled, the temple burned, and not one stone left upon another. Josephus describes how Titus accomplished all these things.

    Titus is the son of Man, so worship his idol and pay your taxes.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  123. Ano4 says:
    @anon

    Who were these people? Why is such wisdom only dispensed in scripture? What is this phenomena of scripture getting under the skin of its readers? From whence this profound psychological insight into the ‘human soul’?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae

  124. The most harmful thing about this thesis is the vast amount of time you will waste understanding and then disproving it. You might want to work up to this feat by first discovering whether you have a freckle inside of your rectum.

  125. Not Raul says:

    Kelley Ross’s site has some interesting items that challenge establishment views on history.

    Here’s an index of some of his essays on history:

    https://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm

    The people in the “Byzantine” Empire called themselves Romans:

    https://www.friesian.com/notcall.htm

    Myths about the “Fall of Rome”:

    https://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm

    Rome, Romania, and “Roman Catholic”:

    https://www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm

  126. This is exactly why free speech, and sites like Unz, are essential. People need to question what they’ve been led to take for granted. Once you begin to look at it, there’s surprisingly little “evidence” for most historical claims. It’s quite liberating to realize that, which is why no Church or State wants you to have the chance.

    To paraphrase George Costanza (a Latvian Orthodox convert), history is like an onion: the more you peel it, the more it stinks.

    That said, the most important substantive point made is right at the beginning: the most characteristic feature of Christians is their propensity for forgery; they even invented their own term for it: pious fraud. Ehrman himself staunchly defends the historical existence of Jesus, but only after admitting that every single document in the NT is a pious fraud.

    Once you realize that, you realize that anything you hear from a Christian has to be assumed to be false, until proven otherwise. Sort of like the testimony of a pedophile priest.

    And yes, from Peter’s visit to Rome, to the filoque clause, to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the Latin Church has specialized in just making stuff up, far beyond the Orthodox.

  127. @First Millennium Revisionist

    Here. We specifically believe the following:

    [MORE]

    We believe in one God,
    the Father, the Almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    and of all that is, seen and unseen.

    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God,
    eternally begotten of the Father,
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made,
    one in Being with the Father.
    Through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation,
    he came down from heaven:
    by the power of the Holy Spirit
    he was born of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.

    For our sake he was crucified
    under Pontius Pilate;
    he suffered died and was buried.

    On the third day he rose again
    in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
    he ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead,
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    We believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the
    Father and the Son.
    With the Father and the Son
    he is worshipped and glorified.
    He has spoken through the Prophets.
    We believe in one holy
    catholic and apostolic Church.
    We acknowledge one
    baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
    We look for the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the world to come.

    Amen.

    https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm

  128. @GMC

    You bring up a very interesting point viz. Isis and history. My understanding is that this goes back even further to Iraq War 2 where physical artifacts were strategically pilfered from Museums and private collections. The Iraqi people and the world has lost access to these treasures and for what? Who has them, why did they want them and what secrets do they tell? The extent of this issue is not even widely known or understood such are the benefits of controlling the press in a war zone.

    As far as this article is concerned I don’t have any doubt that people routinely attempt to influence history. Every age sees a myriad of groups with agendas.
    Just like this author. His thesis is extremely fanciful.

    It would have been beneficial to Christianity to have remained uniform in doctrine. The Orthodox-Latin split was unfortunate and the product of vanity and arrogance, in my opinion, by Rome. Even more unfortunate has been the modern destruction of Eastern Christianity in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. Islam, the so called religion of peace, and its representatives, ISIS and Al Quaida, have certainly been busy this last decade yet nary a peep from the ‘leaders’ of the West!
    Simply atrocious and incredible behaviour.
    Why, by the responses of Macron, Merkel, Sarkozy, Bush2, Obamma, Trump, May and Donmeh Johnson you7 might mistake them for Jews or Muslims! What bizarre behaviour from ‘leaders of the West’ !!!

  129. Vinnie O says:
    @runeulv

    You are, without a doubt, nutso. Have a nice day.

  130. dexatron says:

    Ron, I can’t see how you can leave this article up without a big disclaimer… author being charlatan or something worse. To attack history like this is just embarrassing and an insult to critical thinkers. Of course history has its forgers/fakers but fudge, this takes the cake.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  131. John Long says:

    The Nicene Creed .
    Look it up.
    It is my profession of faith.

    To most of the world it’s silly. I get that. I don’t care.

    I am on my journey not yours.

    You’re not talking to a man who hasn’t had his doubts. My life has been filled with tragedies from a young age. One of the few places I find peace is during the Mass.

    The Roman Catholic Church’s history is filled with saints and sinners. Why don’t you study the Saints of the Church a bit more? They’ve done more to correct the Church than your little hit piece will ever do.

    If you weren’t so frightened or angry about the power of the Church as an institution, I doubt you would even care about its history.

    Look inside your soul. What are you afraid of?

  132. American Citizen 2.0 says:
    @Ano4

    Not ludicrous and not just “because reasons”… one book that very strongly influenced my thinking on these matters, i.e. the power of the KGB in Cold War Europe to invent and revise history especially pertaining to the Catholic Church and it’s power in Poland, is “Disinformation” by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, a Soviet defector. He explains in detail how numerous disinformation campaigns that the Soviets created developed over time. The Russians still have all of the old KGB archives and Putin himself was a KGB agent. The fact that they changed the name of the organization after the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn’t mean that it ceased to exist. They could put all of the speculation about KGB influence to rest if they would just declassify and release all of the old KGB archives from Soviet times since the Soviet Union no longer exists anyway. But of course we all know they never will do that, and that’s why so many people in the West still refer to KGB conspiracies. Whatever they were doing back then, their records are still secret and all the same people seem to still be in power. I doubt they just dropped what they were working on before and took up new projects after the Soviet government collapsed.

    • Disagree: Ano4
    • Replies: @Ano4
  133. @Robjil

    The issue of the Third Temple may seem trivial but it has massive symbolic and practical significance.
    Currently, there is no place on this planet that allows large scale animal sacrifice. Around 5 years ago, in Nepal-an extremely corrupt place afaik-there was a massive animal sacrifice of as many as 2 million animals. This was a ‘one-off’.
    Now, what I am about to explain is difficult for the western mind to grasp but here it is. The reason Christianity developed in the Eastern Med was due to ripe conditions. The Romans, though brutal in warfare at times, were quite fair people. They destroyed Carthage. Our history would have been very different if not for this event. In Carthage, and this has been proven by recent archaeology and advanced testing, child sacrifice was part of their religion. They worshiped Moloch. Imagine the history of the last 2 millennia if they had been dominant?
    Despite criticisms of Christianity, it is a fact that it changed human behaviour for the better. Christ rejected the meaningless rituals of his religion and focused on the essence: our relationship to our fellow man and to God. This transformed societies. It was no longer ok to abandon female babies to the elements or for males to sodomize male slaves/prostitutes or those in an inferior social position or to kill. Early Christians were often vegan as they shunned meat that had been sacrificied. It is beyond a doubt that Christianity produced a far better world than if Carthage/Phoenecians had brought the world Moloch and child sacrifice.
    What has existed on this planet over the last 2500 years- since Buddha and Jesus came to teach peace, love and tolerance-is giving way. We are entering a world that will be a spiritual Dark Age. Brought to you by the Synagogue of Satan, The Black Nobiltiy, FreeMasonry and other demented minds. These are the people who want tolerance for LGBTP because it acts as a Trojan Horse for a myriad of degeneracy. At the rate we are headed you can expect Supreme Court challenges for animal sacrifice within a decade. Lowering the age of consent, bestiality and pedophilia are on the agenda as well.

    Once they can began to offer BLOOD SACRIFICES to the demons they worship, the lunatics will gain more power. Blood is food for demons. This is why Christianity is under attack. Islam has blood sacrifice built in through the doctrine of jihad. Everywhere Islam has gone blood has flowed in the millions of deaths. Communism has been the modern replacement with 100 million deaths in a century. The last thing we need on this planet is increased blood flow.
    Only an evil, demonic mind would wish for such a thing.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  134. @Digital Samizdat

    The Romans were very tolerant of foreign religions. Isis had a following not just in Egypt but also in Rome, Marseille and other parts of the Empire. In fact, the images of Isis and Horus may very well have made it easier to spread Christ and Mary. Just change some minor details in a frescoe and viola!

    Nevertheless, I do see your point.

    • Thanks: Digital Samizdat
  135. FB says: • Website
    @American Citizen 2.0

    If you look up ‘fossil fuel’ you find that this notion was first proposed by the scientific community, such as it was in the 1700s…long before the advent of the rigorous science of thermodynamics [or even the periodic table], which today tells us that the formation of the long hydrocarbon molecular chains in petroleum can only be produced under very high heat and pressure…

    Neither the heat nor the pressure required exists near the earth’s surface where oil is supposed to have miraculously formed from biomass…those kinds of levels of heat and pressure are much deeper in the earth’s crust, and where no life could have possibly existed under those conditions…

    Look at the Fischer Tropf process for converting gas derived from coal or biomass into liquid hydrocarbons…

    These reactions occur in the presence of metal catalysts, typically at temperatures of 150–300 °C (302–572 °F) and pressures of one to several tens of atmospheres.

    As for the idea that decaying organic matter was shifted down by tectonic movement and erosion as you suggest, so that now we are pulling up oil from ten kilometer deep wells [Al Shaheen in Qatar is 12.3 km deep]…that is quite fantastic in light of the very developed science of stratigraphy…

    So called ‘fossil’ petroleum is supposed to be about 650 million years old…that is not very deep in the geological stratum, in fact quite near the surface, and is why that fossil record is easily accessible…where we don’t have to dig very far…

    Now this 300 year old postulation requires us to believe that biomass that existed on the surface originally was then somehow forced down to depths of many many kilometers where temperatures and pressures were high enough for the required thermochemical reactions to take place…and then was pushed back up again to within a few hundred feet of the surface where we could easily get at it…?

    Or is this whole likely story a useful tool for browbeating scientifically uneducated people with scary ideas about energy scarcity and catastrophic global warming that each day appear more likely to serve a purely political purpose…?

    • Thanks: Jazman
  136. Jorge Videla [AKA "yt bulger"] says:

    i feel sorry for those who deny history which has only been written in phones…

    like there’s a legit interpretation of history other than the nat soc interpretation…



  137. David says:
    @All we like sheep

    If you have a citation for Augustine’s affair with a 12 year old…

    It’s mistake to judge one age by the values of another. And that’s true even when in possession of actual knowledge of the remoter age, let alone without.

    Augustine’s mother was raised a Christian and remained one all her life.

    You don’t seem to know much about Augustine or Monica. I wonder why you have such strong opinions about them.

    • Replies: @All we like sheep
  138. Vinnie O says:

    Ya got a LOT of minor typos. I’m assuming yer gonna clean that up at some point.

  139. anarchyst says:
    @FB

    Far from being “fossil fuel”, hydrocarbons are not only plentiful but are being renewed by yet-unknown processes deep within the earth.
    The term “fossil fuel” was coined in the 1950s when little was known about the processes by which oil is produced. Oil is “abiotic” in nature, as even depleted oil wells are “filling back up” from deep below the earth’s surface.
    Oil interests are drilling wells at 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 15,000 feet and deeper, and coming up with oil deposits way below the layers and levels where “fossils” were known to exist.
    As Russia gained much expertise in deep-well drilling and coming up with oil deposits far deeper than that of the level of “fossils”, abiotic oil at extreme depths was actually a Russian ‘state secret” for a long time.
    Not only that, but there are planetary bodies in which hydrocarbons are naturally occurring (without fossils).
    “Peak oil” and “fossil fuels” are discredited concepts that environmentalists and others are latching on to, in order to display their hatred of oil being a renewable resource as well as to push prices up.
    Follow the money.

  140. Vinnie O says:

    I would have to do some digging to get the assumed dates, but SOMEBODY came north and messed with the various Celtic and Germanic folk before 100 AD. We keep digging up Romanish artifacts all over the place. And of course there are minor things like Hadrian’s Wall. Roman artifacts are still regularly found in the dirt of the wall itself. And they ain’t from 1000 AD… And they found the “battlefield” (massacre site) where the Germans wiped out a Roman Legion. Again, the artifacts have been dated to when Roman histories say it occurred.

    But I’m willing to be convinced. I’ve read a lot about what was REALLY going on the Mid-East prior to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, and the level of documented fakery is mind-blowing. (Hint: archeologists have GIVEN UP looking for ancient curb stones or pavers for ANY road in the Greater Jerusalem area. It’s QUITE new, compared with, say, the Egyptians (who NEVER called their KING “pharaoh”, and neither did ANYONE else…)

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @lloyd
    , @lloyd
  141. @syonredux

    Rather than childish name-calling, more effective criticism might be to point out any defects in facts or reasoning that you observe. The article does not seem idiotic to me.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @syonredux
  142. @V. K. Ovelund

    I’ll have to get back to you on that.

    I’d like to provide you with something definitive at first.

    Cheers!

  143. @Ano4

    Very interesting, I’ll look into that, Ano4.

    Cheers!

  144. @Ron Unz

    I’m glad I have found this comment before asking why you are wasting time on such stuff when a link to

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29?wprov=sfla1

    would be better preparatory reading for a self isolates’ online Trivial Pursuits trournament. Writing as one who can’t get by on two hours sleep a night I hope you have some good reason – diagnostic perhaps? – for spending your and our time on this (to us) anonymous crap.

    • Thanks: American Citizen 2.0
  145. Seraphim says:
    @Christophe GJ

    Indeed, he displays a total ignorance of Orthodoxy (therefore of ‘Russian’ Orthodoxy as well). He seems to believe that the ‘gnostic’ heresy of ‘Sophianism’ of Soloviov, Bulgakov, Florenski, very popular among French ‘intellectuals’ is representative of the ‘Russian’ Orthodoxy. Actually what he tries to suggest is that ‘Gnosticism’ is the real ‘Christianity’ stifled and persecuted by the Church infiltrated by the worshipers of the psychopath, jealous, genocidal Yahweh.
    More significant about the attitude of the Russians towards the ‘West’ than the erection of a statue to Joan of Arc, is the introduction in the Synaxarion of all the ‘western’ saints (up to the Schism, of course). So, Russians venerate Saint Patrick as well!

    • Replies: @Ano4
  146. @John Long

    When you are dead and your brain has disintegrated how will there be a person that can identify as the “I” of your comment?

    • Replies: @John Long
  147. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pft

    Here is a short bit on Jewish history after the destruction of the First Temple:

    “The first Judaean kingdom had disappeared when the Babylonians, infuriated with the ongoing revolts of their recent conquest, deported some Jews in 597 BC and then, when rebellions continued, destroyed the First Temple, “Solomon’s Temple,” which, in 587 BC, they judged to be the source of the unrest. Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein says that “in the Babylonian and Persian periods, Hebrew writing disappears from the archaeological record… This means that not a single inscription has been found for the period between 586 and circa 350 BC—not an ostracon nor a seal, not a seal impression nor a bulla! Scribal activity declined—and significantly so—until the next surge in writing in the second century BC. This should come as no surprise: the destruction of Judah brought about the collapse of the kingdom’s bureaucracy and deportation of many of the educated intelligentsia—the literati; the remainees in the land were hardly capable of producing written documents.” Yet a Second Temple—under high Persian patronage— was rebuilt in 516 BC after Cyrus the Persian conquered the Near East in 539 BC. And if the archaeological record is blank, nevertheless there is a paper trail with the writing of the Torah by Ezra, although perhaps Finkelstein, understandably, thinks the Torah was written not in 397 BC, but in ages past. Yet, the “Passover Papyrus” was discovered in 1907 on the island of Elephantine, a fortress on the Nile in Upper Egypt, then opposite Aswan. This is a letter, written in Aramaic, sent to the Jewish garrison on the island, which had a Jewish temple where animals were sacrificed. The letter cites the year five of the reign of Darius II (r. 424 – 404 BC) which means that it was written 419 BC. It was sent by a Jew named Hananiah and was addressed to his “brother” Jedoniah and the rest of the Jews garrisoned at Elephantine. It is instructions on how to observe a seven day “Feast of Unleavened Bread.” This is today fundamental to Pharisee Judaism but the letter shows that it was then still unknown. Does that mean that these Jews— in Egypt— had never heard that Moses led the Jews out of Egypt in the Exodus? Indeed, “Pesakh,” meaning “compassion,” the sacrifice of the Easter lamb, already existed. Now a new ritual called, in translation—“Passover”—was being added, the meal of unleavened bread to support the idea that there was a series of plagues which had once “passed over” the Jews in Egypt followed by a hasty flight—hence the “unleavened bread.” This means that not only were the Elephantine Jews being informed—only in in 419 BC, of a new ritual, but they also were being informed that that the “Exodus” was about to take place. This “Exodus” was one of the items that Ezra was to announce in Jerusalem in 397 at the first reading of the newly created Torah. And what were the Jews doing in Elephantine in the first place? It would seem that, as described in the Book of Jeremiah, when the Jewish nomenklatura went to Babylon in 587, the Jewish army—which had been carrying out the revolts against the Babylonians— went to Egypt and hired themselves out as mercenaries. Getting them to come back when Ezra showed up in Jerusalem was what the Exodus was all about.”

    If you want more, and a mega revision of Christianity, look at “Second Coming of the Judeo-Zoroastrian Jesus of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

    • Replies: @lloyd
  148. Seraphim says:
    @Vinnie O

    I was wandering when the good doctor Ashraf Ezzat would come into the picture.

  149. @dexatron

    Ron, I can’t see how you can leave this article up without a big disclaimer… author being charlatan or something worse. To attack history like this is just embarrassing and an insult to critical thinkers. Of course history has its forgers/fakers but fudge, this takes the cake.

    The media are overflowing with tiresome, conceited, self-appointed fact checkers and gate keepers. Do you really want Ron Unz to become another one of those?

  150. lloyd says: • Website
    @Vinnie O

    After a cursory read of this article, its conclusion that the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Germanic Roman Empire were the same in space and chronology, recalls to me the Zionist Velikovsky. In the 1950s, he wrote his best seller books, Age In Chaos etc. They make the claim that ancient Egyptian and Biblical history were the same. Queen Sheba was Queen Hatsheput. The Exodus is reported in ancient Egyptian text, The Lamentation of Ipuwer. The Hittites never existed but are identified with the Assyrians.. Facinating stuff but it had disastrous affect on some people. His basic claims are now completely discredited. Finally, there was an academic conference at a major American University. Carl Sagan went through his cosmic claims, ancient history scholars through his history claims. His own followers deserted him and he is now forgotten even in fringe history. I am one of the few who still defend him. But I think he got it around the wrong way. The author of Exodus read The Lamentation of Ipuwer and twisted it into Exodus. The Egyptian sections of Old Testament are entirely based on Ancient Egyptian writings. Moses is a conflation of travellor Sinhue and founder of Eighteenth dynasty Ahmose. I think a smiliar thing should be done with this trickster and others. Western history rests on the foundations he is undermining. But Western culture is now terrified of its own shadow.

    • Replies: @Vinnie O
    , @Ron Unz
  151. lloyd says: • Website
    @Vinnie O

    I have read the name Pharaoh is derived from the ancient Egyptian word for Palace. It is conceivable the ancient Hebrews found documents giving orders from the Palace or “white house” of Egypt to the Palestine dominions of Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt. Orders from head office. The scripture authors ingeniously made that the name of the Ancient Egyptian King to distinguish him from the lesser Kings. They didn’t call the Kings of Assyria and Babylon Kings either.

    • Replies: @Vinnie O
  152. @gay troll

    Because it was translated from the Hebrew in the C3rd CE.

    • Replies: @gay troll
  153. Vinnie O says:
    @lloyd

    Um, NOPE. “Pharas” or some such was the name of a “king” on the coast of Arabia FROM WHICH THE HEBREWITES COME. NO ONE in the ancient world, including the Egyptians, ever called the head honcho anything other than the equivalent of “king”. We gots LOTS of examples of THAT. All note that there were NEVER any CAMELS in Egypt (until the Arabs brought them 1,000 years later) and Egyptians did NOT have slaves. The ARABS, from whom the Hebrewites are descended, of course had LOTS of slaves. So the Bible is describing the VERY late migration (NOT “return”) of some Arabs to the middle of an empty hill in Palestine. There was NEVER any great kings called “Solomon” or “David”. The WHOLE thing is fake.

  154. Vinnie O says:
    @lloyd

    I’m assuming we read different books. When Herodotus, The Father of History, toured the Mid-East, he saw NOTHING of ANY Hebrew settlement in the area of what is now Jerusalem. The Old Testament is an odd collection of stuff copied from OTHER PEOPLE’S HISTORY, and stuff the incoming Arabs thought would make them sounds cool to people didn’t know better.

  155. seeuhay says:

    You morons here think that all this is for real – a genuine debate on merit of the thesis. I am truly shocked how a single piece of rotten cannon fodder can trigger such a massive circle jerk among people of otherwise impeccable psychomotoric skills. Nobody gives a single f**k what happened a month ago, and you care about a thousand years ago?

    Read Dostoevsky and Tolstoi as case studies of the schizophrenic pseudo-intelligentsia, those seeing things that nobody else can. And chew on that one a bit.

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  156. This is the 2nd crap article written by this dude in a month. God Damnit Ronny Unz- did you let this place turn into a nerd fan fiction website? Terrible.

  157. Did any of you old phaarrrts actually watch season 2? That New Pope intro song and segment was hot. An absolute audio-visual banger. That is art, Italian style. It had me Italian fist pumping because it’s in my DNA. Twas Perfecto. Do you even watch bro?! Get some. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtibwyWwEoE

  158. @American Citizen 2.0

    How did the Anglo-Saxons and Irish get converted to Catholicism in the Dark Ages before any of these forgeries existed?

    Indeed. The mission of St Augustine of Canterbury took place in the 7th Century AD. He was sent to England by Pope Gregory the Great. While the author may argue about the details, the English certainly did convert to Christianity.

    The other part of St Augustine’s mission was to bring the Celtic Church in Wales and Ireland under the authority of Rome. Ireland had been Christian since the 5th Century AD!

    Visigothic Spain was Christian before it was conquered by the Moors in the 8th Century.

    Etc …

    • Thanks: American Citizen 2.0
  159. lloyd says: • Website
    @Anon

    I have just read The Feast of Unleavened Bread. It not only doesn’t mention plagues. It doesn’t even mention Moses. The reason for the ritual is not mentioned. Maybe it was self evident. It marked the seven days creation of the world. Moses and the Plagues are not mentioned in the Old Testament except in the Books from Exodus to Joshua. The Books of Chronicles completely ignores the sojourn in Egypt. Moses is mentioned twice in New Testament briefly in visitation to Jesus and a comment by Paul. There are a couple of dubious sources from non Jewish writings. My personal feeling is the Moses books in Old Testament were written by Philo of Alexandria. There is no original Hebrew version. He negotiated unsuccessfully with contemporary Pharaoh Caligula and was described as a scholar of Ancient Egypt.

    • Replies: @ivan
  160. This is shocking. My whole understanding of historical facts have now come under questioning.
    If written history is anything at all like fake disinformation, propaganda, censorship, shaming, lockdown, social distancing, mask wearing etc., now taking place throughout advanced civilization, then we truly are the most misinformed species to have ever walked upon planet earth or traveled as vital dust across the universe.

  161. John Long says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Do you believe that the brain and flesh make you who you are?

    Answer me this: Where does consciousness come from? Heartache, love, joy, sorrow, empathy? Evolution? Please.

    I believe that Jesus arose from the dead. He defeated the greatest evil known to mankind: Death

    Life continues.

    However, I concede you make a good point. I hope to be with him in everlasting life; there will be no need for the “I” there.

  162. This reads like Ancient Aliens, I could even hear suspenseful music playing in the background during all the authors hasty generalizations and non sequiturs. He even gets facts wrong nearly as often as the Ancient Alien narrator did.

  163. ivan says:
    @lloyd

    Isn’t that good enough? Does the person of Moses have to be invoked in every book in the Bible before we can accept his existence?

  164. Biff says:

    Lots of “lies that are agreed upon” around here, but I do happen to agree with this paragraph(or lie if you happen to think so):

    Geographically, we might as well position ourselves at the center of the world we are seeking to understand. That center was not Rome. Despite Roman propaganda praising the Mirabilia Urbis Romae (“the wonders of the city of Rome”) in the tenth and eleventh centuries, the political, economic, cultural and religious center of the civilization that included Rome, was Constantinople (with Alexandria in second position).

    When I was in college I had a Polish guy in my department(not sure if he could speak fluent Latin, but he could certainly name everything in the physical world with the proper Latin term), and he spent most of his spare time reading about the ancient Byzantine empire. His assessment also put Constantinople as the center of western civilization of that period.

  165. In my view nobody does a better job destroying the underpinnings of Church history than Joseph
    Atwill’s Caesars Messiah, Jesus was just the most successful wartime false flag op of all time.

  166. utu says:

    I anticipate that in the Part III or IV the ‘New Chronology’ of Fomenko will be explicitly introduced by the anonymous author (THE FIRST MILLENNIUM REVISIONIST) and even the most obtuse readers will be able to begin to discern the true Russian political motivations behind this pseudo-history project (nonsense) constructed for the consumption of butt-hurt Russians. But if you want to fast forward I recommend reading

    Lomonosov’s Bastards: Anatolii Fomenko, Pseudo-History and Russia’s Search for a Post-Communist Identity

    which is doctoral dissertation of Konstantin Sheiko (2004).

    https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1222&context=theses

    You will see why Fomenko had to erase 1000 or more years of history of the West to make room for the glorious Russian Horde.

    Here are several excerpts:

    Of you, there are millions.
    Of us, hordes, hordes and hordes
    Just try to fight with us!
    Yes we are Scythians! Yes we are Asiatics! With slanting and greedy eyes.

    Alexander Blok, ‘The Scythians’, 1918

    For Fomenko, the German cultural invasion known as the Academy of Science was an especially significant development because now, for the first time, history was written in the allegedly professional form that has reached us in the present day. The fabrication of Russian history, that is, the writing out of history of the Russian Horde and its replacement with the myth of first Viking and then Mongol conquerors of Russia, can be dated from this period.

    Lomonosov entertained similar grandiose fantasies.

    Lomonosov took issue with the idea that the Slavs were backward prior to Riurik and claimed that the Varangians as we call them today were actually people of Slavic ancestry. More implausibly, Lomonosov traced the Russians deep into ancient history. Ancient Slavs or proto-Russians, Lomonosov insisted, participated in such great historic events as the defense of ancient Troy, and the destruction of Rome by the eastern hordes. Troy was certainly a popular starting point in the eighteenth century.

    Ancient Russian empire:

    Fomenko trawled through the history of Eurasia, Byzantium, and Rome to show that historians all around the world appropriated the achievements of Russians to boost the prestige of their own national history. Arguably, Fomenko’s greatest achievement is the invention of a Slav-Turk empire that allegedly dominated the first half of world history, that is, until the seventeenth century. This ‘Russian Horde’ as Fomenko named it, was based in the area that we normally associate with the Golden Horde founded by the Mongol khans in the thirteenth century.

    Anti Russian forgery of history includes covering up the conquest of Vienna to erase glorious Russian past:

    After the Turkic conquest of Vienna was covered up by a humiliated West, Saint Stefan cathedral was purged of all signs that it was conquered, and the symbols of the Russian Horde consigned to the museums, ignored by the historians until Fomenko’s expert eye rediscovered them. Just as importantly for Fomenko, the ancient drawings of the siege of Vienna of 1529 clearly show the presence of Christians among the Turkic troops –regiments march under banners depicting crosses. As is well known, Sueliman the Magnificent had a Greek general, Bulgarian miners and countless Christian soldiers in his army. For Fomenko, a perfect example of a successful combined Turkic and Orthodox war against the Catholic West.

    Nothing new in Russia. Morozov as Fomenko’s precursor:

    In 1924-1932 Morozov published his last and most comprehensive work, the seven-volume Khristos…Morozov claimed with good reason that ancient sources used by historians were rarely originals. Instead all we have are copies of copies. For Morozov, these were most likely written during the Renaissance. The so-called Dark Ages that linked classical civilization to the Middle Ages were understandably opaque to the early moderns. According to Morozov, these centuries never existed. They were a figment of the West’s imperial imagination.

    Fomenko is not an isolated phenomenon in Russia:

    Iaroslav Kesler is a Professor of Chemistry at Moscow University who argues that
    modern history has been falsified to deny the existence of a Slavic-speaking world empire whose center was Constantinople. The culture of Europe was Slavic until the seventeenth century. On the other hand, the Slavs fell under the sway of the Turks at that time; Peter the Great paid tribute to the Ottoman sultan, who was the most powerful ruler in Europe. Wars between Sweden, Poland and Russia in the eighteenth century represented conflict between the shards of the disintegrating Empire. While its military power rose and fell, Russia has always been the bearer of a higher form of civilization.

    The Jews in Spain were not Jews but part of Russian Horde troops:

    The Jews living in Spain in the fifteenth century were not Jews in any religious sense but bogobortsy who served the Slav-Turk Tsar or Great Khan. The khans themselves were the generals or tsars (Caesars) of the Russian Horde, that is, its military wing. The civilian wing of the Russian Horde was under the sway of the princes led by a Grand Prince.

    It is no coincidence for Fomenko that at the beginning of August 1492, one day prior to the commencement of Columbus’s first journey, tens of thousands of Jews were banished from their homes by the Spanish authorities. As Fomenko speculates, the Spanish Jews were the bogobortsy of the Russian Horde. They were not banished because of an Inquisition but were soldiers temporarily based in Spain as they prepared for a long and arduous military mission on behalf of the Russian tsar-khan.

    Christopher Columbus was Cossack working for the Russian Horde:

    Christopher Columbus claimed the new world in the name of his imperial backers. These backers were not Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain but the Russian Horde.

    Most likely, Fomenko claims, Columbus was a Cossack. A miniature from the book De Insulis inventis published in Basel in 1493 depicts, at least to Fomenko’s satisfaction, a bearded Columbus in typically Cossack or traditional Turkic dress (see Figure Three).

    The chief objective of Fomenko/KGB operation: Soviet Union occupied the same territory as the Russian Horde empire. And pretty much everybody there was Russian:

    By stressing the fact that the Slavic-Turkic empire occupied approximately the same territories as the former Soviet Union Fomenko indirectly lays claim to the former Soviet colonies, not in the name of the Great Russian nation as it had been done before, but rather on behalf of a multi- cultural, bilingual mixed-ethnic Russian Horde. Upon closer investigation, it turns out that, according to Fomenko, the majority of ancient tribes living on the territory of the former Soviet Union were Russians. Khazars Pechenegs, Polovtsy, and Genghis Khan were, in the end, Slavs. In the patriotic Russian imagination, it does not get much better than this.

  167. ariadna says:

    It is surprising that someone of Ron Unz’ intelligence and culture has been taken in by the false history woven by the Western world.
    The so-called glory that was Greece and grandeur that was Rome is a fairy tale. I am convinced of it now after reading this erudite article by the anonymous (probably out of modesty) author.

    The false history of the Western world was part of a vast forgery conspiracy. A clever one, I’ll grant them this much. I remember years ago visiting Ephesus where, on the marble wall of the Library an inscription in ancient Greek said (according to the guide, because I have less Greek than Shakespeare but a lot more Latin than he), something like: “The fury of Hekate shall be unleashed upon those who urinate on this wall.” Chiseled in marble! At the time I only thought how much effort it must have taken back then to be a graffiti artist but now I realize it was surely done far more recently with power tools.

    Renowned researchers, experts in forgery and plagiarism—like Alan Dershowitz(1), Joan Peters, and Judith Miller, to cite just a few—would unhesitatingly support the thesis of this brilliant author’s article.

    I do believe now, having read this incredible article, that the Parthenon (Acropolis) was built in the early Middle Ages, not as a temple but as a ruin, to fool the masses. I would not be surprised if an inscription made by the forgers were to be found on a column that says “495 BC”… that would end the discussion!

    The global movements extending from BLM and Antifa demand that the Arch of Titus in Rome, which supposedly has been standing there for two thousand years, should be destroyed because one of its panels depicts the triumphal parade displaying the loot obtained from the Roman capture of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Yeshiva University senior Michael Weiner wrote in The Forward that “…like Columbus, Robert E. Lee, and King Leopold II, it too must come down. There is no excuse for Italy to maintain, fund, and proudly display a structure that celebrates the destruction of Jerusalem, the forced displacement of the Jews of Judea, and the burning of the Temple… As an ancient propaganda tool to glorify Rome’s bloody conquests and a modern emblem of Christian persecution and Jewish subjugation, the Arch of Titus is a cruel symbol.”
    Apparently Mr Weiner has not been informed that no Roman Empire ever existed and thus there was no burning of the Temple by the Romans. The fire seems to have been caused by a cow that overturned a lantern, a fact long ago immortalized in popular Jewish songs like this one:
    “Late one night, when we were all in bed,
    Mrs. Levy lit a lantern in the shed.
    Her cow kicked it over,
    Then winked her eye and said,
    “There’ll be a hot time in the
    old town tonight!”
    The Arch of Titus was most likely placed there in the Middle Ages too.

    Interestingly, in parallel with the Western world’ efforts to concoct and disseminate a history that never existed, there is also trend that attempts to falsify Jewish history a rébours, claiming that the Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt, that there is no basis for the truths faithfully chronicled in the Tora and that the majority of today’s jews are in fact descendants of a Turkic ethnic group maligned as highway robbers and thieves who lived in Khazaria.
    Sadly, these conspiracy theorists are not only a bunch of Arabs whose festering hostility towards jews gives them a strong bias,(2,3) but also Jews who brought their tainted grain of sand (no pun intended) to the falsification of Jewish history (4), some as deniers, others as cautious skeptics.
    What can explain this? Enfants terribles craving attention, bless their hearts!

    I hope this author will follow up with an equally brilliant foray into the millenary Jewish history.
    ———————
    1. Alan Dershowitz: Lugen und Hasbarakeit, Zeitschrift für Uns, Gewält Verlag, Tammuz 29, 5750.
    2. Kamal Salibi: Secrets vow the Bible People, Interlink Books,1988.
    3. Kamal Salibi: The Historicity of Biblical Israel, NABU Publications, London, 1998.
    4. Shlomo Sand: The Invention of the Jewish People, Verso, 2009.

    • LOL: kerdasi amaq
  168. utu says:
    @utu

    Review of Konstantin Sheiko and Stephen Brown: “History as Therapy: Alternative History and Nationalist Imaginings in Russia, 1991-2014” (2014). To be published in Slavonica 21:1 (2015)

    https://www.academia.edu/15230877/Review_of_Konstantin_Sheiko_and_Stephen_Brown_History_as_Therapy_Alternative_History_and_Nationalist_Imaginings_in_Russia_1991-2014_2014_._To_be_published_in_Slavonica_21_1_2015_

    “The activities of these charlatan historians are important to study for two reasons. Firstly, their books are very popular. In copies sold they by far outnumber the publications by professional historians. The reason for this is indicated by the apt title of the book. When still working to overcome the psychological trauma that the dissolution of the superpower, the Soviet Union, meant for a vast number of Russians, history can be used as therapy. Showing that in the old days Russia wielded unrivalled might and glory makes it easier to claim that Russia of today has a rightful place as a global great power, and that it will, due to its inherent greatness and moral superiority, take up that dominant position again.”

    “Secondly, these sentiments fit well with the general direction of policies associated with Vladimir Putin over the past fifteen years or so. During his presidential tenures, as well as his four years as Prime Minister when Dmitrii Medvedev was filling in for him, the assertiveness of Russian foreign policy has grown and the international climate has almost come to approach a Cold War chill. In this context, the writings of the alternative historians have moved away from the lunatic fringe of pseudo-academia to a central position in Russia’s mainstream political debates. This is an alarming development and I wish that the authors of this volume had dwelt on it more. They do give a thorough account of the arguments of the alternative historians, but only rarely show how the claims of alternative history have been used in political discourse and by prominent political actors, including Putin himself”

    • Thanks: ivan
    • Replies: @utu
  169. Ron Unz says:
    @lloyd

    After a cursory read of this article, its conclusion that the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Germanic Roman Empire were the same in space and chronology, recalls to me the Zionist Velikovsky.

    Actually, the nutty theories of Velikovsky also came to my mind when I read over this, though as I vaguely recall they were even crazier. I think he had Venus colliding with the Earth or something like that, thereby causing the events of the Bible, before it eventually settled down into its current orbit.

    But I find it *very* difficult to believe that anyone even remotely took Velikovsky seriously enough to organize an academic conference. I think he was usually grouped with Astrology and UFOs.

    The bottom line is that 95% or 98% of the time, what you read in your standard history textbooks and in the NYT/WSJ is more or less correct, if perhaps a little slanted, and it takes a great deal of time and effort to determine the 2% or the 5% in which that’s not the case.

    • Agree: Not Only Wrathful
    • Replies: @Biff
    , @lloyd
    , @Sparkylyle92
  170. syonredux says:
    @Sparkylyle92

    Rather than childish name-calling,

    Who’s engaging in name-calling? This guy’s making me laugh. I think that’s he’s great, and I’m genuinely looking forward to his next article. Stuff this funny is hard to find.

    more effective criticism might be to point out any defects in facts or reasoning that you observe.

    Are you acquainted with Mary McCarthy’s famous jab at Lillian Hellman?” Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’” Foolishness pervades practically every sentence in “First Millennium Revisionist’s” oeuvre.

    The article does not seem idiotic to me.

    I’m afraid that that is not much of an endorsement……

  171. Seraphim says:
    @seeuhay

    You are right. This is certainly not a “genuine debate on merit of the thesis”. It is obviously meant to “trigger such a massive circle jerk among people of otherwise impeccable psychomotoric skills”. Cannon fodder for the BLM, SJW, LGBTQ+, #Me too, purfendors of the ‘pedophiliac’ Church, anti”Zionists”, feminists, new-ageists, pseudo-“Aryans”, fake “Nazis”, “end of times fanatics” broth, the minions of “the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction” of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor who wants to “destroy Christ’s temple” and rise in its place “the terrible tower of Babel [which] will be built again, and though, like the one of old, it will not be finished”. The ones who, like Dostoevsky Grand Inquisitor will crucify the Christ again and again, because He refused to give them free bread and endless entertainment.
    Yes, read Dostoevsky, again and again. He was a true Orthodox.

  172. Ano4 says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    These guys are businessman now. There is no ideology left, all they want is a piece of the pie. And why would these guys target Catholic Church which is already going down the drain? What they are looking for is natural resources and some high tech, they don’t care about faith, God, ideals they are hard cash only.

    And regarding archives, did CIA open its non-redacted archives to the whole world to dig into ’em? Rethorical question. Of course not, the juiciest morsels are still classified.

    About Christian faith, the original sources are shady and written like 100 years after the events. I remember reading the Prologomena of the Desert Fathers and thinking that we really did not know how we got the monastic tradition going in the Christendom, while we know pretty well how it started in Buddhist tradition and Hinduism. Despite the Indian monastic traditions being a 1000 years older than the Christian one.

    It is just normal for reasonable people to doubt all this narrative…

    • Replies: @American Citizen 2.0
  173. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    Bart Ehrman writes with Jew approval in mind.
    This author’s version of history paid for by Jew.
    Take the words for what they are worth.
    Roach food.

  174. Until the printing press in the 15th Century, there was NO scholarship. A few rich people had a few scrolls, but political lies ruled. Now with the internet, the scholarship before that, seems light. Degrees before and after the internet should be weighed differently.

  175. Ano4 says:
    @Seraphim

    Actually what he tries to suggest is that ‘Gnosticism’ is the real ‘Christianity’ stifled and persecuted by the Church infiltrated by the worshipers of the psychopath, jealous, genocidal Yahweh.

    But this is exactly what happened. The Jews domesticated Christianism which went from a rejection of the Law of YHWH to a mildly philosemitic attitude.

    Read the first paragraphs of the Gospel of Philip and see for yourself what was the attitude of the Gnostic Christians towards Judaism. Then open read about the genealogical of Jesus in the NT. Do you see the difference? The favorite disciple of Rabbi Gamaliel did a good job…

    • Agree: kerdasi amaq
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @anon
  176. Biff says:
    @Ron Unz

    The bottom line is that 95% or 98% of the time, what you read in your standard history textbooks and in the NYT/WSJ is more or less correct,

    Meanwhile, I still read my New York Times every morning, and lots of the stuff it regularly publishes seems almost as crazy as the notion that Ancient Greece never existed, and perhaps was fabricated by Venusians.

    There’s a contradiction in there that’s confusing.

    • Replies: @FB
  177. lloyd says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    The conference was held in 1974 at a hotel by AAAS. For general readers, I will explain. The Association For The Advancement Of Science. Carl Sagan attended and addressed the conference. The Velikovsky issue was huge in the sciences as a threat to conventional science. The publisher MacMillan got treatment for publishing him that was in some ways repeated with David Irving’s MacMillan book Hitler’s War. Velikovsky’s reputation never recovered from it. He is however credited with reviving the theory of catastrophism in history. Even Carl Sagan admitted that at times he turned out to be right but most of the time wrong. They should do the same with David Irving. I wonder why not.

  178. utu says:
    @utu

    Russia produced quite a few very successful charlatans:

    Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. (12 August 1831 – 8 May 1891)
    Grigori Rasputin (21 January] 1869 – 30 December 1916)
    Pyotr Demianovich Ouspenskii (5 March 1878 – 2 October 1947)
    George Ivanovich Gurdjieff (28 November 1877 – 29 October 1949)
    Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand ) (January 20 1905 – March 6, 1982)
    Allan Chumak
    Anatoly Kashpirovsky

    Shape-Shifters, Charlatans, and Frauds: Vladimir Nabokov’s Confidence Men
    https://academic.oup.com/camqtly/article/45/1/1/2566401

    Apart from Sheila Fitzpatrick, who has briefly explored the practices of real-life confidence men in the early Soviet period, 14 no one has attempted to show how the conditions which enabled the activities of cheats and embezzlers in post-revolutionary Russia – a complex, dysfunctional bureaucracy, a vast, cumbersome, and deficient infrastructure set in a culture of easy patronage and low-grade corruption – were just as prevalent in the era that preceded it. It is through their exploitation of these very circumstances that the heroes of Gogol’s Dead Souls (1842) and The Government Inspector (1836), for example, are able to perpetrate their deceptions, one cynically engineered, the other inspired by mistaken identity. Chichikov’s ruse in Dead Souls is, as Nabokov describes it, to buy up the

  179. FB says: • Website
    @utu

    Wow…too bad there is not an airplane on fire here…the massive amounts of foam spewing from your dorky mouth could at least be used for something…

    The ‘anonymous’ author here writes regularly on this website and is a bona fide academic…you will notice that he cites a LOT of books and other sources in his endnotes, and precisely ZERO of the authors that you are spazzing out about…

    As for the normal readers here, other commenters have pointed this out but it bears repeating…history is not any kind of science…most of what we are told about events in the distant past is almost certainly complete bullshit…

    Right here on this website we have all kinds of articles about how Hitler dindu nuffin bad during WW2 and it’s all a big lie…well that happened within living memory, a few decades ago…so who is going to guarantee to me that this Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, or the equally hilarious Julius Ceasar or Alexander the Great…

    Every single document we have about these supposed people is of fairly recent vintage, having been copied and recopied [supposedly] from some long lost originals that nobody has ever seen…

    This entire story that we have been taking for granted has been cobbled together in just the last 100 or 200 years…since then archaeology, genetics and linguistics have completely changed the landscape and what we thought we knew about the past…

    It was not that long ago that an attentive minor official in British India noticed that the Sanskrit language bore some remarkable similarities to words in English, which he found quite strange and inexplicable…today we know that the Indo-European languages all sprang from a common ancestor and have remarkable similarities in most of the words we use every day…

    Only extremely stupid people take these stories literally…does anyone believe that women came from a man’s rib…[some still do, apparently]…

    • Agree: Ano4
  180. FB says: • Website
    @Biff

    Just wait until Uncle Ron puts the lampshade on his head and starts dancing the Cucaracha…😂

  181. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Thanks for your response. Your questions cover an enormous amount of ground. I will try to deal with as many as I can in a series of replies. Just to begin with, I have not been in touch with Illig about his theories. He first came to my notice around ten years ago, when I discovered discussion of my doctoral dissertation (on a separate complex of forgeries – or what I argued to be forgeries – associated with the archdiocese of Hamburg-Bremen) on an internet forum devoted to his ideas.

    Here I’ll explain the 857 date for the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries.

    It comes from the acts of a west Frankish assembly-cum-church-council held on 14 February 857. The acts include an extended statement on those who violate the property of churches, which is an important theme in Pseudo-Isidore. This statement includes verbatim citations from three different Pseudo-Isidorian decretal forgeries. You can check this yourself if you go to Wilfried Hartmann, Die Konzilien der karolingischen Teilreiche (MGH Conc. III), p. 393f. Thus, it is considered that by this date the forgeries must surely have been in existence.

    But I appreciate your skepticism: How do we know the council convened at Quierzy in February of 857? The acts themselves carry the date in question in their very first chapter. We also have a separate statement from King Charles the Bald of the western kingdom to emperor Lothar I, dated 1 March 857, in which Charles describes the business of the council that had met a few weeks prior and explains his broader purpose in convening it. A later archivist/chronicler from Reims, namely Flodoard, also summarizes an otherwise lost item of the correspondence of Hincmar of Reims that discusses the synod. I accept that it is possible to dismiss these later references as forgeries as well.

    I would merely point out that the repeated attestation of single events, from different perspectives, across multiple texts, is very typical of our sources for events like the 857 council of Quierzy and would be a very complex thing for someone to forge. This is especially the case when you look at the (admittedly quite abundant) confirmed medieval forgeries, which make all kinds of chronological errors and have no support of this kind. (I guess that in Illig’s theory the master Ottonian forgers, who invented the Phantom Centuries, must also have invented obvious forgeries within their broader forgery.)

    An additional confirmation that Quierzy 857 happened is to be found in the manuscript tradition. It is one of the councils transmitted by a ninth-century codex that may well hail from King Charles the Bald’s own library: New Haven, Beinecke Ms. 413 (Quierzy acts at pages 143-149). I have spent many hours, personally, with this very manuscript, and I invite you to have a look at the high-quality digital images available online:

    https://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3527259

    I am actually far more skeptical of things like palaeographical dates than many of my colleagues, but there is just no disputing that this is a ninth-century codex. The greater part of codices produced in the Carolingian kingdoms after the year 800 are copied in a distinctive script, a product of literary and educational reforms sponsored by Charlemagne, known as Carolingian minuscule. In the decades after it was developed, Carolingian minuscule spread to a wide array of centers throughout Europe and northern Italy and experienced a long, regionally differentiated process of standardization and elaboration. You don’t need to be an arcane expert to appreciate the date of this manuscript: Most students after seeing a few dozen examples will be able to spot a codex like this and see immediately the logic of its date.

    I find it very hard to conceive that codices like these could have been fabricated in the Ottonian era. See, for example, p. 191. The manuscript originally concluded here, at line 14. (Pp. 192-194 were left blank in the ninth century: The text they now bear was added much later. From line 17 on p. 191 the later scribe initially tries to adjust his style to fit the preceding script, I guess for aesthetic reasons, but loses interest in this already a few lines from the bottom of the page.) The latest ninth-century text before the original end of the codex at p. 191 is a capitulary issued in 864. After the originally-blank pp. 192-194, we have p. 195: Here again is a ninth-century Carolingian hand with later capitulary legislation issued in 873. What happened, then, is fairly clear: The codex was initially copied shortly after 864, and then maybe a decade later new folios were appended carrying later legislation from the 870s in a kind of update.

    I have gone into this detail to show that the codex is a very organic piece of evidence, not a later concoction. It was put together over a period of time and internal graphical clues suggest the history of its own little history. This is of a piece with the evidence of its script and aesthetic matters like the distinctive initials. The council of Quierzy happened in 857 and the acts of that council cite Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, so we may be sure that they were around by this date.

    More soon.

  182. @V. K. Ovelund

    The story of St. Patrick running the snakes out of Ireland is thought to be an allegory for the expulsion of what is now the Coptic Church from the island.

    Then, there is the dispute over the reckoning of Easter, which was settled at the Council of Whitby with victory going to the Roman Church.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Patagonia Man
  183. @A Portuguese Man

    Thanks. I was raised a catholic, and remember those words, recited at every mass. Once it occurred to me that I couldn’t any more lie in front of God by uttering those words. I stopped going to mass. And I think that one of the reasons Catholicism is dying is that people don’t like to be asked to lie. At least, to my knowledge, there is no reciting this credo in Orthodox cult.

  184. @gay troll

    In Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord that we possess today, there are numerous historicizing elements including reference to 1st century Judea. However, if Marcion’s heresy of Docetism held that Christ was a spiritual power and had not been made flesh, why would he place Christ in Judea in the time of Pilate? It is reasonable to assume that Marcion’s original gospel was in fact docetic, and was used as a blueprint for the “good news” of Christ contained in the four canonical gospels, which are much more specific in their historical detail than Marcion.

    Good point. Except for a true believer, the birth and success of Christianity is a great mystery: why would Rome make a state religion out of the cult of a Jewish rebel crucified by Rome for sedition, claiming (or claimed) to be the Messiah of God’s Chosen People? It just doesn’t make any sense. That is why, although it seems unprovable, I tend to believe that Christianity is a Judaized form of an earlier cult. What cult? Probably something coming from Persia originally, then called Manichaeism, a pre-Christian form of Gnosticism. Marcionism, like Bogomilism in Bulgaria, was probably part of that vast movement, and so was Catharism (called Manichaeism by the Christian heresiologues). Although Christian heresiologs present Manichaeism (and Marcionism, etc.) as attempts to separate the NT from the OT, form Mani and Marcion’s viewpoint, it was the opposite: Christianity was a Jewish attempt to deform true Gnosticism by making it Jewish. In that way, Christianity is a Jewish trick (Nietzsche). J. Kevin Coyle, Manichaeism and Its Legacy, Brill, 2009 (on books.google): For Mani, “‘Jesus’ is sent from the light-realm to reveal to Adam and Even knowledge (gnosis) of how to obtain salvation. Manichaeism proposed several beings labeled Jesus or Christ, although none of them could authentically be called a saviour, except as the bringer of saving knowledge; and the Jesus central to Christian orthodoxy was considered by Manichaeans a total charlatan, the devil in disguise.” Mani “rejected most of the Old Testament, as well as everything he considered to be ‘Jewish interpolations’ in the New Testament” (p. xiv-xvi). There are signs that the Christian Jesus is a Jewish imitation (and materialization) of Mani’s Christ, and of Mani himself: just like Jesus, Mani was a member of a heterodox baptist sect which he left. At the age of twenty-four, he received a revelation which led him to leave the Baptist sect of his youth and preach a new gospel. Mani had twelve disciples. Mani’s followers depicted Mani’s death as a crucifixion. It is said that Mani reinterpreted the Serpent story of Genesis, by identifying the serpent to the provider of gnosis. It seems to me that, in reality, the Genesis story is an attack on the Gnostic/Mystery myth, and not the opposite.

  185. Seraphim says:
    @Seraphim

    Correction: it is Rom 1:14-16: “I am debtor…”

  186. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    On Fuhrmann and the “anticipatory nature” of forgeries like Pseudo-Isidore. Here I apologize. Fuhrmann writes in German, but your essay cites him according to Illig in English. In trying to work back to the German I misunderstood precisely which of Fuhrmann’s arguments was at issue. Now that I have gotten the link to work, I see that your characterization is fairer to his argument than I thought. You are referring not to his book on the Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries but to his essay “Von der Wahrheit der Fälscher” (Fälschungen im Mittelalter, MGH Schriften 33/I, p. 97).

    There are, as I see it, two claims:

    1) The Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries and other items were not used in the moment they were created, but only centuries later;

    2) they anticipated somehow later developments.

    I have spent a lot of my career defending Fuhrmann’s ideas, but I am not always pleased with how he frames matters. It’s just not true that Pseudo-Isidore wasn’t used or had no effect in his own age. The Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries were deployed early and often against Hincmar of Reims (destroying Hincmar’s career appears to be one of their in-built purposes: and in that they very nearly succeeded), they were received enthusiastically by Pope Nicholas I in the 860s and contributed to Nicholas’s already outsized impressions of his office and its dignity. Pseudo-Isidorian inventions on episcopal translation played a big role in the disputes over the legitimacy of Formosus’s pontificate. But, their broad-scale reception into the canonical tradition (the actual compilations of canon law) was not immediate. Regino, a major compiler who put together his collection in 906, appears almost deliberately to avoid Pseudo-Isidore (perhaps he had his suspicions). On the other hand, the anonymous so-called “Collectio Anselmo dedicata” (the “Collection dedicated to Anselm”) from the end of the ninth century knows Pseuod-Isidore thoroughly and incorporates many items. From there Pseudo-Isidorian material makes its way to Burchard’s Decretum (compiled 1008-1012), one of the major pre-Gratian collections.

    As for the “anticipatory character” of the forgeries: This is true only in retrospect. I think you have to imagine that a lot of different people in medieval Europe agitated constantly for the benefit of their institutions and their offices, through forgery and other means. Those parties that ended up winning the battles for jurisdiction or precedence brought their often very old and substantially fraudulent literary mythologies with them. (The literature of those parties who lost was mostly destroyed or forgotten.) These mythologies of course expressed ancient ambitions (i.e., papal immunity) that took a long time to achieve.

  187. anonymous[232] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    and here you are ripping away its foundations

    The “ripping away” of the foundations of Christendom is not contained in such tedious (and perhaps questionable) historiography. The rot lies in the deceits baked in by the pagan polytheist roots of Christianity, deceits which are so evident that it beggars belief that seemingly smart people still fall for its insidious spirituality-sapping godlessness.

    In other words, the “onslaught” is from within. The unintentional Trojan virus which will doom the pagan polytheist faith of Christianity. God willing.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  188. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Eusebius’s Greek Church History must be early, above all, because of the reception history.

    The Greek historian Sozomen uses Eusebius’s history as a source for his own ecclesiastical history in the fifth century. Other authors, like Theodoret, use Sozomen. In the sixth century, Cassiodorus commissioned the Historia Tripartita (Tripartite History), which compiled excerpts from Sozomen, Theodoret and another Greek historian (Socrates) relating to ecclesiastical matters and translated all of these excerpts into Latin. (What you might call ‘translation theory’ was not very advanced at this moment, and the extremely literal approach taken by the Latin translator of the Historia Tripartita reveals clearly the underlying Greek original.) As a side-note, the earliest manuscript of this Tripartite History, copied at Corbie in the early ninth century, was in turn among the historical sources used by Pseudo-Isidore.

    Now, Eusebius was also translated into Latin as you note, not by Jerome but by Rufinus of Aquileia, in the early fifth century. Rufinus says in his prologue that he is translating Eusebius from Greek, and his translation is actually rather bad, incomplete and abbreviated. Often it is helpful to refer to the Greek to make sense of what you read in Rufinus’s Latin. (The Greek cannot be a translation of Rufinus, in other words.) Western medieval readers could not, as a rule, read Greek, and so Rufinus’s translation was the main vehicle through which people in the West knew Eusebius. This is in fact a totally normal situation. Augustine himself, writing before 430, references Rufinus’s translation of Eusebius, so we know it is that old. Rufinus also has a manuscript tradition going back to the eighth century.

    Yes, the Greek Eusebius tradition is younger than the Latin one. The earliest manuscripts are from the eleventh or twelfth century I believe. This too is not unusual. In general the Latin textual tradition, and Latin manuscripts, are more abundant. More western Latin manuscripts survive from more places, and they are more accessible to scholarship and more heavily studied.

    This is an odd kind of inversion, because for the entire early medieval period I study, the more culturally and politically advanced region was undeniably the East. The much later history of Greek-speaking regions, where Greek manuscripts were primarily copied and used, was however ultimately less conducive to the survival of manuscripts. Most of these areas have been under Muslim rule since the fifteenth century if not much before, and have experienced ongoing political instability down to this moment. This hasn’t been great for the survival of Greek codices. (Of course similar things are true for pockets of the West. Not a lot of eighth-century codices from Spain [Muslim invasions]; not a lot eighth-century manuscripts from England [Vikings, etc.]).

  189. @utu

    Here is what I think of Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, who built on Nikolai Morozov. I have spent much time studying their work and have found some of it very convincing, other parts plausible, and some claims extremely unconvincing. On Rome, I recommend for example Anatoly Fomenko, History: Fiction or Science, Volume 1 (on archive.org), chapter 7, “‘Dark Ages’ in Mediaeval History”, pp. 373-415. Fomenko and Nosovsky have laid the ground for a paradigm shift by pointing out some major inconsistencies in the accepted chronology, as well as outright hoaxes (Pompeii, Tutankhamun, the China Wall, etc.). They have correctly corrected the Eurocentrism of Western historiography, and restored Constantinople’s central role in the Mediterranean world, but their general reconstruction of a Russian world empire is extravagant. Another problem is their overconfidence in the value of their statistical method, which in my view can only be used as supporting evidence at the best. A good presentation in this video :

    My conclusion is that they raise very good questions but do not generally provide convincing answers. So I am not a Fomenkist, although I use their work. Likewise, I do not adhere to the general thesis of Sylvain Tristan’s book Re-Dating Ancient Greece, but I used some parts of it and quoted the book in fairness.
    Rather, I am, so far, a Heinsohnian, and will try to synthetize Heinsohn’s work in the next article, while adding my own perspective.

    • Thanks: FB
    • Replies: @FB
    , @Robjil
  190. @First Millennium Revisionist

    Well, something similar happened to me. Nor specifically with the believing part, but more so with the ritual part. I found it silly what with the choir pop music covers and all. Seemed like a superficial farce to me.

    Only many years after did I found out it did not used to be like this before Vatican II, etc.

  191. American Citizen 2.0 says:
    @Ano4

    The CIA is still bound by laws in a country that continues to exist, so no they have not released their classified documents to the world to read. The KGB operated in a now defunct state.

    Anyway. I am now very clearly reminded of what is wrong with the internet and why it’s better to not comment on stories like this. So at least I appreciate the opportunity to be reminded of that.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Ano4
  192. Grisha says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    If you aren’t aware that “Eastern Orthodoxy” considers itself the Catholic Church, or more or less “officially” these day the “Orthodox Catholic Church” you really should not be writing anything they touches on first or second millennium Christianity. Seriously.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  193. @Ron Unz

    How do you define “Flu Hoaxery”?

    I don’t read columnists who argue that the whole thing is a hoax. There is a difference between that, and criticizing the response.

    In any case, that’s a deflection …. I genuinely want you to bring us Bigfoot content. That’s the real point.

    • Replies: @Biff
  194. Sol says:
    @Ano4

    Nice try. The Eastern Orthodox don’t know to whom they are referring when they themselves named a cathedral? It’s not too hard to look for a Greek Orthodox parish and ask.

  195. @A Portuguese Man

    The thing is this feud and the viciousness it still raises were news to me. So far I’ve only ever seen the Orthodox side apologists, but I expect the other side to be no less vicious.

    No, we’re mostly just baffled by the appalling quality of his work.

    I’ve sent this guy’s articles to a Latin scholar, and he laughed out loud at the volume of his errors.

  196. Seraphim says:
    @Ano4

    It’s not exactly what happened at all, of course, but it is exactly what we expect the Revisionist to say in the final episode of his ‘gnostic’ gospel.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  197. @Priss Factor

    If people are dumb enough to believe any lie that is fed into them, it is wise to feed them with lies, lest they act dumbly upon the truth.

  198. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    I’ve sent this guy’s articles to a Latin scholar, and he laughed out loud at the volume of his errors.

    When he has finished laughing, can you ask him to provide some rational refutation, or at least try. My main purpose here is debate. I’m not addressing primary school children who report to their master, but educated adults who are open to intellectual challenge and can engage in constructive debate. I’m willing to be convinced I’m wrong. So where am I wrong?

  199. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Gregory of Tours: The antiquity of his Histories is proven by his highly distinctive Merovingian-era Latin, the manuscript tradition (Cambrai BM Ms. 684: a famous seventh-century uncial codex, a copy of the B recension of the Histories), and reception in authors like the so-called Fredegar (seventh-century, epitomizes the first six books of Gregory in the third book of his own compendium) and the Liber Historiae Francorum (‘Book of the History of the Franks’: from the eighth century). This reception is likewise of undoubted antiquity: Fredegar survives in a seventh-century MS and the LHF has a manuscript tradition going back to the eighth. Gregory of Tours is of course also read and copied in the ninth century.

    As for the Donation of Constantine: Nine years ago I wrote a long review of Johannes Fried’s book on this text. There you can find some of my ideas. You might find you like Fried’s thesis (which I disagree with). It could be read as a milder (and more convoluted) version of the ideas you outlined here.

    https://pseudoisidore.blogspot.com/2011/08/reading-pseudo-isidore-johannes-fried.html

    Perhaps I will write more on the Donation later.

    Right now, I want to preserve the last reserves of my energy, and make space for broader remarks on the extremely intricate nature of the textual relationships I am pointing out. The highly complex and organic Latin manuscript tradition that transmits texts from prior ages to us today makes Illig’s hypothesis wholly untenable, in my view. It’s simply impossible to imagine Ottonian-era forgers could be responsible for the extremely intricate and complicated textual problems that the tradition provides.

    Consider, first, the fact that different manuscript copies of the same text have genealogical relationships to each other. Evidence of these relationships is preserved in the slight errors and changes major and minor that scribes make to the texts they are copying. One scribe makes change ‘A’, and a later scribe copies his text with ‘A’ and adds his own error ‘B,’ and so on.

    These typical errors make it possible to reconstruct the descent of manuscripts and untangle their relationships to each other. It is impossible to imagine that the Ottonian-era forgers of Illig’s hypothesis could have built these relationships into the thousands of ninth-century codices they are supposed to have forged. To begin with, while this tree-like understanding of textual traditions seems obvious enough, it was not actually described or fully appreciated until the nineteenth century. So the Ottonian forgers of the Phantom Time Hypothesis created these spurious textual relationships just to fool modern scholars? This is truly ‘anticipatory forgery.’

    Reception history of the sort I have been describing is just as complex, often bizarrely so. It attests, again, to the organic nature of our textual evidence. I will use a familiar example from my own work on Pseudo-Isidore:

    Pseudo-Isidore uses, as a source and also as a kind of base-text for many of his decretal forgeries, an older Visigothic legal compendium known simply as the Spanish Collection. He knew this Spanish Collection only in a very rare Gallican subtype. Scholars refer to this subtype as the “Gallican Spanish Collection” even though that sounds paradoxical. All manuscripts of the Gallican subtype descend from a common early codex that had been misbound. That is to say, this lost, early codex (whose existence we can only infer from the extreme textual confusion present in its descendants) had a bunch of pages out of order. Before he could use this compendium, Pseudo-Isidore had to correct the confused texts. The problem is harder than it sounds and he was only partially successful. Many texts remain scrambled in manuscripts of Pseudo-Isidore’s forgeries – a legacy of his Gallican Spanish collection and the confusion it brought him. YET. One branch of the Pseudo-Isidorian tradition (the misnamed ‘Cluny Version’: its origins have nothing to do with Cluny) found its way to scribes who were a) not Pseudo-Isidore, but who b) had a clean, non-Gallican copy of the Spanish Collection. These men could see clearly the solutions to the problems Pseudo-Isidore had tried and failed to solve, and they implemented the solutions. As a result, this one little branch of the Pseudo-Isidorian tradition is free of most of the glaring “Gallican” problems that afflict other versions of the forgeries.

    The Phantom Time Hypothesis wants us to believe, that all of these texts, and most of the codices that transmit them, were produced around same time by the same group of people. That these people “forged” simultaneously copies of the Gallican Spanish Collection, copies of Pseudo-Isidore’s forgeries with his only partially successful attempts to correct the Gallican errors, copies of the more fully corrected ‘Cluny Version’ of Pseudo-Isidore. Why? These corrections are mostly content-neutral: Their presence or absence doesn’t contribute to or detract from Pseudo-Isidore’s goals. And, this overview of the tradition was invisible to medieval readers, so it cannot have been about verisimilitude. (It is only modern scholars who survey textual traditions and compare many manuscripts to reconstruct an earlier text.) I submit that there is only one possible conclusion. The tradition we have before us, full of ancient manipulations and frauds and polemical items as it is, is nevertheless an essentially genuine cultural and intellectual artifact of the era it hails from.

    Illig, I think, never had a thorough grasp of the material aspect of our evidence – not just manuscripts (more my area), but archaeology too. His hypothesis is a fun theory and I think there is enormous value in entertaining crazy theories, for they teach us to look at things in new ways, and often show us where evidence we relied on unthinkingly is quite weak or open to alternative interpretations. In the course of typing out these responses to you I have learned a few points and even discovered an old error of mine. Ultimately, though, Illig’s theory raises far, far more enormous problems than it solves – which is the death of any theory.

    There are doubtless undiscovered forgeries. A subset are quietly acknowledged but too many intellectual castles have been built on top of them for the community of scholars to tolerate their destruction (I could name a few celebrated items). There are also a few items in the opposite camp: authentic texts unjustly classified as forgeries, but these are rarer.

  200. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    I don’t mean this article specifically but rather the Slavic Orthodox/Catholic feud generally.

    I’m sure one could find just as appaling a work by some Polish Catholic about Russian history or something of the sort driven by the same viciousness or prejudice.

  201. @David

    The 12 years are arithmetic: Roman Law has the minimum age of 14 for letting a girl/woman get married + Augustine had to wait 2 years before he might legally marry her.

    The story of Augustine converting to Christianity and Monica being Christian is being checked with how they deal with slave concubines on the one hand (check: the woman is treated according to pagan culture customs, without mercy as if she had no rights whatsoever) and the accumulation of worldly riches and esteem (check: again 100% pagan culture customs) + the way how they interpret the Bible. We may assume that both Augustine and Monica were familiar with the troubling story of Abraham sending away Hagar and Ismael in the book of Genesis. Now why didn’t Augustine follow Abraham’s example: recognizing the ‘bastard’ son as a real son, although Isaac, Sarah’s son, was deemed to be the ‘Bechor’ (Firstborn). Who knows, that in a Neoplatonist frame of thinking the parallel between Abraham and Augustine simply doesn’t come to mind. My opinion about Augustine and Monica is matter-of-fact like. Their practice of Christian faith is obviously syncretic. So what does that mean: “Augustine’s mother was raised a Christian and remained one all her life”?

  202. Biff says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    . I genuinely want you to bring us Bigfoot content.

    I was Lol at the sarcasm, but actually now I think you’re serious?

  203. Ano4 says:
    @anonymous

    The early history of Islam is just as spurious, regardless of the contemporary Salafi narrative.

    Humanity lived under polytheistic belief systems for the most part of its history.

  204. @First Millennium Revisionist

    Did I hear you say to that Gay Troll “True Gnosticism?” So there is a method to your madness. Then you said: “Mani reinterpreted the Serpent story of Genesis, by identifying the serpent to the provider of gnosis?” Lord Byron also did that in his play “Cain.”
    And, in church, you could not repeat things that were not true? Is Pandemonium your pseudo center, the revolt “in heaven” against the autocracy of God?
    And you say that Mani left a “heterodox” Baptizing Sect? How do you know who is Orthodox and who is Heterodox? Does that mean that, according to you, Mani is the one who is “orthodox?”
    So, Contestant number 2:
    Would you by any chance be a Satanist?

    • Replies: @gay troll
  205. Ano4 says:
    @Grisha

    The original name for the Christian Church is indeed the Orthodox Catholic Church. This is to distinguish it from the “heretic ” and “schizmatic” churches that came in all kinds of shapes and flavors in the early Christian development period.

    The history of the Christian Church is equivalent to the history of the Soviet Communist party as written by the Bolshevik faction. It is a highly sanitized, censored and standardized narrative.

    The reality was messy, complex and much less palatable. So it was purged.

  206. Ano4 says:
    @Seraphim

    You have not read the Gospel of Philip. It is not in the “final episodes ” that the separation from Judaism is emphasized, but right at the beginning of the text.

    [MORE]

    Here I make it easy for you:

    A Jew makes a Jew whom we call a convert.
    A convert makes no convert.

    Some are and make others like them,
    while others simply are.

    A slave longs for freedom
    and doesn’t hope to own a master’s estate.

    A child claims the father’s legacy,
    but those who inherit the dead are dead.

    Heirs to the living are alive
    and are heirs to life and death.

    The dead are heirs to nothing.

    How can the dead inherit?
    Yet if the dead inherits the living,
    the living won’t die and the dead will survive.

    A gentile doesn’t die, never
    having been alive to die.

    You who find truth are alive;
    another may die, being alive.

    Since Christ came the world was made,
    cities adorned, and the dead buried.

    When we were Jews we were orphans
    with only a mother.

    When we turned Christian we had a father
    and a mother.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  207. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ano4

    Didn’t Marcion get rid of the Judaizing in the Christian Bible?

    Most early Christians wanted nothing from the Jew Bible or Jew.

    • Agree: Ano4
  208. The Catholic Church was built on the martyrdom of Saint Peter, Saint Paul and many others. Not power.

  209. Grisha says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    The Nicene-Constantipolitan creed or Symbol of the Faith is sung at every Divine Liturgy in the “Orthodox cult” as you call it. It is recited in daily prayers. The only difference is that it does not include the filioque clause. Given this was a primary driver of the Great Schism it seems extraordinarily odd that a historian of Christianity would be unaware of this.

    All Orthodox profess each time this is read or chanted that they are the Catholic Church. As they did in Hagia Sophia until the Turkish conquest.

    • Agree: Ano4, Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  210. To ,perhaps .cast a bit of light on these cyber wars may I suggest a reading of Philip Sherrard’s “The Greek East and the Latin West”?

  211. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Yes, “Holy War” is very bad. In the struggle between the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light, the Sons of Light should roll over and die. Christianity has spread the milk of human kindness throughout the world, and the US of A has spread democracy. Wait. Didn’t the Essenes have a “War Scroll?” Didn’t Jesus say “Get a sword?” It is so complicated… Is there a time for everything? But I know this: anyone who is different from me is very, very bad. This is the law of proteins. That is why bodies reject transplants. People! Reject transplants!

  212. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Considerably more likely to be the fruit(pine cone) of Pinus Pineus, the Stone Pine or Umbrella Pine. The ancient Romans widely used the nuts(similar to Pine Nuts) as food and the trees are all over the place, frequently at sites of Roman ruins. I note that you failed to use the much more detailed mosaic from Pompei which features a platter of fruit. On the right can be seen the so-called “pineapple”. In the center is a bunch of grapes, and this “pineapple” is the length of four grapes, consistent with the size of a Stone Pine fruit, and much too small for a pineapple. The tuft of foliage at the top looks more like a tuft of Stone Pine needles at the end of a branch, perhaps added as decoration, rather than the radial triangular bromiliad leaves that top a pineapple fruit. There is a Roman era fountain crowned with a sculpture of a Stone Pine fruit(cone) that originally had the water jetting from the top of the Stone Pine fruit, and that would resemble a tuft of pine needles, so perhaps adding the tuft of needles to the top of a cone was a common food decoration practice in Ancient Rome.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  213. @First Millennium Revisionist

    In a nutshell: Your understanding of Latin is subpar and it’s as if you’ve never heard of Mommsen.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  214. ariadna says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Odd statement: “Raised as a a Catholic,” you lapsed because you “couldn’t any more lie in front of God by uttering” the words of the Creed… Which Good would that be?

    Also: “And I think that one of the reasons Catholicism is dying is that people don’t like to be asked to lie.”
    What, Jews are not “people”?!? Maybe not “people like other people” but still people, nu? How do you explain the fact that Jews do not abandon judaism and have no problem with its tall tales? You would not be one uvem anti-semites who think Jews take to lying like ducks to water?! I surely hope not….

    You seem to want to explain why The Eastern Orthodox Christian Church is not dying and come up with: “to my knowledge, there is no reciting this credo in Orthodox cult [sic].”

    Don’t let the fact that your knowledge is sorely lacking to prevent you from brandishing opinions. The “cult,” as you call it, does have the same Creed as the Catholic one, kids memorize it as soon as they learn to read and it is recited in church. It has 12 articles, the first 7 composed by the First Sino of Nicea in 325 and the remaining 5 at the second synod in Constantinople in 381. It is pretty much the same as the Catholic creed.
    Not that it matters, but your animus against White Christian culture makes me wonder if “Raised as a Catholic” was not some sort of game taught to kids in a Jewish summer camp designed to teach them why the Goyim are to be despised. But, naturally I could be wrong….

  215. Seraphim says:
    @Grisha

    He gave himself away! He smugly teaches us what Orthodoxy is without knowing the most elementary things about it. But we live in the Orwellian world where ‘Ignorance is Strength’. He is a ‘farceur’.

    • Agree: ariadna
  216. @Ano4

    Is there really any difference between Therapeutae, Essenes, Elchasites, Sampseans, Ossaens, Ebionites, mughtasilah, except name, time, and location?

  217. gay troll says:
    @ploni almoni

    What is Satan? It is the Hebrew word for adversary. In the OT it is presented as a concept, not a person, except in the goyish book of Job which names Satan as a son of God. Now this is important, Satan being a son of God, because that other son of God was the ultimate adversary of the Jews and their chauvinist theology. Jesus rejected the privilege of the Jews, which was decreed by Yahweh, and insisted that the real God loved all human beings. This attitude is literally Satanic. Jesus perfects his adversarial shtick but accusing others of what he himself is doing; therefore he calls the Jewish temple the Synagogue of Satan which is technically an oxymoron. Consider that Christians personify Satan as Lucifer, who is a being of light, created by God and cast down to Earth. Like Prometheus and other avatara, his role is to enlighten humanity. He is the shining one, the Morning Star, as Jesus inconspicuously calls himself. Christians correctly associate Lucifer with the Edenic serpent who inaugurated the history of humankind by offering gnosis, i.e. the knowledge of good and evil, which is the same thing offered by Jesus to the Jews.

    So if you ever catch me screaming Hail Satan, please keep in mind that I am referring to the adversary of the Jews, the bringer of light, custodian of knowledge, and Morning Star: Lucifer, aka Jesus Christ.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Str8t troll
  218. Seraphim says:
    @Ano4

    You have some difficulties in comprehension. I was talking about ‘The First Millennium Revisionist’ and the episodes of his ‘gnostic gospel’ (which is this serial announced in three episodes, two already aired).

  219. FB says: • Website
    @American Citizen 2.0

    You think the CIA is ‘bound’ by laws…?

    Which ones would those be…?

    • Troll: American Citizen 2.0
  220. Ano4 says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    From a purely legalistic perspective Russian Federation is the continuation of the USSR. So your legalistic double standard towards CIA and KGB is nonsensical. You are purely motivated by the Cold War era mentality. You are one of those boomer Cold Warrior relicts that poison US – Russian relations.

    • Troll: American Citizen 2.0
    • Replies: @American Citizen 2.0
  221. Interesting article. It’s a shame Ron Unz has to counter-signal so hard, incudling using the typical “space aliens conspiracy” smear, considering as he notes his own output is even more “conspiracy looney-tunes” than some mild historical revisionism.

    Just like the comment section of the previous article, there’s a handful of substantive critiques, along with a majority of idiots signaling nothing more than their infantile inability to rethink the propaganda they have been brought up with.

    The worst are Catholics, who, like Jews, cannot bear to have their precious historical fantasies critiqued. Anyone still literally believing bronze-age mythology about arks, talking snakes, babies in baskets floating down rivers, zombie prophets rising from the dead, or the monster-stories of blind pagan poets, really just needs to grow up.

    I mean, no one takes the story of Romulus and Remus suckling on a wolf literally, why are we taking stories of Moses parting the Red Sea or Jesus rising from the dead literally?

    It’s childish.

    Anyone who has spent any amount of time reading history is fully aware than any history before the Crusades is, at best, mythology with a dash of history, and most history after the Crusades is simply political and cultural propaganda.

    • Agree: FB, Biff
    • Replies: @ariadna
  222. Ano4 says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Manichaean tradition evolved from a mix of early proto-Mandaeean beliefs (heir to those disciples of John the Baptist that have fled Jerusalem before its destruction), Zoroastrian material and Mahayana Buddhism.

    The Baptist Sect that you describe as “Heterodox” was in fact a quite “Orthodox ” offshoot of the Essenian Tradition as transmitted through John the Baptist. The only thing “heterodox ” about it was its use of the Gospel of Thomas as one of its scriptures.

    The tradition established by Mani is on a completely different level of syncretism. Being a result of the Silk Road trade in ideas is quite cosmopolitan. Many himself traveled widely. His Church travelled even more.

    Cathars are not directly descended from the Manicheans, they descend from the Paulicians of Asia Minor through the Balkanic Bogumils. Although the Cathar were dualistic, their take on the spiritual realm is quite closer to the Catholic Church than what Mani taught.

    Manichaean tradition and Paulician one are late dualistic Gnosticism that do not predate Orthodox Catholic Church.

    To find the “original layer” of Christian tradition one must probably go at least 3-4 centuries deeper towards Alexandrian Jewish Neoplatonic thought of Philo and the Therapeutae. Add to it some Zoroastrian influences from the Essenians and sprinkle it all with some faulty understanding of the Graeco Buddhist tradition brought to Alexandria along the Silk Road and you get the Early Gnostic Matrix.

    Alexandria, not Rome or Constantinople, was the most probable focal point of coalescing of all these spiritual tradition strains into the early Christian belief system.

  223. American Citizen 2.0 says:
    @Ano4

    And with that, I am done. No I am not a boomer. I am not even close to being a boomer. Your contributions are extremely lame and generally off topic, filled with conflations and non sequitur. Not just in response to my comments but in general You seem to think you are really on the ball though.

    Good luck in life.

    • LOL: Ano4
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Ano4
  224. @American Citizen 2.0

    And so, American Citizen 2.0 went back to the Double Talk Double Thinktank on the third floor, in the Internal Section.

  225. Ano4 says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    Yeah bounce n’ run to the conformist ideological corner of yours. The world has changed tremendously in the last 30 years, but people like yourself are oblivious to that. Anyone who still sees “Reds under beds” is an imbecile…

  226. ariadna says:
    @BannedHipster

    Romulus and Remus and “la lupa” is a LEGEND, not history. Moses floating in a basket or the Resurrection belong to religions, not history. Believing that your religion chronicles your people’s history is, how shall I put it… a Jewish thing. It is not an axiom to use as a starting point of departure, from which to conclude, in a giant leap, that the white, Christian, Western civilization is a mendacious myth. It also makes it harder to sell yourself as a free-thinking atheist.

    • Replies: @BannedHipster
  227. gay troll says:
    @ploni almoni

    It’s funny how some Christians quail at a NWO that will reveal Lucifer to be the One god, while preening themselves on the lofty laurels of monotheism, while also believing in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, Satan the Prince of Darkness, the Holy Virgin Mother, the Second Coming, plus innumerable angelic and demonic personalities. It’s quite a pantheon you got there!

  228. @American Citizen 2.0

    ” the fact that these articles are being published anonymously is suspicious. The overall ideological slant of the writing seems to be what you would expect from a former KGB officer in Moscow. The idea seems to be to undermine the legitimacy of the Catholic Church by delving into every imaginable conspiracy and twist of the historical record to confuse people. The KGB produced this kind of Anti-Catholic propaganda for decades. ”

    Hey you said it not me. And here I just thought the (((anonymous author))) was just your typical runt jew with an inferior disdain towards the Italians, because his rabbi told him so. If it ain’t a jew it’s some intellectually inferior (((eastern))) larper who took his 30 pieces of silver to scrape up this crap.

  229. fart says: • Website

    all you fucking ethnic jackals fighting over a corpse, who can trace the most direct lineage to a mythological jewish king. there is no room in rome for a roman

  230. Wade says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    So who really wrote this? Saker? Sounds like him. Strange syntax, like using ‘to immune’ as a verb:

    Good catch! I doubt it’s The Saker. This could indicate that the author is Russian, though. I know some filipinos who use certain English verbs incorrectly. For example, instead of “Turn on the lights”, they say “Open the lights”. However, they all make this same subtle mistake so regularly that it’s a common joke among second generation immigrants from there. Perhaps “to immune” as a verb is a common mistake Russians make?

    • Replies: @Sol
  231. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Unfair. I too love Mommsen, but have you answered the author’s question?

    In a nutshell: Your understanding of Latin is subpar and it’s as if you’ve never heard of Mommsen.

    The author has given a plethora of specifics. Have you given any?

    It seems to me that your nutshell is empty.

  232. FB says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Fascinating documentary, thanks…

    I had not even heard of Fomenko nor this method, but this is very interesting, and I’m planning to check out the rest of the series…

    It reminded me of a hilarious Soviet film from 1988, Gorod Zero, from director Karen Shakhnazarov, which I think must have been inspired in part by this kind of comically scrambled version of history…

    An engineer from Moscow visits a supplier in a small town where everyone seems to be crazy [a secretary that works naked in the office, a bizarre lunch cafe where the chef commits suicide because our bewildered protagonist refuses to taste a cake specially made by the chef that is an exact sculpture of the engineer’s head etc…]

    Having to stay in town for the night he takes a tour of a local museum that is at the bottom of what used to be a mine shaft, one hundred feet below the ground…the museum guide shows him first a sarcophagus that contains the bones of Trojan King Dardanus…who, accompanied by other Trojans ‘went north’ after the fall of Troy, and founded the first settlement in this location…

    Next, a display of Roman legionnaires in wax figures that is supposed to be the ‘second cohort of the double legion of Mars’…

    ‘They disappeared without a trace en route from Britain to the Caucasus,’ explains the guide…

    ‘Nonsense, the Romans were never on Soviet territory,’ the poor engineer shoots back…

    Adding to the hilarity is that the all the ‘wax’ figures in this bizarre museum are in fact live actors trying to hold a still pose…

    We then are led to the bed of Attila, where he violated the Queen of the West Goth in front of his horde…and from a genetic fingerprint from semen recovered from the bed a likeness of Attila was recreated…another live figure…LOL

    One of the funniest films you’ll even see…[the museum tour starts at about the 28 minute mark, be sure to turn on subtitles…]

  233. @eknibbs

    This is my first opportunity to get detailed counter-arguments from a specialist, so I really appreciate that you take the time and trouble, and take pleasure in paying attention to your arguments (much nicer than being called a “satanist” by the kind of Jesus freaks that I never expected to find in the Unz Review). I hear well that you consider the dates of ninth-century manuscripts quite beyond question. That the big issue. If that is the case, I may have to revise my revisionism and admit that Latin Christianity, including papal arrogance, pre-dated the Gregorian reform. I may end up being convinced of that. First I’ll read Moore and Berman again to get a clearer picture. Before I comment on specific point, I’d like to say that Heinsohn’s approach does not require to questioning the accepted dates of ninth-century manuscripts, and I’d like to encourage you to study his work.
    Would you mind clarifying this point :

    The acts themselves carry the date in question in their very first chapter.

    I thought that dates expressed in AD (or BC) are extremely rare, if they even exist, before the tenth century. Are you positive that 857 AD appears on the acts ?

    I accept that it is possible to dismiss these later references as forgeries as well.

    Thanks for saying it.

    the repeated attestation of single events, from different perspectives, across multiple texts, is very typical of our sources for events like the 857 council of Quierzy and would be a very complex thing for someone to forge.

    OK. I take your word for it. In that case, I will have to modify, that is hypothetical reconstruction of the history of christianity.

    I invite you to have a look at the high-quality digital images available online:

    I will, and look carefully at pages 191 ff to understand your point, though I find it puzzling that someone tried (and failed) to imitate some older style, and was followed by someone who wrote it perfectly. Why would they have left 3 and a half blank pages to be filled much later?

    I am actually far more skeptical of things like palaeographical dates than many of my colleagues

    Nice to hear. I hope your skepticism did not get you in any trouble. Do you know any colleague who is even more skeptical that you? Where is the limit? (rethorical questions). I understand what you mean by “the logic of its date”, but it all rests on some kind of assumption that Carolingian minuscule = ninth century. I am not convinced that this is not open to question.

    • Replies: @Anon
  234. @eknibbs

    Thanks. I’ll have to study about Hincmar of Reims and the controversy you mention, and about the dispute over Formosus’ pontificate.

    the anonymous so-called “Collectio Anselmo dedicata” (the “Collection dedicated to Anselm”) from the end of the ninth century knows Pseuod-Isidore thoroughly and incorporates many items.

    Is it not conceivable that the genealogy of those text runs in the opposite direction, the pseudo-Isidore copying the “Collectio Anselmo dedicata”?
    I have no difficulty with your last paragraph.

  235. @eknibbs

    Again, my sincere appreciation.

    The Greek historian Sozomen uses Eusebius’s history as a source for his own ecclesiastical history in the fifth century. Other authors, like Theodoret, use Sozomen. etc.

    But again, are we so sure of the genealogy of these texts? I would have to check what exactly Sozomen borrowed from Eusebius, and whether he mentioned him, and the date of the oldest manuscript. Why didn’t Cassiodorus quote directly from Eusebius?

    Rufinus also has a manuscript tradition going back to the eighth century.

    I am very suspicious about eighth-century manuscripts.
    I had read that the Greek vesion of Eusebius had appeared very late after the Latin version and was a “retranslation” back from Latin. You sound positive that this is not the case, I would be willing to admit it, if you hadn’t conceded that “the Greek Eusebius tradition is younger than the Latin one” and that it is “an odd kind of inversion.” But you explanation makes sense.

  236. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:

    Now wait a minute. To go back to “the original layer” of Christian traditions you only have to go back to the Gospels. That is as close at hand as anybody’s copy of the New Testament. And the Gospels go back to Zoroastrianism and the Baptizing Sects. And the Baptizing Sects go back to Isaiah, obviously. The original Baptizing Sect of Babylonia, the “Elchasites” or Sabians founded the Therapeutes of Alexandria, the Therapeutes of Alexandria founded Qumran. The source for this may be surprising, but it is the Talmud. Mani was kicked out of the Elchasites in 242, and using Hermeticism, Gnosticism from Bardaisan and Marcion, Mithraism, and Zurvanism, created his synthetic Gnostic religion of Good and Evil. The original Manicheism disappeared by 1256, but while the original version was still around, it had equally authentic fully authorized and communicating branches in Zurvanite Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism. These still exist as Lamaism, Ismaili Shi`ism, and Calvinism (and all its offshoots including, of course, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Evangelicals and the Southern Baptists). And the Alawis of Syria are “Christian” Manicheans disguised as Moslems since the 9th century. And let us not forget the Druzes. There are also still Chinese Manichean secret societies everywhere where there is a Chinatown. The Mandaeans, who still exist today, are a living, contradiction-bound fossil that absorbed back elements and holdover refugees from all branches of the original Baptizing Sects.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  237. @ariadna

    My appreciation for White, Western, even Christian, civilization does not rely on literally believing historical propaganda and mythology. If the author’s entire thesis is true, that doesn’t shake my faith in the greatness of White, Western, even Christian, civilization one bit. Why would it? All civilizations are built on myths and propaganda.

    Just like Jews, Catholics can’t bear to have their false history scrutinized. There’s no evidence for an “Exodus” or a “Joshua” – and there’s no evidence that “St. Peter” was the first “Pope of Rome.”

    Just read the comments: the Catholics are shrieking about “the KGB,” the “Russians” and the Greek Orthodox! Sounds like Jews shrieking about “Anti-Semites” and “Nazis” and “white supremacists!”

    It’s not even controversial to state that the Roman culture took from the Greek culture, so the only real controversy here is religious Papists upset that Orthodox don’t buy their particular brand of historical propaganda.

    Also, I never claimed to be an “atheist” – why does not accepting the obvious historical propaganda of the Vatican make one an “atheist?”

    “History is more or less bunk. It’s tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s dam is the history we make today.” — Henry Ford

    • Thanks: FB
    • Replies: @ariadna
  238. Amon says:

    Never trust the words of someone who refuses to say their their or name any sources.

    The one thing no historian, fake or real, ever mentions, is how fast Rome and the Roman empire collapsed once Christianity was thrust upon the empire by its invasive Jewish subjects.

    It is so Jewish in nature it speaks volumes. The Christians entered Rome and became a hated minority for the way they acted, they purchased the good will of the Roman senate and the imperial armies, then converted the upper elite into Christianity.

    This also lead to the senate allowing the import of millions of slaves until Rome and Italy became multicultural, that is overrun with thugs, rapist and criminals. Meanwhile the elite of Roman society embraced the sins of gluttony, lust, greed and pride and partied while the empire decayed and their people was bred out.

    In the end the poison from the Christian jews lead to the complete weakening of Rome and its armies which in turn allowed the so-called barbaric whites from the north to ransack and burn the capital. An act that no doubt scattered the jews to every corner of the empire where they became outcasts for their role in destroying Rome.

    The rest as they say, is history.

  239. Anon[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    @. I hear well that you consider the dates of ninth-century manuscripts quite beyond question. That the big issue.

    I wonder if his writings are also forged? Or his summaries of classic Roman writers the first forgeries?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville

  240. @eknibbs

    Having studied French romances and lays for my doctorate thesis, I am familiar with discussion about manuscript traditions. I also hear your argument about “reception history”. It seems to me that your criticism of Illig is precisely the kind that Heinsohn would validate. The strength of Heinsohn’s approach, which differs from Illig’s and rests on a considerable body of comparative archeology, is that it doesn’t erase any time period, but rather considers that several time periods overlap.
    I admit I am a bit discouraged by the mostly negative reception of this second article and I am not sure I will produce the third that I intended on Heinsohn, but I advise you to take a serious look at his work, which is, in my view, of a much higher scholarly standard than the work of other chronology revisionnists (including mine):
    http://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohns-latest.html
    Again, thank you so much Professor for your comments, which have not been wasted.

  241. Ano4 says:
    @Anon

    You take on the topic is a highly interesting one.

    To go back to “the original layer” of Christian traditions you only have to go back to the Gospels.

    Yes the canonical and the Gnostic alike. But whence proceed all these Gospels ? I posit that they originated in the Hellenistic Jewish diaspora trading along the Silk Road, both the terrestrial and the maritime.

    [MORE]

    These Jews used both koine greek and aramaic to speak with all their trade partners and could witness first hand the different cultures and spirituality traditions stretching beyond the Oïkumene. The main center of the Silk Road trade was Alexandria, also a center of higher learning. Hellenistic Jews from Alexandria were the cosmopolitan ones who were able to bring a larger outlook to parochial Judaism of modern day Israel/Palestine.

    That is as close at hand as anybody’s copy of the New Testament. And the Gospels go back to Zoroastrianism and the Baptizing Sects.

    There are common Mazdayasna elements in Judaism since the end of the Babylonian exile. Both Essenian and Pharisee branches of Judaism have clearly been influenced by Zoroastrian thought which is not surprising at all given that the oldest Jewish diaspora was the Persian one (well maybe the Yemeni was older, but they did not impact the development of Judaism as much as their kinsmen from the modern day Iran/Irak). But to say that Gospels go back to the teaching of Zoroaster is an exaggeration.

    The original Baptizing Sect of Babylonia, the “Elchasites” or Sabians founded the Therapeutes of Alexandria

    I am not aware of any material supporting a direct filiation o the Therapeutae protomonastic community from the followers of Elchsaï. Moreover Elchsaï lived after John Baptist, so his teaching would be posterior to the origins of Therapeutae. Although it is possible that the Therapeutae interacted with or were influenced by the Jewish baptizing sects, same for the Essenians of Qumran.

    The source for this may be surprising, but it is the Talmud.

    Care to elaborate a bit more?

    Mani was kicked out of the Elchasites in 242, and using Hermeticism, Gnosticism from Bardaisan and Marcion, Mithraism, and Zurvanism, created his synthetic Gnostic religion of Good and Evil.

    We should probably replace Zurvanism (the official form of Mazdayasna in the Sassanid Iran) by Central Asian Mahayana as one of the most important ingredients of Manichaean mix. Also we should replace Good and Evil by Light and Darkness, an important theological detail. Also I don’t see that much Hermetism in the Manichaean tradition. The connection to Bardaisan is quite possible, Bardaisan possibly providing a connection to Valentinian Gnosticism and some Buddhist Influences through his interactions with the Sramana Indians.

    The original Manicheism disappeared by 1256, but while the original version was still around, it had equally authentic fully authorized and communicating branches in Zurvanite Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism. These still exist as Lamaism, Ismaili Shi`ism, and Calvinism (and all its offshoots including, of course, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Evangelicals and the Southern Baptists). And the Alawis of Syria are “Christian” Manicheans disguised as Moslems since the 9th century. And let us not forget the Druzes. There are also still Chinese Manichean secret societies everywhere where there is a Chinatown.

    You are oversimplifying and overstretching a lot here, lumping together a lot of completely different heretical belief systems. It would be quite interesting if all these heretic/zindiq sects were just some branches of Manichaean tradition adapted to various cultural environments, but I don’t think that it is truly the case.

    The Mandaeans, who still exist today, are a living, contradiction-bound fossil that absorbed back elements and holdover refugees from all branches of the original Baptizing Sects.

    Mainly correct.

  242. Ano4 says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    You should absolutely finish your work by publishing the third part. I believe a great many people need to read it despite the negative reception of many readers. What you do here is important.

    It is necessary for people to understand that history is not a rock solid construct, but rather a fluid quasi-mythological narrative. And it is also important to insist on the critical examination of original source documents. We cannot insist enough on these two points.

    Whether the Roman Empire ended exactly as described in conventional history or not is not that important. What is important is that history is always written by the victorious at the expense of th vanquished.

    Many a conservative Christian should learn this truth sooner than later. They have canceled and censored so much that it is not surprising in the least that they might themselves end up canceled and censored.

    Thank you for your work.

    Please continue, I am eagerly waiting to read the final chapter.

    • Agree: gay troll, Not Raul
    • Replies: @ariadna
  243. Over here in Western Europe, nobody’s heard of “White” culture, race, history, civilization or genocide. Same goes for “Black”.

    (African Slaves, European surplus exiles & New world problems)

  244. ariadna says:
    @BannedHipster

    “My appreciation for White, Western, even Christian, civilization does not rely on literally believing historical propaganda and mythology. If the author’s entire thesis is true, that doesn’t shake my faith in the greatness of White, Western, even Christian, civilization one bit.”

    Come again? What in the world do you think “civilization” means? Ballpoint pens or cell phones?
    If the author’s entire “thesis” is true there is no White, Christian civilization for you to claim to have “faith” in.

    • Replies: @BannedHipster
  245. ariadna says:
    @Ano4

    “It is necessary for people to understand that history is not a rock solid construct, but rather a fluid quasi-mythological narrative. And it is also important to insist on the critical examination of original source documents.”

    No kidding. Be sure to communicate your epiphany to the ADL, to all the MSM and cc David Irving on your letter.

    • Troll: Ano4
  246. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:

    It IS simple. It is people who are complicated. Irenaeus said you could not get a straight answer from any cult member about what the beliefs of that cult are. Because they don’t know. Irenaeus knew what the straight story was about Christianity because he got it from Polycarp. Irenaeus was lucky. The mass of people simply do not know. Look at the collection of beliefs you see on UNZ. Inside the head, secret from everyone else, people have the most bizarre conception of reality around them. They know about walking through doors instead of through walls but very little more. (The Koran even instructs people “to enter houses by their doors,” instead of through the windows or by chopping their way in.) Even if you get everyone to repeat the same catechism, what goes on in people’s heads is something else. Most Catholic school children think that the trinity is JMJ—Jesus Mary and Joseph. Augustine could not get a straight answer from anyone what Manicheism was. (Today at least you can read Jean-Paul Sartre or V. I . Lenin.) Augustine did finally grasp the central idea, and came up with an antidote which is that evil is not a substance but an absence of Being. But most of his knowledge is external since he was a hearer and not an Electus. But there is not much more to know, really. Even Jimmy Swaggart knows. When Augustine finally talked to the Manichean Bishop Faustus of Mileve (who was always away on business trips to Rome) there was much that Faustus did not know. As for Mani, he was making up stuff left and right, and every Catholic bishop everywhere is also always fantasizing on his own. They keep their mouths shut about what they really think because if they opened them… That’s human nature.
    “Central Asian Mahayana” is a Manichean invention. I told a big wig Lama that the Hutkukhu had died. The big wig who had studied in Mongolia informed me happily “He is already reincarnated.” Didn’t the Buddha say the goal was to get out of the horror of rebirth? Not to reincarnate? Is it that easy to sell a heresy? But Mahayanists think they are smart and they call the others “small vehicle” to scorn them. Four legs good, two legs bad. “Islam was spread by the sword.” Tsk Tsk. We don’t do things like that. “Theravada are fuddy duddies.” How you say: “white beards.” Aqsakals, isn’t it? The Chinese Buddhist researcher Xuangzang came to Balkh in Afghanistan in 628 and said there were some nice familiar monasteries but a lot of wierd stuff was going on there. (His school was Vijñavada or Yogachara.) The wierd stuff was Manichean Mahayana. A Mahayanist advertising nickname for Balkh was “Elevated Candle.” “Shami Balah” in Persian. A Manichean missionary went from Balkh to Tibet in 750 and brought them his kind of Buddhism. The Tibetans today don’t know where “Shambala” is. They say it is a mythical place, like Hollywood. But they chant “Om Mani Bemme Hum.” Sanskrit “Mani” or “Jewel” is, of course, a pun on Mani “the Apostle of Jesus Christ.” And Padme, or “lotus,” which the Tibetans pronounce as “Bemme,” is simply the Bema, the throne of Mani, and the pulpit of a Church or Synagogue.
    The central idea of Christianity is a Zoroastrian idea, “world savior born of a virgin.” Saoshyant. Why did you think Matthew sends the Magi to Bethlehem for? To show the public that Zoroastrian prophecy has come to pass, of course. (Guenon said it was “a bureaucratic thing” like in Masonry.) Baptism is an adaptation of a central Zoroastrian rite performed only by a Priest. The rite is called barashnom. Barashnom returns the Priest from the fallen world back to the unfallen world in order to perform ritual. Exactly the same thing when a Moslem performs ablutions for prayer. Exactly the same thing that the Essenes did three times a day. Except that barashnom is thirty operations, and the last ones with sniffer dogs. (Priests have nothing else to do. And they get paid to do it. Nice work if you can get it.)
    Christianity is right there in Isaiah. But most of Isaiah is NOT seventh century BC; it has been cleverly rewritten in the 2nd century BC. This is clear from the passage about Cyrus in Isaiah. This is clear from the ideas, and, according to experts, also clear from the style of language.
    Elchesai, Elxai, Elxi, al-Hasih are all the same term. It is not a name of any ONE person. It is a title, like Pope. Someone born yesterday may know of only one Pope. Someone who has been around may know more. There are over one hundred of them, counting Antipopes. And the word “Elchesai” is a Syrian or Aramaic word. It is al-Khasai, meaning “the Baptist.” Al-Khasai is still an Arab family name today in Iraq. The Elchasites were around for 1,000 years, starting in 200 BC. They are still around in the form of the Mandaeans. Al-Khasai is the exact same Aramaic root “askhai” as the word Essene, which also means “Baptist” or literally, “washer.” A syriac synonym is Sobiai from which we get “Sabians.” The Therapeuts could have called their “choir master” (as he is called in the Psalms) Elchasai except they spoke Greek. So they used a Greek term instead. You know, when in Rome do as the Romans do, Ambrose told Monica.
    For the connection between Alexandria and Qumran, study the history behind the literature of the Toledoth Yeshu and how the Pharisees fled from Jerusalem to Alexandria after the crucifixion of the 800 Rabbis by King Jannaeus in 88 BC and what happened when they came back. GRS Mead did a good job on that, but he was lacking some elements to make full sense of it. As it happens, we now have those elements.
    Place a nut in gourd with the small hole. The monkey sticks its hand in the gourd, grasps the nut, and than can’t get its hand out when it is a fist holding the nut. It has been caught. But the monkey won’t let go. The ego wants to be God. That is what cults sell; divinity; that is Gnosticism. Who wants to be nothing?

    • Thanks: Ann Nonny Mouse, Ivan
    • Replies: @Ano4
    , @gay troll
    , @La Gruff
  247. @Bombercommand

    I note that you failed to use the much more detailed mosaic from Pompei which features a platter of fruit

    That was going to be the second picture, but became a link instead of an imbed, but it looks like it would just be a link to the above imbedded picture. Probably to stop cluttering up thread with too many pictures. The pictures from the article: Two snakes at a table, Plate of fruit mosaic

    [MORE]

    I couldn’t find other versions of these pics in another place, but it is hard to search for. Maybe there is a catalog somewhere of ancient art.

    Pinapples can be small, in fact they are all small at one time.

    The images provided by the author seem to have leafy protusions coming out of the narrower end of the egg shape, not the fat end. The leaves curve outward and are long and appear to taper.

    The pine cone attatches to a woody stem. Mediterranean pine 1. It could be cut off in a special way with part of the tree branch attatched and the pine needles stick out of the branch part, Stone Pine Cones 2. But then the pine cone attatches at the fat end of the egg shape, so the needles would be coming out of the fat end, not the narrow end. They could be sprouted in a special way to make the needles come out of the tip. It could just be an object behind it, like an onion, and the leaves belong to that.

    The is another fresco with two snakes at a table with a pine cone, so that is a theme. But the pine cone is normal without leaves sticking out. Two snakes at a table 2.

    I’ll repeat, I can’t find those images from another source. But it is curious.

    As a tangent, There is a LOT of Pompeii art with a bowl of fruit. The “Still Life With Bowl of Fruit” doesn’t have the aesthetic of pagan Antiquity, so much as the Dutch Golden Age when it was all the rage.

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
  248. FB says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    I admit I am a bit discouraged by the mostly negative reception of this second article and I am not sure I will produce the third that I intended…

    WHAT…?

    No…that would be a huge loss for many many readers that find this work both fascinating and valuable…

    Also disappointing to see the proprietor of this discussion site encouraging the ridiculous fools that this place is infested with anyway…

    • Agree: Hippopotamusdrome
  249. @Amon

    Never trust the words of someone who refuses to say their their or name any sources.

    Good point, Mr.Amon.

    • LOL: Ano4
  250. Ano4 says:
    @Anon

    Mahayana has been around since before Mani times, I still believe that the intial influence was from Mahayana to Manichaean traditions. In the long run though you might be correct, there was a lot of cross-pollination along the Silk Road.

    I was aware of the Elchsaï etymology. What I was referring to was that the specific personage described as being the founder of the sect to which young Mani has been taken by his father lived after John the Baptist.

    Gnosticism is not about becoming God, but about getting out of this world and back to God. You certainly know what Irfan in Sufism means. By the way, if one looks at the etymology of the word Sufi one might also come to many interesting conclusions, just like you did with the Tibetan mantra, but I digress.

    I agree that a lot of things is mixed in the human beliefs, it is today and has probably always been. This is why there is not much truth found in words, more so found in silence.

    Interesting take you have on these things.

    Thanks for taking the time to discuss them with me.

    • Replies: @Anon
  251. @ariadna

    “If the author’s entire “thesis” is true there is no White, Christian civilization for you to claim to have “faith” in.”

    Your logical fallacy is: the False Dilemma:

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Dilemma

    If the author’s thesis is true, White, Western, Christian civilization still exists.

    I don’t literally believe in Hobbits, nor do I believe in the “history of Middle Earth” – that hardly means I can’t enjoy Tolkein.

    If the Jesus Christ character is a legend, that hardly means I can’t appreciate da Vinci’s Last Supper. If Laocoön was really done by Michelangelo, does that negate its artistic merit? If Plato was really written by Pleto, does that invalidate the arguments? If the Parthenon is from the 9th century AD, not the fifth century BC, is it no longer an architectural marvel?

    It seems more likely that it’s you that doesn’t have any appreciation for White, Western, European culture – all you care about is your religious ideology, which you almost certainly are emotionally attached to due to your upbringing, as opposed to a thoughtful reflection on its merits.

    If you were born in Egypt, you’d be a Muslim and hate Western civilization.

    Why not take the advice of no less than the Apostle Paul?

    “When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child does, and think like a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways.” – 1 Cor. 13:11

    • Replies: @ariadna
  252. So history is fake and ghey too?

  253. @American Citizen 2.0

    Good analysis. This is nothing more than a “working hypothesis” based on one sorry quote, reference, and story that is worse than the so called supposed history itself. You can always find reference or quotes that contradict but that doesn’t make your source better than the original.

    This reminds me of the Jews being thrown out of Rome. Most of the stuff can’t be totally substantiated and they were probably leaving in great numbers prior to the so called purges by the Emperors. Of course if you ask the Jews….they have a rather different take (I wonder why). Some DNA evidence appears to show that many left way before this.

    It’s very hard to do real historical research when have you a bone to pick and work backward from that point and ignore a lot of stuff. Next Unz will have BLM on here talking about the fact that Wakanda was real and those damn white people ruined it!

  254. FB says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Thanks for that link to Heinsohn…

    Not familiar with him either, but he is a respected academic, also working in this field of chronological revisionism…his wiki entry says he puts the Egyptian civilization 2,000 years later than conventional wisdom…

    Interestingly, he bases his work on the stratigraphic record, which apparently causes problems because it does not line up with historical written records…this appears to be an acknowledged problem of reconciling archeology with what we are told by historians…

    But what if the globally shared belief in a full 1,000 years for the 1st millennium CE suffers from many centuries without settlement layers everywhere?

    No matter where archaeologists dig, this “millennium” is missing settlement layers for about seven centuries.

    These alleged lacunae should be recognized for the phantoms they are. The centuries-long dispute about missing epochs could then be decided quickly.

    A lot of material on his website…this series on the First Millennium is quite obviously on very solid footing…and I look forward to seeing the next installment…this has been some of the very best writing I have seen on this website…

  255. So what’s your opinon of the famous archaeologist Joseph Smith who
    fortuitously discovered a gold-leafed history book of the Native Americans buried in his vinyard, in a trunk in his grandmother’s attic, in a cave, hidden in a monastary buried in a stone box out in the middle of nowhere? He then painstakingly translated the record of this ancient civilation into English, in his free time, with no renumeration or patron, because hey, that’s just what people do, they translate books all year for free. Unfortunately, the original text has been lost, because really, who would want to take the bother to preserve some original document that was personally penned with the warm sweaty hands of some revered luminary when you have a copy?

    Apparently, the Native Americans discovered and used steel before Europeans (take that, racists) but fell upon a Dark Age and forgot about it, and so when the colonists arrived they were found to only have stone tools. Also they had horses, also gone when the colonists arrived.

    Are the revisionists going to debunk this too?

    • LOL: Ivan
  256. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Your link “plate of fruit mosaic” is the one I was referring to. Enlarging that image, I think your suggestion the leaves are not part of the fruit could be correct, and they are not depicted the way leaves grow out of the top of a pineapple, but I don’t see any suggestion of another object behind the fruit, but this is a mosaic not a painting. Given the ubitquity of the Umbrella Pine cone used as food in Ancient Rome, and the extreme unlikelyhood of pineapples arriving from Brazil before 1492, I think this is a case for Occam’s Razor.

  257. Robjil says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Heinssohn believes in the new sun since 1945 – The big 6.

    Anyone who believes in the big 6 is no Galileo.

    Thus, Heinsohn is not a real historian. He is a court Historian of our ruling Zion Elites.

    Here is an introduction to his little ADL like essay on Holocaustinity.

    http://migs.concordia.ca/documents/HeinsohnHitlerandtheJewishPeopleJGR.pdf

    The following essay by Professor Gunnar Heinsohn may concern itself primarily with the Holocaust in mind as an event apart;yet it is more than that.Its analysis could be a model for teaching the in comparability of any genocide besides the Holocaust.By agreement with Professor Heinsohn,a “rebuttal”essay will follow his contribution in a subsequent issue of Genocide Research. We hope the readers will be drawn into this debate with comments of their own.The editors in particular are interested in promoting this dialogue in order to promote the comparative approach,namely,the speech for both similarities and dissimilarities.]

    This is same stuff that we all have been endless force feed like ducks are forced to get foi gras.
    The world of tired of this nonsense.

    We want the sun back as the center of the universe. The big 6 was something Zionists imaged since the early 1800s. It was their goal to make it look like it happened to get Israel.

    The next goal is to get the Third Temple and Greater Israel. Seven Nations to destroy was the way the first Israel came into being. The same theme is going on now. Wesley Clark spilled the beans.

    What is so great about a Third Temple? Kill thousands of goats, cows and chickens every year. It is not a religious thing at all. It is a slaughter house. The world does not want that we had that for too long – WWI for the Balfour Declaration, WWII for Israel and WWIII for greater Israel since 9.11. 2001. The Jewish date for that date is 12.23.5761.

    Ironically the Zion first century started on 12.23.1913. That is the date of the founding of the US FED. WWI quickly got in gear. Then all the misery of the Zion centuries began.

    Will Heinsohn dare to look into this? No, jail time for him if he does so. So much for freedom of investigation with Heinsohn.

    A third temple to kill goats, sheep, and chickens is not the highlight of humanity.

  258. gay troll says:
    @Anon

    evil is not a substance but an absence of Being.

    Concur, like darkness, evil is an absence and not a quality. The root of all evil is ignorance or agnosis. If evil has no quality, it has no personality, no presence, and no power. That is why Satan in the form of the Devil cannot exist.

    The ego wants to be God

    Yes, whereas the self is God. The ego wants to be the undying self, but it is not.

    There is no such thing as nothing! Nothingness cannot and does not exist anywhere, ever!

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @Menes
  259. @Ron Unz

    “The bottom line is that 95% or 98% of the time, what you read in your standard history textbooks and in the NYT/WSJ is more or less correct, if perhaps a little slanted, and it takes a great deal of time and effort to determine the 2% or the 5% in which that’s not the case.”

    Thank you for clearing that up. Now I finally understand why the ADL has given you a pass. Others have been firebombed for less than you publish each week. But those others weren’t saying you can believe 95% of what’s in the NYT.

    • Replies: @ariadna
  260. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ano4

    The founder of the Sect of the Elchasites around 200 BC was called Al-Khasai. The head of the Sect into which Mani was thrown around 222 AD was also called al-Khasai. And the leader was still called al-Khasai in the year 980 when Nadim described the “Bathers in the Marshes” in the Fihrist. The Sect was not into personal names. Mani was a cripple and an abandoned orphan. As a cripple, proof of sin of his parents, he would not have been allowed to attend religious ceremonies, beginning with his Bar Mitzvah. (Ezra had the same problem; he stuttered. So he turned Moses into a stutterer.) Two months before Pentecost, the Bar Mitzvah Mani would not have, he invented a consolation for himself, the first “Visit of his Heavenly Twin.” Mani is what you might call a mythomaniac. The name means “vessel.” He made up a mythology for himself in which he said he was the son of a Parthian King and Queen. This is based upon the “Hymn of the Pearl” by Bardaisan, from whom he also got a number of doctrines, particularly Pentads. (The Hymn of the Pearl is popular with Manicheans to this day.) Docetism and his idea of Christianity he got from Marcion. Alchemy he got from Hermeticism, you know extracting light from darkness or gold from lead.
    In social terms, it was out of the question for a “prophet to be” to be a nobody like Mani, to have no pedigree. He had to make one up for himself, just as the Evangelists had to make one up for Jesus. That is why Hollywood stars also mostly have made up names. You need that for success. His so-called “father” was his guardian in the sect which took in orphans. All the Baptizing Sects took in orphans. Even Mani accepted children as payment for medical services. Every orphan had an assigned guardian. The founder of the Elchesaites in 200 BC, al-Khasai, is also called Sobiai. Same meaning. This figure is probably the same person who rewrote the Book of Isaiah. In fact, it has to be because the person who rewrote Isaiah, and the founder of the Baptizing Sects, was a very, very rare bird. You would not expect to find two of these around the same time. Elchasai is described as having received “a revealed book.” The short description that we know of what was in that “revealed book of Elchasai” is essentially the revolutionary statements of the Book of Isaiah. Other things about that book transmitted by Alcibiades of Apamea to totally ignorant western Bishops of the year 222, political hacks and opportunists, come from, or rather, are found, in, the Dead Sea Scrolls. There were, by the way, about forty copies of Isaiah in the Qumran caves.
    Mahayana appears around the time that Mani sent his representative Mar Ammo to Balkh. Tradition says that Mahayana was spread by “Bhallika.” It is not impossible that there was something called Mahayana fifty years before Mar Ammo arrived in Balkh Afghanistan, but what Mahayana then became is because of Mar Ammo. His tomb is in Mazar-i Sharif where he is called Ali—with appropriate rank— and there is an annual national pilgrimage to Mazari Sharif on Naw Ruz. The Tomb of Mani is one hundred meters from the the Taj, the Arch of the Sassanid palace in Ctesiphon in “Pak Salman,” Salman the Pure, and Mani is here renamed called Salman al-Farsi, who the Manicheans claimed, was the brains behind Muhammad. Muhammad had brains of his own and suceeded in foiling the Manicheans of Hirah. (Mani also has a memorial on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.) Such identity protection programs were used by many, and not just Manicheans, to evade hostile religions. But the Manicheans were really good at clandestine operations. Roman Intelligence used undercover agents, “agentes in rebus” to penetrate Manichean networks. Priscillian, the Manichean Bishop of Avila executed in 380 AD in Trier by a council of Catholic Bishops and the Roman Emperor, was buried in his home town in Galicia and is now called Saint James of the blazing star, or Santiago de Compostella. There too, appropriate rank was observed: Apostle for Apostle.

    There are as many theories, or simply wild guesses for the origin of the word “Sufism” as there are UNZ commentators. The name Safavid also comes from the word “Sufi” or more precisely “saff.” Saff, like Pak, means “pure” and this was at one time the title for a Manichean “Electus” as was also the word “Saddiq,” “Siddiq,” or “Tsaddik.” The Cathares called them Bonhommes, “the Good Men” or—Perfecti.

  261. @First Millennium Revisionist

    “I admit I am a bit discouraged by the mostly negative reception of this second article and I am not sure I will produce the third that I intended on Heinsohn,…”

    That’s an alarming statement since I enjoyed this series. The links to Heinsohn’s lecture and the Malaga Bay pieces were very informative.
    I’m not sure why so many attack comments. In general I’ve found the counter arguments weak, most consisting of name-calling only.
    Please carry on with the series. As for Ron Unz receiving it poorly, well, he believes 98% of what the NY Times says.

    • Agree: FB
  262. FB says: • Website
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Have you ever read the Book of Mormon…?

    It’s actually quite a fantastic piece of literature, biblically dense and vastly imaginative…quite a work really for a 24 year old…and obviously telling biblical stories, but with different names and places…

    This is how this stuff works…stories cribbed from previous sources, just rearranged…really quite amazing that so many people are taken in by this bullshit…

    I had suspected that historiography works by the same methods, which is why this series is so fascinating…now we learn that many investigators have noticed that same thing, and are methodically unraveling this entire tissue of nonsense…

  263. Biff says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    What would a Bigfoot eat to sustain itself?

  264. @gay troll

    Wow, you are a feeble-minded syphilitic sodomite. Gay means happy. I suppose in two thousand years dullards like you will equate happiness with pederasty. In fact, it’s hard to tell if you’re truly this stupid or a master troll?

    • Replies: @gay troll
  265. Sol says:
    @Wade

    Saker wouldn’t make such mistakes concerning Orthodoxy.

    • Agree: ariadna
  266. Anon[771] • Disclaimer says:

    Why do these revisionists always pretend that China didn’t exist in the same time period as Rome and knew about it? It’s never brought up, it’s always swept aside. Even this one, which tries to advance a theory full of more holes than swiss cheese, doesn’t bring it up. Nor does his pet favorite revisionist talk about it either. That’s disappointing. I demand more thorough research for these hilarious conspiracy theories!

  267. Biff says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    I admit I am a bit discouraged by the mostly negative reception of this second article and I am not sure I will produce the third

    Please do; it would be a shame not to. Think of all the other literary‘s that were criticized, but still pressed on to produce meaningful material.

    • Replies: @ariadna
  268. Ano4 says:
    @Anon

    Currently the Mahayana is derived from Mahasanghikas who might have been contemporary with the the schools ancestral to the Theravada. The earliest Mahayana sutras are dated to the first century CE, more than a hundred years prior to Mani’s birth.

    [MORE]

    For the remaining information that you provide, which amounts to the Manichaean sect having infiltrated all other spiritual movements and surviving to this very day, it is quite interesting but I don’t really know if there are any proofs to back it.

    It is as hard to believe as a conspiracy of the Knights Templars in the Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum.

    I think that many heterodox sects have in common a tendency towards neoplatonic derivation of cascading entities from the One and quite often (but not always) a form of dualism in their appreciation of Reality.

    Perhaps this is just one of most common mythological constructions that human mind is able to produce, a kind of archetypal mental construct.

    Muhammad had brains of his own and suceeded in foiling the Manichean

    Please tell me more about the way you see the potential link between early Islam and Manichaean tradition. All I know is that the Zanadiqa have been wiped to the last man a couple centuries later by the Islamic authorities. You seem to imply that they might have come in contact with Islam in its formative period?

    • Replies: @Anon
  269. The first article in this series was a real fever dream — an argument from etymology (always tricky) that ignores all the archaeological and epigraphical evidence. I was expecting to be told that Victorian hobbyists built Hadrian’s Wall.

  270. @First Millennium Revisionist

    “why would Rome make a state religion out of the cult of a Jewish rebel crucified …”

    Because the early Christians had gained control of the pivotal positions of authority within the Empire.

    Think modern day America.

    Sound familiar?

    As a corollary why do you think Byzantium survived for 1400 years – the most successful Empire in world history.

    … because the Byzantines, knowing what had happened in Rome, kept jews out of government positions, education and banking.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  271. ariadna says:
    @Biff

    I assume you meant to say “Please do be discouraged.” I didn’t get the part about the ones that were pressed to produce because I don’t know what “literary’s” are.

  272. ariadna says:
    @Sparkylyle92

    Come on! Maybe 95% is an exaggeration but surely 80% is fair: think of the Sunday paper and how much of it is ads, and then there is the Weather Forecast, the Want Ads and much more that is neither News nor Opinion.

  273. Dude trusts nothing from the Western Roman Empire and everything from the Byzantine.

    We’ve found the glitch in his programming.

    • Replies: @Ivan
  274. ariadna says:
    @BannedHipster

    “If the author’s thesis is true, White, Western, Christian civilization still exists.”
    You must have not read the article you so admire with much attention so missed quite a few bits. This and the previous article insist that what is generally known as White Christian Western civilization is just a bunch of falsehoods. There was no Greek and no Roman civilization. All concocted in the ME.

    “If the Parthenon is from the 9th century AD, not the fifth century BC, is it no longer an architectural marvel?”
    Wrong again. According to the anonymous author, it was not build in the 9th century as an “architectural marvel” — it was built as a ruin from the start. Those clever 9th century devils!

    “All you care about is your religious ideology, which you almost certainly are emotionally attached to due to your upbringing, as opposed to a thoughtful reflection on its merits.”
    Let me chuckle first on your “thoughtful reflection”… OK. MY religious ideology?! Your guess is based on the same acumen you have already displayed in your mildly comical comments? Just as you know my upbringing and my “emotional attachment”… Does this kind of garbage really ever work for you with anyone?

    “If you were born in Egypt, you’d be a Muslim and hate Western civilization”
    About me personally, very far and no cigar. As for any and all Egyptians hating Western civilization, it is a vast, sweeping and baseless statement, likely coming from someone who hates BOTH Western Christian civilization and them Ayrabs, I think.

    But you assure me you “appreciate” Da Vinci’s Last Supper. Impressive concession from an art connoisseur…

    Religion does not enter in one’s admiration for the ancient Greek, ancient Roman, Byzantine and generally white Western culture and the civilizations that created it. One only needs to be at least moderately well-read and be free of festering tribal rancor, which is in evidence in those who attack and attempt to “cancel” it at the same time as they attack Christianity.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  275. seeuhay says:
    @Amon

    Many thanks. I would also note that the Roman Epire was neither the first, nor the last to detonate itself. The phenomenon is indeed systemic, and neither a gazillion Hail Marys, nor even the most meticulously constructed Grand Plan, will ever change that.

  276. @Anon

    Of course China was another center of the world. Byzantium traded with the Chinese, and stole from them the secret of how to make silk. Heinsohn does talk about it.

    • Replies: @Old Jew
  277. johnm33 says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    The Welsh have it that a man called Joseph turned up around 40ad and brought with him a great treasure from Jerusalem, the treasure was kept at St Davids whilst an excavation took place on Dinas head opposite Fishguard, though it was to be guarding something more Piscean than fishy. Afterwards Joseph and his family were given some land near Llantwit Major where they established the first christian church in Wales. All of those obscure Welsh saints [and probably some of the Irish ones too] were, reputedly, members of that family and claimed descent from Davids lineage, they were absorbed into the Welsh aristocracy, [and the religion fused with Druidism] both Helen mother of Constantine and King Arthur claimed descent from them. When Constantine became king of ‘Constantinople’ Helen went to Jerusalem and recovered the ‘true cross’ which she decorated and paraded around her domain, the place names with cross in them thereabouts signify that the cross halted overnight. That cross is in a cave just outside Nevern.
    I have Arthur born at @ 536 but suspect he was known more directly by the Normans and lived close to the time Morte D’Arthur was written, so @600+/- years displaced, you can see that that would more or less have the two prophets as contemporaries.

  278. @Anon

    Interesting food for thought. Indeed, the links between Manicheanism, Buddhism and Christianity (plus Isaiah, I hadn’t thought of it) are puzzling. I read somewhere that, according to Raymond Janin, Constantinople byzantine (but I haven’t checked), Arabian or Persian historian al-Biruni (c. 973-1048) made no difference between Manichaens and Buddhists in China. According to some theory, Manicheans survived in China by pretending to be Buddhists and then forgot they were Manicheans. More research needed.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  279. @Robjil

    Historians and archeologists of Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Early Middle Age are not required to know much about WWII, are they? Heinsohn seems to have had various interests before his current focus. Didn’t you, yourself, use to believe in the Big 6? Does that make whatever you wrote after worthless?

    • Replies: @Robjil
  280. @Hippopotamusdrome

    My opinion on Joseph Smith is the same as yours, I guess. His success is evidence of public gullibility when it comes to fake documents and to revelations. And it supports the theory of the Big Lie.

  281. Malla says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    I wonder if you have read Prof Revilo Oliver’s works on Christianity. Professor of the Classics, University of Illinois, Urbana. He writes a lot about forgeries in early Christianity. But I think that is common in all religions.
    One of his many works

    https://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/RPO_NewChrist/toc_ol.htm

  282. Seraphim says:
    @eknibbs

    We cannot thank you enough for the cold aspersions you have poured on the overheated imagination of sophomoric revisionist ‘historians’ and assorted conspiracy theorists.
    Please continue to do so, as you will have more of the same in the third installment.

  283. Robjil says:
    @ariadna

    The oddest thing about all this is that he gets this Heinsohn.

    Heinsohn is a big 6 pusher.

    This big 6 mania is destroying our planet for the past seventy years.

    Everything destructive that Zion/Jewish culture does is swept under a white rug. It is anti-S to even image any Jewish person or culture doing any wrong in the entire history of Judaism on this planet.

    One gets placed in jail if one doubts the big 6 in Germany if one does and many other nations. Heinsohn is in Germany. He could have not talked about the big 6, if he was a real historian looking at all angles. No, his little love fest for the big 6 essay is loved by the big 6 maniacs.

    http://migs.concordia.ca/documents/HeinsohnHitlerandtheJewishPeopleJGR.pdf

    When was this love fest for the big 6 by Heinsohn published?

    In the year 2000.

    Was it good cover for the 9.11.2001? Since it was only a year before.

    Israel has its fingerprints all over 9 11. Will Heinsohn dare to look into that?

    • Replies: @ariadna
  284. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    I have now read several different arguments by Heinsohn. I cannot claim to fully understand his views. Frequently he brings his readers to a confined scene, like Ravenna, and then finds gaps in the archaeological or literary record. This absence of evidence then becomes an evidence of absence, at which point he seems to collapse different periods onto each other. While archaeology is not something I know very much about, I would note that we should expect there to be gaps in our archaeological sources as in everything else. This is particularly the case in periods of population decline/collapse when new building is not necessary, cities are abandoned, and people have bigger problems than recording in writing what is going on around them.

    But, here I want only to pose the question: How can it be possible to collapse these chronologies in this way, when our sources attest, in overlapping and mutually confirming ways, to all of the years in the antique and medieval calendar?

    Understand I have done almost no research into this. These aren’t the strongest arguments by far. I am typing only things I know or that occur to me immediately. First of all, various sources date events through the end of Late Antiquity via the consuls who served in a specific year. This is heavily studied, as if you have an ancient inscription or text, very often your only hope of knowing when it was issued is working back from the consular date given. See Bagnall, Cameron, Schwartz, Worp: Consuls of the Later Roman Empire. They track sources that provide independent chronological information about given consuls, thus permitting the fixture of our imperial and late antique chronology. There is a great deal of uncertainty in many details, for specific years for example, but there is no doubting that sources attest consuls through the middle of the sixth century (AD 541) and that almost all the years through that ending date are accounted for in some way.

    (Is the argument that certain consuls, who we think were separated by centuries, in fact served simultaneously in Heinsohn’s concurrent chronologies? How would this work politically, though, for consuls were often also emperors and the office was a political one? Also it seems if this were the case many events would be cross-dated or tangled with each other, different consuls who we thought were divided from each other by centuries alongside each other in the same inscription. These are genuine questions, I’m just trying to get my head around it.)

    Then, medieval sources in particular are obsessed with chronology, in part because they were mostly written by clerics whose liturgical celebrations depend upon calculating correct Easter dates. Look at the end of Gregory of Tours’ Histories. He counts 412 years “from the Lord’s resurrection to the death of St. Martin of Tours” (the patron saint of his diocese). Then 197 years from St. Martin’s death to the moment of his writing. These calculations are based on different sums he tallies throughout his work. I won’t claim that they are error-free or written in stone, but however you calculate them and move things around, you still find yourself at the very end of the sixth century – A.D. 594 is the canonical date his Histories are considered to end. As a bishop of a major Gallo-Roman diocese, Gregory can rely on things like lists of his predecessors with their years of service. Early on Gregory also includes consular dates, and he mentions some major historical events that are attested and dated elsewhere. I just don’t see how this can be wrong in major ways, such that two or three centuries could be folded in upon each other and made simultaneous.

    Then after Gregory we have the anonymous chronicler known erroneously as Fredegar, who includes the first six books of Gregory (he did not know the last four: here might be a small conspiracy theory to elaborate on!), tells his own history alongside Gregory in his last book, with dates according to regnal years of Burgundian kings. Adding all these up gets you to the middle 640s. Remember now at this point, we begin to have things like original papyrus charters of Merovingian kings (definitely not forgeries: the difficult script is all but inimitable and also papyrus hard to come by in later centuries) that confirm at points here and there Fredegar’s regnal dates. Again, I don’t want to represent that there are no problems, but I see no space to really lose a century or two here.

    Once we are in the middle of the seventh century we are subject to Bede’s anno domini dating and his chronological work. These take us straight into the eighth century with very little ambiguity, as chronological matters interested Bede enormously he was among the foremost computistical thinkers of his time. Among other things, Bede and his anonymous continuator down to AD 766 report things like eclipses which can be independently verified. They are generally accurate and confirm Bede’s dates. The anonymous continuator correctly reports the date of an eclipse in AD 753: this is the latest such instance I think. This is enough to put us in the Carolingian period, where anno domini dates become adopted across Europe, and quasi-official royal chronological sources provide them throughout the ninth century and afterwards for each year.

    There’s a few other points I hope to elaborate on later. Thanks for your attention.

  285. @kerdasi amaq

    No, nothing to do with St Patrick, I’m talking way before immediately after the Crucifixion and Resurrection and the dispersal of the apostles, i.e., C 1st CE.

    See my reply to V.K. for a fuller explanation.

    Cheers!

  286. @Patagonia Man

    I saw something a while ago (and in my indolence and sloth omitted to make a note) that there was a semi-serious attempt to graft Christianity onto the Greek mystery religions rather than that of barking mad Abrahamic god. . A remnant of this is the Catholic elevation of The Host during Mass- an echo of the Greek veneration of a grain of wheat as the seed of life, What a different world that would have produced.

    • Replies: @Patagonia Man
  287. @V. K. Ovelund

    Greetings V.K.

    So first of all I have to stress that there is a *growing body of evidence of the Celtic Church originating independently of Rome. As we speak, there’s a book in the process of publication which outlines this. The book listed at the end of this screed is a good first approximation.

    I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that a Celtic church was the only church independent of Rome – as that is utterly wrong.

    So a cursory glance at the unpublished material so far reveals:

    1. There was no Roman ‘church’ as we know it today – only believers who happened to be in Rome, as Rome was comparatively large and an important world center;

    2. There was no quarrel between Peter and John – that was a fictitious notion implied by Wilfred in his address to King Oswy at the Synod of Whitby;

    3. Because Simon-Peter was one of Jesus’ 3 closest disciples, and because Jesus said, “You are Peter” (from the Greek ‘petra’ meaning ‘rock’) and “on this rock I will build my church” and because Peter’s body was there, the community at Rome thought of themselves as pretty important;

    4. But so was the church in Jerusalem which was the 1st gathering of believers immediately after Pentecost;

    5. And so was the church in Ephesus with its links to Paul and to John as its local and surviving apostle;

    6. As an aside, the concept of a papacy, and the bishop of Rome developed much later, but got written in backwards, i.e., anachronistically, as Peter came to be seen as the first pope;

    7. The 11 apostles (minus Judas) were all seen as major ambassadors alongside many more – named and unnamed;

    8. Antioch also became a major mission center, which was definitely associated with Paul;

    9. There was no competition amongst the apostles or the centers in the early days, just geography, imperial politics, occasional interruptions in communication, emperor’s quarrels or wars which made travel arrangements more precarious;

    10. So, all the churches were independent of the Roman church – it simply didn’t exist in any form we’d recognize;

    11. Developments in each of the churches happened slowly, often in reaction to other events, viz., difficult / problematic teachings, the rise of antisemitism, gradual patronage of Christianity by emperors and their interference in exchange for the easing of persecutions;

    12. John’s teaching was essentially closer to what was normally taught in the beginning by everyone, and its simplicity was what was embraced in the desert, and continued through into the Celtic branch of the church;

    13. There was only one ‘church’ recognized by each other everywhere, although nominal adherents led to much confusion: in the Celtic era, you had those who adhered to the way things had developed in Rome, admonishing the ‘Celtic’ lot for not ‘getting it right’ – or at worst – implying they weren’t part of ‘the church’ at all, because they didn’t play by the new rules;

    14. So, the “House of John” is a short-hand descriptor summarizing the teaching on the continuity of faith and discipleship from Jesus to John and onwards through desert and Celtic;

    15. So, the important thing to grasp is that the Jewish-Johnannine-Desert-Celtic stream was the traditional / simple / conservative one, whereas the Roman / Constantine / power-base developments (being at the center of Empire) were responding to very different challenges: antisemitism, religious tolerance, state interference, empire and control.

    AFAIK, the Celtic branch was generally more tolerant of differences and more inclined to listen and learn when encountering a new culture, for instance, Celtic saints interacted with the bishop of Rome without a problem. OTOH, the Roman approach sometimes followed the Roman Empire’s ‘way of doing things’, imposing its culture rather than respecting what was there, e.g., words became more like legal definitions.

    There’s also indications that the Celtic branch of the church remained far more dedicated to Jewish thinking, traditions and feasts, e.g., the discrepancies over when Easter should be observed – in tune with the Jewish Passover, and the observance of the Sabbath, etc.

    For more info The Celtic Church in Britain by Leslie Hardinge is a most readable and informative of texts.

    Cheers!

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  288. Robjil says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    The big 6 mania is destroying the intellectual freedom of humanity.

    Rome, Greece or Egypt mania is not destroying our intellectual freedom at all.

    Therefore, what he writes is worthless for humanity’s intellectual freedom.

    As I noted in a post before this, he wrote a love fest to the Big 6 in 2000. It gives cover to Israel’s doings on 9 11, a year later.

    Thus, he has “studied” ADL mandated big 6 mania. His drivel about it is even being pushed as a great read for Holocaustinity worship readings.

    http://migs.concordia.ca/documents/HeinsohnHitlerandtheJewishPeopleJGR.pdf

    The following essay by Professor Gunnar Heinsohn may concern itself primarily with the Holocaust in mind as an event a part; yet it is more than that.Its analysis could be a model for teaching the in comparability of any genocide besides the Holocaust

    Yes, all people since the end of WWII have been endless brainwashed by the big 6. This brainwashing has to stop. Heinsohn is a Zion court historian and nothing more than that. He proved that with that his 2000 love fest essay for the big 6 in 2000.

    • Agree: ariadna
  289. La Gruff says:
    @Anon

    “Augustine did finally grasp the central idea, and came up with an antidote which is that evil is not a substance but an absence of Being”

    Augustine did not come to with this, he read it in Plotinus.

    • Replies: @Anon
  290. FB says: • Website
    @eknibbs

    Among other things, Bede and his anonymous continuator down to AD 766 report things like eclipses which can be independently verified. They are generally accurate and confirm Bede’s dates.

    Well, are those eclipse dates actually accurate, that’s the big question…?

    And it is something that physics can shed light upon…since, knowing the exact nature of the moon’s orbit around earth, it is possible to calculate exactly how far back in time all eclipses have occurred…

    In 1971 Nasa Astrophysicist Robert Newton found that the eclipses in our so-called ‘historical’ record did not actually line up with our knowledge of moon orbital mechanics…in particular an orbital parameter known as ‘D’…

    Dr Newton tried to make these fit the accepted chronology as per Scalliger…but, according to Newton…

    …’the most stunning fact… is the drastic drop in D’ that begins with 700 [A.D. – A. F.] and continues until about 1300… This drop implies the existence of a “square wave” in the osculating value of D… Such changes in the behavior of D, and such rates of these changes, cannot be explained by modern geophysical theories’…[page 114]

    Astronomical evidence concerning non-gravitational forces in the Earth-Moon system

    Simply put, either those dates are not correct, or the orbit of the moon is being affected quite selectively over a certain period of history by inexplicable forces that we cannot identify…

    There are no satisfactory explanations of the accelerations. Existing theories of tidal friction are quite inadequate.

    There is no scientific reason that the moon would start having a quite different orbit and then just as inexplicably resume operating normally in the modern era…

    …between the years (-700) and (+500), the value of D” remains the lowest as compared to the ones that have been observed for any other moment during the last 1000 years…[page 114]

    …these estimations combined with modern data tell one that D” may possess amazingly large values, and that it has been subject to drastic and sudden fluctuations over the last 2000 years, to such an extent that its value became inverted around 800 A.D…[page 115]

    Is such an anomaly likely, or even possible…?

    Or is it more likely that those ‘reported’ eclipses from our ‘historical’ record are simply bunk…?

    Newton did not question the historical record, but others have…the answer has no bearing on our scientific understanding of orbital mechanics, since we know that the orbit has been stable for a very long time, but it does raise questions about the validity of those historical records…

    • Replies: @eknibbs
  291. Ano4 says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Al Biruni wrote that Buddhism reached up to the Syrian borders before being suppressed by the Zoroastrianism.

    And indeed, the Manichaean tradition was incorporated and finally completely assimilated into the Chinese Mahayana after the XV century CE.

  292. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Comments to your comments!

    Quierzy 857: Here I made a slight mistake. The actual date (14 February) is given in the capitulary text. The separate announcement to emperor Lothar, in which Charles describes the Quierzy assembly and its business, provides the year in anno domini form. As Hartmann, the editor, notes, 14 February corresponds to the start of Lent in 857. Important liturgical days like this featured the gathering of august bishops and important clerics, in the king’s presence and were often occasions for councils. Anno domini dates are present throughout many Carolingian-era sources, particularly in chronicles. When they are not present you have dates according to regnal years and often the old Roman indictions. Carolingian charters are dated in the latter sense. But the regnal years themselves are fixed by separate chronicle sources with AD dates we use now (for each Carolingian king multiple such independent attestations will exist).

    Beinecke MS 413, the ninth-century codex containing capitulary legislation. As I said, originally this codex ended at p. 191, with p. 192-194 blank. The reason you often find blank pages at the end of medieval manuscripts and printed books today is their construction from gatherings. Most 9th c. books consist of quaternions (four bifolios, folded in half = eight folios or 16 pages). If you end in the middle of a quaternion you have a few blank pages afterwards. These often attracted miscellaneous additions — texts and pen trials and even little poems or notes or sketches — over time. What we see on pp. 192-194 today are just such miscellaneous additions. They were just added here opportunistically and are not part of the originally conceived contents of the codex. One of the later scribes responsible for these additions first tries to conform to the 9th c. hand preceding his addition, probably to preserve uniformity, but he gives this up.

    At p. 195 and later we then have the post-873 part of the codex, again in 9th c. Carolingian minuscule. Why not start this post-873 appendix on the then-blank pages 192-194? Probably because the codex itself was not available when this quire was copied. We have to imagine MS 413 belonged either to the king or a great magnate, who probably traveled to this 873 assembly or a related meeting. He wanted a copy of this or other texts, and it was made for him there, and he later joined it to the codex of Carolingian laws he kept in his library at home. From p. 195 the folios are cut more narrowly than those which preceded it, so they were probably prepared without the rest of the codex to hand. This would also explain why p. 195 is so dark and filthy. These pages were carried separately for a time, and this was the outermost leaf. Of course these details can be disputed and you may have your own interpretation when you study the images, but the general point, that the codex we are looking at presents complex, organic evidence of its development over time, stands I think.

    On palaeography etc. To overgeneralize, chronological information for a given codex is to be found in three places: Its script and other graphical features; its contents; its provenance/history (who knew it when, which institutions kept it, and so on). Palaeographical dates aren’t totally uncontrolled. They have to be in harmony with contents and exemplar/provenance/history. If there is some conflict, palaeographical dates are the first to go. I won’t deny that there are silly people who try to make this a deep art or a matter for gurus (“this really feels like it was copied by a northern French scribe who had spent time in England before the 830s”), but there are silly people in many places and at root the questions are empirical. So far, no codices in developed Carolingian minuscule have been found by contents or provenance/history to date to the 8th century. Many, many are placed in the 9th century by either contents or other matters. We also have a small group of codices, some of them roughly datable to the end of the eighth century, where an early form of Carolingian minuscule appears to be in development. (Car. minuscule is a specific adjustment to earlier so-called “half-uncial” forms and in early examples you can see a lot of uncertainty surrounding letters subject to innovation.) Note that our knowledge of the contents of many manuscripts is constantly developing, as is our knowledge of provenance/history. Frequently these advances put us in a position to re-evaluate old dates, proposed by experts for this or that codex. Sometimes the dates turn out to be wrong of course, but cases where they are crazy wrong are pretty rare (and usually involve “experts” to whom nobody should’ve listened in the first place).

    A side note on all this: As a field palaeography could not really take off until the perfection of photographic technology towards the end of the 19th c. At that point there emerged a great many facsimile compendia and textbooks and a kind of golden age set in that lasted through the 1970s. This period culminated in a few decades when people expected the world from palaeographers. Bischoff especially pronounced on the dates and provenance of almost all extant Carolingian-era Mss. He was perhaps overconfident, and certainly made mistakes. In those cases where we can check, though, the dates that this golden age bequeathed us are never really catastrophically wrong. I think now the tendency is towards a healthier skepticism and there’s a marked avoidance of palaeographical arguments in the literature – which means maybe some older ideas escape scrutiny for the moment, but also old excesses have been put aside.

    Collectio Anselmo Dedicata has to postdate Pseudo-Isidore. It’s a systematic collection, meaning it splits all of its sources (conciliar acts, papal letters) up into little paragraph-length snippets on specific topics, and then distributes them under relevant titles for ease of finding and use. These snippets have little notes saying where they come from. These notes source them to specific decretal forgeries of Pseudo-Isidore, from which they have been excerpted. He uses so much Pseudo-Isidore material we can tell a lot about what his manuscript looked like. It must’ve been a copy of the so-called A2 version of the forgeries. That makes sense: This shorter A2 version was the class of decretals manuscripts most common in northern Italy, where the CAD was assembled.

    Sozomen notes explicitly that he knows Eusebius and cites him and his account of events on multiple occasions. He is only one small part of the explicit reception that Eusebius enjoyed in Greek.

  293. eknibbs says: • Website
    @FB

    Historical astronomy is not at all my field, so I can’t comment on what you write. I based my remarks on Bede’s eclipses on this recent study:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0021828619899188

    Reports in Bede (which he had from a range of sources) are generally accurate to within a day or two. Of course not all eclipses are noted. Bede never mentions lunar eclipses, and so it is interesting that the greatest inaccuracy is a lunar eclipse mentioned by his continuator. This is placed on 31 January 734 (AD date), when in fact it occured a week earlier on the 24th.

    • Replies: @FB
  294. Anonymous[329] • Disclaimer says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Don’t let the haters get to you. I am surprised by the vicious, personal character of the attacks directed at you. There’s something off here. The fact that most of them have no concrete arguments tells me that ýou’ve touched a nerve that needs to be touched. As for Unz himself insulting you, remember that he put all his credibility on a pyre and torched it with his prediction that millions would die from the fake pandemic. Don’t listen to these people! I for one loved the first two articles and am looking forward to the third. I will be very disappointed if you choose not to publish it.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  295. @FB

    “So called ‘fossil’ petroleum is supposed to be about 650 million years old…that is not very deep in the geological stratum, in fact quite near the surface”

    “Near the surface?” I doubt it remains near the surface.

    There is convection down there all the way down through the mantle

    The speed varies but numbers I have seen point to 650 million years corresponding to more than one roundtrip.

    The physics of deep highpressure geology is strange.

    The material at the whole range of depths is solid except at one depth where it might perhaps be marginally liquid.

    It seems to me likely that if some fossile material starts being drawn along with the convection (which we see at the surface as continental drift) it would mix with any other kinds of hydrocarbons that exist in deeper regions.

    I havent seen much mention of this in connection with the discussion of oil theories.

    What they do state is that any complex hydrocarbons formed at the depths claimed by abiotic theory would disintegrate on the way up.

    Thus it appears that if the fossile theory adherents are right the complex hydrocarbons must be formed further up.

    But if the convection is considered these hydrocarbons ought to have disintegrated before they formed when they returned from a roundtrip.

    Well I may have got this wrong but I sense that there is something missing from both sides of the debate.
    . . .
    About the subject matter, I have a recollection that Venetian monks are said to have spread out and infiltrated the catholic church and prepared for a long time what became the religious 30 years war that ravaged Germany centuries later.

    According to Lyndon Larouche et al the Venetians were both behind the corruption of the church and simultaneously sponsored Martin Luthers opposition.

    Perhaps some positively held forgeries were welcomed as a countermove against subversion of the church.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @FB
  296. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ano4

    Since you ask: First of all, setting aside the mystery questions surrounding the “consecrated odes,” in the most famous of these Imru’l-Qays is lamenting the slaughter of his father’s camp. What is overlooked, since it is not relevant to the literary aspect, is that he and his father were nominally Manichaeans allied with Shah Kavad (r. 488–496 & 498–531) the Sassanid Shah during the Mazdak insurgency in Iran. The Qays family was slaughtered by anti-Mazdakite political foes. What is important to bear in mind is that Iran was at that time a Manichaean state. (And that was not the only time.) Then, we must remember that the Lakhmid kingdom of Hirah, Iraq, was Christian, Jewish (Sura was just outside city limits) but, overwhelmingly, Manichaean, home to the first and second khalifahs of Mani, Sissinios and Innaios. Hirah is a stone’s throw from Mecca and was made the capital under the name Kufa when ‘Ali abandoned Medina. Where does Muhammad’s revelation begin? On a hill called Hira outside of Mecca on the exact date of the Bema ceremony. And in what year did Arab Ramadan coincide with the Manichaean month of fasting? Why that was 583, when Muhammad was thirteen, the age of Bar Mitzvah.
    Hirah is actually a very important point, because when ‘Ali was elected Caliph, a revolt on the part of the oldest Companions of Muhammad broke out against him. What was that all about? Did they know that ‘Ali would turn to the Manichaean Lakhmids of Hirah/Kufa for support and the Mukhtariyyah would make him into “Mani for Muslims?” (The way Sufism is Shi`ism for Sunnis?)
    The first trumpet is that Islamic tradition says the revelation of the Quran began on the 27th night of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting. Mani dies at 11 AM on the 26th day of the Manichaean month of fasting. That is around the moment when the Moon disappears from sight and the month is in February (Shevat or Adar) before the Naw Ruz imitating Easter after the Naw Ruz. (We are now in Tammuz, right? Tammuz is the dying and resurrected god, Adonis, on whose temple in Bethlehem the Church of the Nativity is built.) That night in February, which is the 27th of the lunar month, the vigil of the Bema begins. All that is in a book entitled the “Manichean Feast of the Empty Throne.”
    As a second trumpet, one could take, as an obvious example, cited by even the dimmist of the dim as coming from Manichaeism, the Quranic verse of “Light.”
    God is the Light of the heavens and the earth;
    the likeness of His Light is as a niche
    wherein is a lamp
    the lamp in a glass,
    the glass as it were a glittering star
    kindled from a Blessed Tree,
    an olive that is neither of the East
    nor of the West
    whose oil well-nigh would shine,
    even if no fire touched it;
    Light upon Light;
    God guides to His Light whom He will.
    And God strikes similitudes for men,
    and God has knowledge of everything. (24:35-40)
    That lamp and olive tree, everybody knows, is Mani. The symbolism is used by Rumi about himself, who, let us remember, was expelled from Balkh when orthodoxy arrived (and went to the Turks of Rum, whom Franz Babinger recognized were originally “Ali Ilahis” and before that were classic Manichaeans in Uyghuristan). Rumi took with him the circular dancing contribution from the Manichaean Buddhist daughter colony in Tibet. The lamp is a classic symbol of Mani. That is why it is used for universities and libraries, and why, in the 1001 Nights a Magician from Morocco is walking the streets of Chinese Turkestan, where the Uyghurs live, chanting “New lamps for old.” And why (because of Masonry and the Illuminati), the motto of Columbia University is: in “Lumine Tuo Videbimus lumen.”
    But, having swallowed what should have been a fatal dose of Dualism, the Quran (16:51) then declares: “God says: ‘Take not to you two gods. He is only One God; so have awe of Me.’ “
    Two gods is what? Manichaeism. One can multiply the examples, but why invent the wheel? These are in the “New Encyclopedia of Islam,” available from any bookmonger.
    Let us just add in passing that the Barmakids were originally priests from a Manichaean Buddhist monastery in… Balkh, Afghanistan. And the literatus said that “When talk began of Islamic hadith the Barmaki would look downcast and start quoting from the Book of Mazdak instead.”
    But much more interesting is the fact that the first biography of Muhammad says:
    “When Pilgrimage time came round, Muhammad preached to the clans of the Kinda, Kalb, and Hanifa. One year, a man of Kinda later told [to Rabiah Ibn `Abbad], when I was a child, I went on the Pilgrimage to Mecca with my father. When we stopped for the fair at Mina, I saw a man with long hair and a beautiful face, standing before shaykhly, uttering noble speech, that went to the hearts of men, offering his religion, calling us to God and bidding us turn from our idols. Behind him came a man long-bearded and black-haired, squint-eyed, with an Aden cloak over his shoulders, shouting: Keep away from this fellow! he is possessed of a genie!—he is a liar!—do not listen! be faithful to your religion!
    Who is that man? I asked my father.
    That is the Qurayshi prophet Muhammad son of `Abd Allah son of `Abd al-Muttalib, my father told me. He is calling the Arabs to his own religion. [literally, in the Arabic: “He is a Sabian.” i.e. a Baptist, an Ebionite.]
    Who is that other man? I asked then.
    That is his uncle, Abu Lahab, he is telling the Arabs that Muhammad is a cheat. [Sirat Rasul Allah, retold in Eric Shroeder, Muhammad’s People. The isnad of Ibn Jurayi (d. 767) and Ata ibn Abi Rabah (d. 732)]
    You can’t make this stuff up. Bear in mind that the Ebionite James of Jerusalem, one of the many thousands of brothers of Jesus, says in his epistle in the New Testament: “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” Submit to God in the Greek is Hypotagete, and by golly, you could translate this as “Islam.” Not to mention that James also enjoins that old canard from Isaiah about “Pure Religion that God our Father accepts as faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted…” You can’t get more Essene than that.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  297. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Finally, the Donation of Constantine.

    I would also like to read your opinion on the Donation of Constantine, since this is the document I am most concerned about. Is it not true that it only became of some use during the Gregorian Reform? Did not Fuhrman talk of its “anticipatory character”? How do you explain it? Who wrote the Donation, under whose instruction, and for what purpose? How do you tell the date of a document that was forged to look older than it is?

    It’s true that it became truly important to the Gregorian reformers in a way it hadn’t been before. But, it was also known and studied under the Ottonians earlier on. When you are dealing with a puzzling document like this, the first thing to do is try to come up with hard dates for it. It is taken up by Pseudo-Isidore in his forgeries, so it must predate the 850s. The better Frankish recension is in Paris, BnF ms. lat. 2777, which was copied around the same time. The common assumption is that the Donation has something to do with Pippin III’s donation that founded the papal states and opened a long era in which the popes exercised temporal sovereignty over regions of Italy. This assumption squares broadly with the contents of the Donation, which features Constantine giving Sylvester the western empire and leaving for Constantinople in the East.

    I sense your skepticism welling up around my words, so I will deal with two points straightaway:

    1) You write that Pippin III’s donation is false, but here I cannot agree. The basic act was confirmed by Charlemagne and afterwards too and later ninth-century sources also confirm the existence of this unusual political entity.

    2) However, I agree that beyond the 850 terminus ante quem, there is not much certainty. Putting the Donation after 750 on the basis of its political congruence with the events of these years is not entirely convincing and in some forms might even risk circularity. That said, something is going on here. The Liber Pontificalis (I know you doubt it, but humor me) has its biography of Stephen II in which it says Pippin III acted as his “strator” on the pope’s visit before his coronation in 754 (leading his horse around by the bridle as a groom). The Donation credits precisely the same service to Constantine, who is shown leading Sylvester’s horse by the bridle.

    Now, on the basis of stylistic analysis (frequency of Latin words, etc.), Schieffer-Boichorst placed the forgery of the Donation at Rome during the pontificate of Paul I. He found various verbal congruencies between letters of Paul I and the text of the Donation, which would suggest probably that it was concocted in Paul’s chancery. I confess that I have never looked into this very deeply and I’ve tended to doubt the strength of this evidence. A colleague, however, spent months going over S-B’s argument and came away from it powerfully convinced, so there’s that. On the other hand, I would caution that finding a lot of congruencies between the Donation and 8th-century papal letters may not mean a lot. Because of the Codex Carolinus (a collection of papal correspondence with the court compiled under Charlemagne) an unusual number of letters survive from precisely this period. You get hits with the data you have.

    On the date, in summary: It cannot be later than the 850s and it is not by Pseudo-Isidore. Probably it is not earlier than the 750s, but here maybe there is room for other views.

    As for reception, which might shed light on purpose: Almost non-existant before Pseudo-Isidore. Possibly a document Charlemagne drew up in 806 for dividing his kingdom among his heirs draws on it slighty, but possibly not. It’s really uncertain. There’s an odd moment in a late eighth-century letter of Pope Hadrian I that talks theoretically of the pope’s dominions in a way that seems to recall the Donation. But, again, it’s not completely certain. Pseudo-Isidore is the first hard and clear reception. The Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries are also the conduit through which the document is made known to most everyone else.

    The purpose of the Donation, judging from its contents, would be something like this: To insist that the pope is entitled to some kind of (temporal) jurisdiction in the West, corresponding to the emperor’s (temporal) jurisdiction in the East. It is an argument for something like the papal states, a retrospective attempt to justify them, or something along those lines. This is what people will say anyway. The limited reception must suggest it was hardly used. It is curious to find the best copy in Ms. 2777, a manuscript from the monastery of Saint-Denis, where Stephen II had crowned Pippin III in 754 after the strator thing I noted above.

    There’s a lot of speculation and best-guessing in all of that. I am certain about only this: The Donation predates the 850s. The Pseudo-Isidorian reception proves it. Then, I would say this is probable but not proven: The Donation emerged in some connection to evolving political conceptions of the popes, in Rome, in the later 8th century.

    • Thanks: Ivan
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  298. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @La Gruff

    Good to know. Augustine did not know enough Greek to read Plotinus, but doubtless could have learned that from the grapevine.

    • Replies: @La Gruff
  299. Robjil says:
    @Anonymous

    No nerve. Heinsohn has no nerve, he worships the Big 6.

    We are not oppressed by any viewpoint of Rome, Greece or Egypt.

    Publish away. It does end our oppression by Zion.

    Zion will love these articles because Heinsohn loves the big 6 as our new sun.

    If Heinsohn is so afraid of Zion, he can’t dig deeply into history. Zion says it has been around “5000 years” according to Nick Cannon who was forced to bow to Zion. Thus, there will be many hollow spaces in Heinsohn’s investigation of history. Zion does not allow any criticism at all in its entire history.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  300. gay troll says:
    @Str8t troll

    I am flattered by the imitation, but you only say one thing that is true, which is that gay means happy. You are the dullard equating it with pederasty. Word of advice son, stay out of the troll business, you suck at it.

  301. gay troll says:
    @Patagonia Man

    The LXX was “translated” from Hebrew in the third century BCE, about 250 years after the Jews “returned” from exile in Babylon, and 250 years before the birth of our Anointed Savior.

    There is no evidence of a first temple in Jerusalem, nor much of a second temple until it was “rebuilt” by Herod around 20 BC.

    • Replies: @Patagonia Man
  302. Dannyboy says:
    @brabantian

    Reading garbage from your ilk always makes me a little sad, rather than angry. It’s interesting that you think it impossible or highly unlikely that human beings were/are able to control their sexual impulses and redirect them towards a greater good.

    It’s somewhat understandable given the cesspool we currently live in. No shortage of poor souls like you around.

    • Replies: @ivan
  303. I believe, confess, repent. The way of salvation is simple: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3: 16

    Deconstruction is a gaggle of carnival barkers selling crackerjack (doubt and confusion) to those with itching ears. The prize is loss of faith, trust, and Church. Its followers are worse off than Esau: at least he received porridge for his inhertance. They only darkness.

    The greatest gift one can know is trust in Christ. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.” Prov 3: 5,6

    The deconstructionists turn over every rock to delegitim

  304. @First Millennium Revisionist

    You certainly do need to write that last installment.

    Most likely a portion of the negative response you have received here is because you have potentially exposed the true extent of the rewriting of history, as described in Orwell’s 1984, in particular his Ministry of Truth. We like to believe Orwell was writing science fiction, but in fact he was writing forbidden history that has been used to deceive and indoctrinate us for perhaps thousands of years.

    It seems quite likely that you have written this at one of the few moments in history where it is not risking total censorship. The rise of the so-called cancel culture may well make it impossible in but a very few years. They were able to do the same in the past because the PTB had total control over all publishing. (I know — it happened to me forty years ago — I had no recourse.)

    As well you are pushing what Thomas Kuhn calls a paradigm change. That means you are fighting a lifetime of indoctrination in the old paradigm for just about every reader. They have no idea how the ideas in their head came to be there. They don’t understand that every concept, every term and every measurement is contaminated with theory from the get-go. So every discussion is at cross-purposes.

    Worse your paradigm shift is in history (with implications for religion) and historians are often so arrogant they don’t accept that their discipline is susceptible to paradigm change. They don’t understand that essentially every other scientific discipline has undergone one or more such changes in the modern era. They definitely don’t understand why they should have to look at things like archeology in coming to their conclusions.

    Finally if I understand Heinsohn, he is postulating a mega-catastrophe in the 10th century, and that at least opens the door to Velikovsky and his Venus as comet theory. You sound like you are too young to remember the massive effort the establishment put forth to put that dog to sleep. Velikovsky at the time was the best-selling author in the world, as well as a good friend of Einstein. Be assured that would raise major, major hackles.

    In short not everyone here is involved in the search for objective truth.

    • Thanks: FB
    • Replies: @Robjil
  305. ariadna says:
    @Robjil

    Well… let’s see… The “Big 6” has been completely demolished by Arthur Butz in The Hoax of the 2oth Century, to cite but one serious debunker of many. Still, not one day passes without some “event” that repeats the big lie in one form or another, just so we “never forget” what we are not allowed to question on pain of being accused of the capital heresy: “anti-semitism.” Today it was the little kiddie shoes in the Holocaust Museum inside of which, supposedly they have just discovered little notes tucked in by the children’s mothers. Fancy that! Nobody noticed them for more more than 70 years and now, presto!

    The anonymous self-appointed Western Civilization Canceller who wrote this piece defended the Holocaustology retailer by saying Heinsohn isn’t expected to be an expert in WWII history because his expertise lies … somewhere else. Apparently he can, however, write about something he knows little or nothing about. Maybe he identifies with Heinsohn because, as his own expertise allegedly was French romances and lays, he probably should not be expected to know much about Greek and Roman antiquity or Western culture and civilization generally but be suffered to opine about it. His bloopers on ancient Greek and Roman history, on Romance languages and on the Eastern Orthodox faith are pathetic. His feigned admiration for Byzantium is a foil to attack Catholicism (the mother of all anti-semitic evils) and deny the Greek and Roman legacy of the Western culture. Some commenters sensed it and suspected him of being … Russian, if not the Saker! Nobody who claims to have any admiration for the Eastern Orthodox Christian culture and specifically Byzantium can be so blatantly ignorant of its basic religious tenets. The Creed , he says… please!
    I wager that if you take just about any brain-washed Shabbos Goy or supremacist Jew (is this a pleonasm?) and give him the task to comb wikipedia, he can put together a little essay like this, “proving,” not only that Ancient Greece and Rome never existed, but that the Goyim were interlopers in the magnificent Hebrew culture. All padded with references to authors whose expertise was “somewhere else,” quotes taken out of context or interpreted against the grain, and so on.It is just as easy to “prove” the Earth is flat with a similarly confected well-“document” idiocy.
    There are, largely speaking, there categories of activists that detract or deny White Western culture or what Atzmon calles “Athens” and often simultaneously Christianity:
    • Whites stultified by cultural marxism and cowed into accepting their supposed collective racial guilt;
    • Uneducated blacks with a narrow agenda who have no clue what they are talking about ; and
    • Supremacist jews burning with hate towards the goyim in general and white christians in particular.
    All three can be seen in the US.

    • Thanks: Robjil
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Seraphim
  306. Robjil says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Velikovsky was a Jewish fanatic.

    There are lots of Jewish websites that talk about this.

    http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/20-jewish-science-vel.htm

    This Jewish website says Velikovsky’s way of thinking was “Jewish Science”. We will all be forced to to be thinking that way soon if the ADL gets their way.

    I use the term Jewish Science here in a special sense with two separate denotations as both process and product. It refers to the preconditions of Velikovsky’s unique conceptualizations and especially the preconditions as manifested by (1) his father, who largely personified for Velikovsky (2) a
    unique strand in the Jewish tradition generally, and by (3) psychoanalysis and it also refers to the specific formulations themselves, their peculiar methodological basis, their particular expressions or conclusions, and theirultimate purpose or function as a legitimate alternate worldview..

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
    , @ivan
  307. La Gruff says:
    @Anon

    He read at least some of both Porphyry and Plotinus in Latin translation, enough that he was deeply influenced by them both, such that on his death-bed Augustine quoted was quoting Plotinus, according to his friend Possidius, who wrote a Vita Augustini

  308. @ariadna

    Good work. It certainly stinks of psy op.

  309. FB says: • Website
    @eknibbs

    Reports in Bede (which he had from a range of sources) are generally accurate to within a day or two.

    The article you linked to looks at only seven eclipses, and one of those lunar eclipses was not within that range of a couple of days at all…

    There is evidence that the reports were obtained from a range of sources beyond the NE of England, two possibly from as remote as Rome.

    From the lack of physical detail, we deduce that the interest in the eclipses was their relevance to historical matters, rather than in the phenomena themselves.

    Since lunar eclipses occur during night and are visible anywhere on earth, it’s obvious that a large discrepancy like that found in the paper is curious to say the least…there is really no way to explain it…

    As for the ‘accuracy’ of within two days for the solar eclipses, we recall that solar eclipses can only be seen from a small geographic portion of the earth surface…not knowing the location of where the eclipse occurred makes its purported date meaningless…which is why the paper reports that Bede’s eclipses must have been from ‘a range of sources’ beyond England…

    So basically this is meaningless with respect to trying to determine an actual date at that time and place…

    We note also that eclipses can occur only during a 35-day window during any given year, known as an eclipse season, with two such seasons in each year…therefore an accuracy of within two days is again meaningless to place an eclipse in a given year, especially if the location is not known…

    By contrast, Newton’s study in 1971 examines 370 eclipses from Scaliger’s chronological record put together in the 1500s…

    At the time of this study, the atomic clock had been perfected and opened the way for accurate satellite-based navigation based on timekeeping, which developed into the GPS and Russian Glonass systems…in 1972, the UTC time standard was adopted [universal coordinated time] and the Julian Day was adopted for GPS, military etc…due to small irregularities in earth’s spin about its axis an atomic clock second is dropped every year…

    Scaliger in 1583 [one year after the Gregorian calendar reform] proposed the Julian Period, which is 7980 years, with year one as 4713 BC…the reason is that the Julian calendar can be expressed in numbers…

    Scaliger got the idea of using a tricyclic period from “the Greeks of Constantinople” as Herschel stated in his quotation below in Julian day numbers.[43]

    Specifically, the monk and priest Georgios wrote in 638/39 that the Byzantine year 6149 AM (640/41) had indiction 14, lunar cycle 12, and solar cycle 17, which places the first year of the Byzantine Era in 5509/08 BC, the Byzantine Creation.

    This Julian date system using those number series is now the basis of modern timekeeping for GPS and astronomy etc because it doesn’t use leap years, and thus makes adding and subtracting dates straightforward…so these official clocks are set as beginning at January 0, 4713 BC at noon…

    The problem with Scaliger’s chronology and the hundreds of eclipses in that historical record that he compiled is that the record often had only numbers…

    Scaliger corrected chronology by assigning each year a tricyclic “character”, three numbers indicating that year’s position in the 28-year solar cycle, the 19-year lunar cycle, and the 15-year indiction cycle.

    One or more of these numbers often appeared in the historical record alongside other pertinent facts without any mention of the Julian calendar year.

    The bottom line is that Scaliger’s entire chronology is thus completely unverifiable, except for a method like Newton employed in his study…and which found that in order for the historical data to fit, some unknown and inexplicable force was distorting the moon orbit during a particular time in history…or, those dates could only fit in different eclipse seasons many hundreds of years removed…

    So this is the starting point…if one starts from an assumption that Scaliger’s dates are genuine, then one starts down the wrong path from the get-go, and thus all calculations are meaningless…

    • Replies: @eknibbs
  310. @Robjil

    Velikovsky was a Jewish fanatic.

    It’s a bit of a stretch to go from that to this:

    One could say (if one wished) that Velikovsky seemed to have
    even a genetic disposition toward catastrophism

    Velikovsky’s principal establishment antagonist was the astronomer Carl Sagan.
    That would seem to make Sagan an anti-catastrophist.
    Guess what: Sagan was a Jew.

    Perhaps we could even say, if one wished, that he had a genetic disposition towards anti-catastrophism.

    Lots of wishing going on.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  311. @Robjil

    A third temple to kill goats, sheep, and chickens is not the highlight of humanity.
    —————————————–
    It is the antithesis to humanity. That is precisely the point. Once a bunch of people can regularly give blood offerings to their demon then they both grow in power.
    I am convinced that within the Babylonian exile of Jews there were those who were chosen and initiated into mystery religion-satanism. These people have been carrying around these demented and degenerate practices for thousands of years. They aren’t the only ones. The Romans didn’t kill all of the Phoenicians when they destroyed Carthage to end the Punic Wars. Those people worshiped Moloch and have been proven, by forensic archaology, to have routinely sacrificed children.

    • Agree: Robjil
  312. Lurker says:
    @GeeBee

    A Roman lighthouse still exists above the port at Dover, stands around 40-50 feet high. Its not particularly elegant but still recognisably a tower.

    But what is impressive is when one stands inside or outside and looks up and realises its stood there for close on two thousand years . . .

    Structure on the right.

  313. @Bill Jones

    Thanks Bill for your comment. From my own experience of life, I cannot accept that the Divine (however one conceives of it) was “barking mad”. As human beings, we have finite intellects and temporal (physical) bodies – so its difficult, if nay impossible, for us to know with certainty the Divine Mind – which is infinite (beyond space) and eternal (beyond time).

    There are many instances of a ‘new’ system of belief using previous dates and symbols of an existing belief, i.e., the ‘old religion’ to make it easier for the (illiterate) peasants and serfs to grasp a new concept.

    Can you imagine what it would be like to live through that transformation?

    At one point in time, you’d believe that the Divine was immanent in all of Nature – the sun and moon, trees, birds, animals, geographical features e.g. mountains, etc, etc – and at a later date you were being encouraged/coerced to believe that a single Divine being was above/beyond the Earth and all living things.

    It would have taken quite some adjustment.

    Cheers!

  314. @gay troll

    Unless you can provide a reference, I cannot think of a reason to believe your assertions.

  315. Robjil says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    The Jewish Science idea was not my idea. It was the idea of the writer of the article I posted. I know that Sagan was Jewish.

    https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shapin/files/shapin_lrbgordin.pdf

    Here is a short overview of Velikovsky’s book Worlds in Collision.
    He used Jewish stories to gauge all others myths from other cultures. That is a Jewish-centric thing to do so.

    Although Worlds in Collision was a pastiche of comparative mythology and planetary astronomy, its major purpose was a radical reconstruction of history. Velikovsky had worked through the annals of myth and ancient history, which substantially supported each other and told the same historical stories; the Jewish story and its chronologies could be used reliably to gauge all the others.

    Velikovsky played the same dating game that the author of this article in Unz is doing.

    The apparent datings of events did differ, but a wholesale recalibration of ancient chronology was both possible and necessary. The ancient historians had got their dates badly wrong, and so too had the astronomers,biologists and geologists, who now needed to understand that spectacular cosmic catastrophes had happened and that historical methods of interpreting ancient texts could be used to establish radically unorthodox scientific stories.

    Jewish history would be the centerpiece for “acccuracy” of the timing of events. What does the author this Unz article and Heinsohn “think” as the centerpiece for their timing of events?

    Properly understood, Jewish history not only laid bare the inaccuracy of scientific accounts, it securely established the reality of natural events and processes which scientists assumed could not possibly have happened.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
    , @Ivan
  316. ivan says:
    @Dannyboy

    The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham demanded by God, was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. It is to be read that way by Christians in order for the terror it inspires to make human sense. The difference being that God the Father and God the Son carried through the sacrifice. And all we have to offer in return is the circumcision of heart. The Jews offered a bit of their foreskin. But the spirit is the same.

    • Replies: @ariadna
  317. ivan says:
    @Robjil

    I am afraid you have misunderstood Velikovsky. He was a scrupulously honest man. I give him some credit for coming up with the idea that the temperature at the surface of Venus would be in the region of 800 degree Celcius, when the prevailing theories were expecting much lower temperatures.

    IIRC Velikovsky made use of some writings in the Bible to argue that much of the celestial phenomena found in the bible is due to some cometary or other astronomical anomalies. Two points should be noted

    a) If Velikovsky is right then the Earth even in the Bible’s own terms is much older than thought.
    b) Velikovsky was in the tradition of catastrophism as opposed to uniformitarisms as explained in this wiki
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism#:~:text=Catastrophism%20is%20the%20theory%20that,all%20the%20Earth%27s%20geological%20features.

    The struggle went in favour decisively of the uniformitarists ever since Newton and others such as Halley succeeded in explaining celestial phenomena in terms of Newton’s physics. That partly accounts for the virulence he faced from the Establishment. But he had the backing of Einstein who was by then a genial avuncular figure, in his controversies. Charles Hapgood, authour of Earth’s Shifting Crust had also found some backing from A Einstein.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hapgood

    The book When the Earth Nearly Died https://www.amazon.com/When-Earth-Nearly-Died-Catastrophic/dp/B00MF1AOTE#customerReviews

    makes a compelling case for some elements of catastropism by marshalling an astounding array of evidence from the folklore of humanity throughout the world.

  318. ariadna says:
    @ivan

    No. The spirit is not the same. Not by a long shot. Offering your newborn son for sexual amputation and fellatio by a religious expert in vampiric pedophilia for the purpose of confirming him as “Chosen” bears no resemblance whatsoever to Jesus’ acceptance of suffering* and crucifixion not for himself or his tribe but, in the universalist spirit that would characterize Christianity, for mankind’s salvation.
    ___________________
    * An aside on the suffering…. The manner and cause of death of Jesus was the object of a study by two top foremost forensic pathologists who used the scriptures as a basis for their conclusions. Their verdict: Jesus died on the cross of hypovolemia caused by the cruel and prolonged whipping that tore his flesh (as graphically shown in Mel Gibson’s movie). The study was published some 30 years ago in JAMA by the then Editor-in-Chief, a pathologist himself who had actually commissioned the authors to do the study. Incidentally his ambition was to beat the NEJM in science citation rankings. The publication caused an uproar of indignation from its readers : Christian doctors protested that the authors had treated Jesus as morgue subject thus negating his divinity and Jewish doctors protested that the authors had described an imaginary religious character as a person who had ever existed…The Letters to the Editor were fun.

    • Replies: @Ivan
  319. @Robjil

    Velikovsky played the same dating game that the author of this article in Unz is doing

    You mischaracterize Velikovsky by suggesting he is primarily about chronology and dating. He spent some years during WWII combing through ethnographic records and establishing that many pre-modern societies around the world had recorded catastrophic events coming from the sky, with images suggesting the near approach of a huge comet with massive lightning discharges and utter devastation. He also searched ancient records to show that while the ancients were diligent sky watchers and had many historical references to Jupiter and Saturn, for instance, there was never any reference to the planet Venus in the more ancient texts. He thus concluded that Venus was a new planet, and had been on a cometary orbit that came over close to Earth and Mars for a period of time before it settled into its current orbit around the sun.

    When pressed as to its origin, he suggested it may have been ejected from Jupiter. Ejection from Saturn would have been another possibility, or as an intruder from outside the solar system. Nevertheless it was clearly a theory of catastrophe and by that itself it opposed Darwin. He did not need a reason as your citation suggests:

    [MORE]

    Velikovskianism belonged to the intellectual genre known as catastrophism, the notion that sudden and massive changes, not just gradual ones, have occurred in the natural world and that the more or less uniform natural processes now observable do not constitute all the modes of change that have historically shaped the world. Darwin was a notable uniformitarian, and Velikovsky opposed Darwinism for that reason, but there is nothing inherently unscientific about catastrophism, nor did Velikovsky’s catastrophism invoke divine intervention. It was bizarre, but it was offered as a scientific (not a religious) theory about natural objects, natural events and natural powers. At a theoretical level, the objections orthodox scientists had about Velikovskianism mostly had to do with celestial mechanisms: his assertions about the insufficiency of gravitation and inertial motion to account for planetary behaviour and related claims about the significance of electromagnetic forces. The problem at a factual level was that these spectacular catastrophes were supposed to have happened quite recently, while orthodox science recognised no evidence that they had.

    The important point is that he was subjected to a cancel culture as venomous as any we see today:

    There were scientific voices counselling Olympian disdain but they were in general overruled. Still, pretending to take no notice of Velikovsky might have been the plan had Worlds in Collision not been published by Macmillan, a leading producer of scientific textbooks, and packaged not as an offering to, say, comparative mythology or as popular entertainment, but as a contribution to science. Elite scientists, notably at Harvard, reckoned that they might be able to control what Macmillan published when it was represented as science. A letter-writing campaign was organised to get Macmillan to withdraw from its agreement to publish the book; credible threats were made to boycott Macmillan textbooks; hostile reviews were arranged; questions were raised about whether the book had been peer-reviewed (it had); and, when Worlds in Collision was published anyway, further (successful) pressure was exerted to make Macmillan wash its hands of the thing and shift copyright to another publisher. The editor who had handled the book was let go, and a scientist who provided a blurb and planned a New York planetarium show based on Velikovsky’s theories – admittedly not the sharpest knife in the scientific drawer – was forced out of his museum position and never had a scientific job again.

    This was justified as a Hobson’s choice when “orthodoxy [is] confronted by intellectual challenges from alien sources”:

    Things got interesting when Velikovsky predicted that the temperature of Venus would be found to be boiling hot. Sagan, noting that the clouds on Venus reflected a lot of sunlight, said it would be no hotter than Earth. A satellite probe was dispatched and Velikovsky was found to be spectacularly correct. (One of five predictions he made that were confirmed). A major scientific conference was called and Velikovsky’s theory was successfully put to sleep.

    Case closed.

    • Thanks: Ivan
  320. Ivan says:
    @ariadna

    I agree that the accounts of the Crucifixion are consistent with medical knowledge. But I have to protest that Jesus himself was taken to the Temple for circumcision by his earthly parents who were Jews.

  321. eknibbs says: • Website
    @FB

    Right, the article is only about eclipses noted in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. One source. The authors are naturally aware that solar eclipses are a regional phenomenon. They write:

    Of the five solar eclipses, retrospective computation shows that one was total and
    another central annular in mainland Britain. The others were partial, and two of them
    were so small that they probably would have gone unnoticed in Britain, which implies
    that the source for these three eclipses lay outside Britain.

    Of 5 solar eclipses noted by Bede or his Continuator: Two were central at Bede’s location, and occurred in 664 and 733; one, in 753, was substantial but not total at Jarrow. The other two were too partial in England to be observed. These, from AD 538 and 540, are included only in a kind of annalistic appendix to Bede’s History and not in its main text. These years, from Bede’s perspective, would have seemed very much like the “prehistory” of Britain, as they were well before the introduction of Roman Christianity by Gregory’s missionaries. The annals are very terse and make no statement about wheres these eclipses were observed: They were both total in the Mediterranean and the path of totality for the 540 eclipse passed directly over Rome. Anglo-Saxon Christianity was founded in the early seventh century by Roman missionaries and Bede had abundant access to Roman sources at his library in Northumbria. In years where Bede’s sources are primarily Roman, he reports Meditteranean eclipses, in other words.

    Since lunar eclipses occur during night and are visible anywhere on earth, it’s obvious that a large discrepancy like that found in the paper is curious to say the least…

    A discrepancy of a week. Our sources for the eighth century are transmitted to us by manuscripts, copied by hand. Scribal errors particularly with respect to Roman numerals are extremely, extremely common. Literacy and writing materials were not widely available in the eighth century when Bede wrote, and in all of our ancient sources observations about the natural world are sporadic and imperfect as a result of these limitations. I don’t argue that the discrepancy is not interesting or meaningful – only that it is not disqualifying.

    As for the ‘accuracy’ of within two days for the solar eclipses, we recall that solar eclipses can only be seen from a small geographic portion of the earth surface…not knowing the location of where the eclipse occurred makes its purported date meaningless…

    If the path of totality for these two – from Bede’s perspective, very old – partial eclipses was through subsaharan Africa or over Antarctica I would totally agree. But if, in the absence of all other knowledge, the question were put to me: “Bede records a mid sixth-century eclipse. Where was it observed?” I would have guessed Rome or the broader Mediterranean immediately, as it was from Roman sources and Roman codices that Bede’s library was primarily constructed.

    So basically this is meaningless with respect to trying to determine an actual date at that time and place…

    It’s just not.

    • Replies: @FB
  322. Seraphim says:
    @ariadna

    The Saker couldn’t possibly say that the “Orthodox cult’ doesn’t know the Creed! No Russian for that matter.
    But no need to speculate, he plainly said he is French and specialist in French romances and lays (not Lay’s French Chips), fictional literature. Now he writes fictional history.

    • Replies: @ariadna
  323. @eknibbs

    Thank you for this comment, and for the next one. There is much to learn from them.
    Just like FB and for the same reasons, I feel the astronomical argument (reports of eclipses) is unconclusive.
    The problem of having simultaneous consuls or even emperors is also easily solved, in two ways: first, political structures are much less uniform, stable and standardized than we would like them to be. According to textbook history, there were, after all, several Roman Caesars and Augustus at the same time (and several popes too at other times). As a title, imperator is not much different from king or duke; it was claimed by many warlords, sometimes with conflicting local ambitions. Having thought much about it, I have no difficulty, for example, to believe that Charlemagne claimed to be a Roman Emperor at the same time as two or three others in Italy and Constantinople, and perhaps even with their consent. (And is Karolus Magnus the name of one single person anyway?) Secondly, there are many duplicates in sources, resulting from the same persons receiving different names and/or titles depending on the sources and their chaotic transmission (including translation), and/or being assigned to different periods. I have no doubt that Heinsohn, and Fomenko for that matter, have convincingly demonstrated the existence of duplicates: Flavius Theodoric and Flavius Theodosius is one case in point that comes to my mind.
    However, your arguments based the manuscript tradition, reception history, palaeography, authors quoting each other, etc, are beyond my ability to dispute, and do give me second thoughts. I was not aware, for example, of Merovingian papyrus charters, having even reached the conclusion that the Merovingians were a fiction. Also I had assumed, based on what I had read here and there, that there were no Anno Domini dates in original manuscripts before the 10th century or perhaps even the 11th, and that AUC (Ab urbe condita) was the standard before that. (Conveniently, the AUC comput differs from AD by 753 years, roughly the time span that Heinsohn deletes, which led me to the plausible hypothesis that the major distortion was created when AUC was reinterpreted as AD.) I thought that Rodulfus Glaber and Hermann or Reichenau, at the very beginning of the second millennium, were among the very first to use AD dates. Interestingly, Rodulfus, in his autograph manuscript, is still indecisive: he mentions an event during the pontificate of Benedict VIII (1012-1024) and dates it from “the year 710 of the Lord’s incarnation” (Book 1, §23). The editor of my Latin-French edition corrects him in footnote: “In fact in 1014, but the manuscript corrected by Rodulfus carries indisputably the date 710; nothing explains such a mistake.” Somewhere else (II,8), Rodulfus give the date “888 of the Word incarnate” instead of 988 (according to the editor’s footnote). I wonder how common are such “mistakes” or corrections of several centuries in medieval chronicles.
    At least, it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of people were not aware of living through the year 1000. That is why, contrary to what some historians have tried to show, there was no “fears of the year 1000.” Since the sources are mute about such a phenomenon, those who insist on its reality, like Richard Landes, resort to funny arguments like “a consensus of silence that masks a great deal of concern. … medieval writers avoided the subject of the millennium whenever and wherever possible.”
    There was also the Annus Mundi comput (since the creation of the world), still in use in the twelfth century, for example by Ademar of Chabannes in his chronicle (did he also mention AD dates, I would have to check).
    But you say that “Anno domini dates are present throughout many Carolingian-era sources, particularly in chronicles” (and I assume you mean in original Carolingian manuscripts). That certainly overthrows my theory that the AD is a Gregorian invention. It must be a pre-Gregorian invention.
    According to you, the manuscript tradition forms like one big piece of fabric with very few holes, and there are enough dates solidly established by one method or another (give or take a few decades at the most, I suppose), to garantee the continuity of the first millennium chronology. On the other hand, having studied Heinsohn’s arguments based on stratigraphy and comparative archeology, I find them also very persuasive. So if you don’t mind, I’ll write an e-mail to Heinsohn ([email protected] or [email protected]) to attract his attention to your comment, and ask him if he cares to respond, either by e-mail or directly on unz.com.
    Meanwhile, I think it will be useful if I produce my third article trying to give a general overview of Heinsohn’s theory. I will perhaps include some personal remarks about how I came to be interested in chronological revisionism after bumping, in the course of my Doctorate research in medieval anthropology, into many clues that medieval men thought that they lived close to Roman Antiquity, and were still deeply pagan in their mentality, as if living in the infancy of Christianity and having never heard of Augustine.

    • Replies: @eknibbs
    , @tiami
  324. Seraphim says:
    @eknibbs

    Since Byzantium is brought into the discussion we should look more closely at the role played by the ‘Donation’ in the pontificate of Nicholas I. There is a connection between the Ravennate affair, Photian ‘schism’, mission of Cyrill and Methodius to the Slavs, Christianization of Bulgaria and Russia.

    • Replies: @eknibbs
  325. Ivan says:
    @Robjil

    Then Velikovsky’s work was in the genre of religious apologetics. I think there was another Jewish astronomer Cecelia Gaposhkin who was even more dismissive of him. The thing is the academics were protecting their turf from an amateur in astronomy. Both Jews and Christians who believed in God would have been happy with him taking down Darwinism. Those guys were pretty relentless in undermining the idea of a God who cares or for that matter of any other kind of gods. This was around the time when with the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule, dinosaur hunters and experimentalists such as Harold Urey who managed to create a few simple organic molecules were threatening to wipe the slate clean of theists.

  326. Robjil says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/steven-shapin/catastrophism5 of 101/24/2013 9:52 AM

    Catastrophism connected to Old Testament tales was his main focus.

    Here are the reasons for the enormous appeal of Velikovsky’s theories to Cold War America, and, specifically, to the young, the angry and the anxious. Lecturing to campus audiences, Velikovsky told the students what they already knew: the world was not an orderly or a safe place;

    Armageddon had happened and could happen again:The belief that we are living in an orderly universe, that nothing happened to this Earth and the other planets since the beginning, that nothing will happen till the end, is a wishful thinking that fills the textbooks … And so it is only wishful thinking that we are living in a safe, never perturbed, solar system and a safe, never perturbed past.

    Alfred Kazin, writing in the New Yorker, understood that this was part of Velikovsky’s appeal, and tellingly linked the great pseudo scientist with the Doomsday warnings of orthodox atomic scientists: Velikovsky’s work ‘plays right into the small talk about universal destruction that is all around us now’, he said, ‘and it emphasises the growing tendency in this country to believe that the physicists’ irresponsible scare warnings must be sound.’

    This is a summary of the key ideas of Velikovsky’s book the World’s in Collision. He tries to get everything to fit the Old Testament. He has a Jewish focus to his catastrophism.

    Fifteen hundred years before the birth of Christ, a chunk of stuff blew off the planet Jupiter. That chunk soon became an enormous comet, approaching Earth several times around the period of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt and Joshua’s siege of Jericho. The ensuing havoc included the momentary stopping and restarting of the Earth’s rotation; the introduction into its crust of organic chemicals (including a portion of the world’s petroleum reserves); the parting of the Red Sea, induced by a massive electrical discharge from the comet to Earth; showers of iron dust and edible carbohydrates falling from the comet’s tail, the first turning the waters red and the second nourishing the Israelites in the desert; and plagues of vermin, either infecting Earth from organisms carried in the comet’s tail or caused by the rapid multiplication of earthly toads and bugs induced by the scorching heat of cometary gases.

    Eventually, the comet settled down to a quieter life as the planet Venus, which, unlike the other planets, is an ingénue at just 3500 years old.Disturbed by the new girl in the neighbourhood, Mars too began behaving badly, closely encountering Earth several times between the eighth and seventh centuries BCE;triggering massive earthquakes, lava flows, tsunamis and atmospheric fire storms; causing the sudden extinction of many species (including the mammoth); shifting Earth’s spin axis and relocating the North Pole from Baffin Island to its present position; and abruptly changing the length of the terrestrial year from 360 to its present 365¼ days. There were also further shenanigans involving Saturn and Mercury.

  327. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Of course you may draw Heinsohn’s (or anybody’s) attention to my comments.

    I am not sure I’ve communicated the significance of the consular evidence well. Consuls, who served one-year terms, gave their names to successive years in the Roman Republic and especially the Empire. This means that the names of later Roman consuls are well attested in various sources, as are lists of consuls who served in successive years (the fasti consulares). In combination, the names of consuls who served in a given year would be given in the ablative case. Doing this was the same as naming a given year today.

    This is the most important thing: Ab urbe condita dates were not very common in antiquity. Consular dates were by far the most normal method of indicating a specific year.

    Any broadscale attack on pre-sixth-century chronology cannot ignore the consuls because the consular dates are in countless stone inscriptions, they are an papyri unearthed by archaeologists, they are in our literary sources. This, not AUC dates, is where most of our chronology rests.

    Emperors in East and West accepted and particular consular names as a means for designating the year, and used these names in official formulas. Our sources for which consuls designated officially which year are very diverse. They are as I said: Fasti, that is ancient lists of consular names compiled specifically for chronological purposes. They are things like imperial laws. Consular names are present as I said in many inscriptions, on papyri, in literary sources, and also on coinage.

    All of this evidence is extremely complex. But it is also broadly in mutual confirmation. There are problems, but after 150 years or more of research we still have more or less the same list of consular names (two consuls for each year in one mostly-continuous list) that is complete until AD 541, the year Justinian abolished the distinct consulate.

    I wish you luck with your third article.

    • Replies: @eknibbs
  328. eknibbs says:
    @eknibbs

    Oh, and briefly on anno domini dates: They were first developed around AD 525 by Dionysius Exiguus for his Paschal table; then they were popularized by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History. After the eighth century the Carolingians pick them up and use them here and there in official documents and in things like annals. From the ninth century onwards they are increasingly widespread, but of course dating by regnal year survives as well.

  329. Ano4 says:
    @Anon

    Arabia certaunly did serve as a refuge for all kinds of heterodox Jewish and Christian traditions. There was no centralized authority in the desert and if you could get along with the locals (an uneasy task) then you probably could live there sheltered from the Cancel Culture of the time, which had a tendency towards physical.

    [MORE]

    Islam certainly was influenced by these different traditions, one example that immediately comes to mind is Waraqah Ibn Nawfal, Khadijah’s cousin who is today presented as some kind of priest to some unknown (Syriac?) Christian tradition. Also the hadith of Gabriel and other instances of meeting the angels in flesh in the presence of the companions of the Prophet (I don’t recall the details, but you seem to have a better grasp on the hadith tradition than I do) are interesting because these angels’ garb actually look like those of Zoroastrian or Manichaean priests. Of course this might be a coincidence, and it is quite possible that the angels dress as the Electi on a daily basis.

    Surat Al Noor indeed looks puzzling to me, not only because of its parable of God as a “lamp”, but even more so because of the manner in which this parable seems out of place in a text mostly dealing with extraconjugal affairs and how to deal with the husbands and wives committing infidelity. But when one keeps in mind that the current version of the Qur’an was finalized well after the Prophet’s death, that some surates or at least verses have been removed from it and that other versions existed that were destroyed, then one easily understands that some portions of the koranic text might have been mixed, interpolated, removed and added. This is normal to all religions and Islam is no different, despite the pretense to the opposite.

    Something I find a little bit odd is that you seem to conflate the Manichaean and the Mazdakite, they are today described as completely separate movements. You seem to see Mazdakism as a continuation of the Manichaean movement. Mazdakism is currently described as an egalitarian reform directed against the Zurvanite Zoroastrian clergy. I did not know that the Mazdakite troubles extended to the territory of the Arabic federati of the Sasanid.

    I find it strange that you describe Kufa as being a stone throw away from Mecca, a fourteen day caravan track doesn’t seem so close for me, although for the Arabs of the time it might have been not so distant. Also I have never come across mentioning of Sura as being located in a mainly Manichaean region. Although I read somewhere that Jewish Arabs visited Sura and Pombedita, and that one of these might have been Abdul Muttalib in his youth. Remember that his mother Salma was Jewish from Yathrib and that he was raised a Jew before joining Macca and the Hashemite.

    There are probably many gems to be found in the early Hashemite genealogy if one was patient enough to untangle the intricacies of the Arabic names and kunyas and closely looked at the maternal side of the filiation.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  330. @Peripatetic Itch

    I really have to read Velikowsky some day soon. I’ve read somewhere (can’t find it anymore) that it has recently been observed that Venus actually does have a tail which could confirm its origin as a comet. Anyway, whatever he got wrong, Velikowsky was a pioneer in a field of research now coming to the forefront: the impact of cosmic cataclysms on human history. See for instance: David Keys’s book Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World, Balantine, 1999, and the Channel 4 documentary based on it “Catastrophe: The Day the Sun Went Out”:

    A few other links:
    https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/45/1/1.23/229520
    https://interestingengineering.com/how-comets-changed-the-course-of-human-history

  331. @First Millennium Revisionist

    Also of interest: on dragons and comets:
    https://spaceandai.com/project/are-dragons-an-image-of-comet-impacts/
    http://blog.english-heritage.org.uk/origin-of-dragons/
    Rodulfus Glaber, whom I mentionned in my comment #332, wrote for december of 997, “there appeared in the air an admirable wonder: the form, or perhaps the body itself, of a huge dragon, coming from the north and heading south, with dazzling lightning bolts. This prodigy terrified almost all those who saw it in the Gauls.”

    • Replies: @Robjil
  332. eknibbs says:
    @Seraphim

    Weirdly Nicholas I never alludes to the Donation even though it must have been known through Pseudo-Isidore in some form at Rome from the 860s. (And if we imagine it was a Roman forgery, it had been there all along.)

    I have not at all looked into this and it could be unsupportable, but I wonder if a) the text really was no longer preserved by or known to the Roman see by Nicholas’s pontificate, and b) Nicholas only knew the abbreviated A2 recension of Pseudo-Isidore. This is the version that is especially prevalent in Italy.

    This is significant, becuase A2 neuters the entire Donation, cutting it right in the middle and omitting the latter half. See for reference this random translation I find online:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/1088213

    Everything from “I together with all our satraps” to the end is missing in A2 manuscripts. That is, precisely that portion of the forgery that gives the pope everything – the whole point of the document – has been snipped out. These things can be accidental of course. But suppose, as a few people have thought, that the A2 recension is the version Rothad of Soissons introduced to Italy and Pope Nicholas through his appeals to Rome in the early 860s.Then one wonders if the omission was intentional. (“Nicholas is already crazy. Let us not give him overmany ideas.”)

    Nicholas has a kind of “privilege mania” (the term is not mine but I can’t remember where I read it) that oddly aligns with Pseudo-Isidore and even anticipates some of his forgeries. Obviously an important aspect of the controversies you mention.

  333. Seraphim says:
    @Ano4

    The Arabia where Saint Paul went before any ‘heterodox Jews and Christians’ was Arabia Petraea (Provincia Arabia, ἐπαρχία Πετραίας Αραβίας) the former Nabataean Kingdom, a Roman province since Trajan until the Muslim expansion (when it was known as Palaestina Salutaris). It gave even an Emperor to Rome, Philip the Arab.

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @Ano4
  334. Smith says:

    Anything Byzantine is such a meme to me, don’t get me wrong.

    The fascination with Byzantine is a Russian thing, we have OP who doubts the very much existence of ancient Greek pagan civilization, yet still trust and believe the Byzantine Empire.

    The Byzantine Empire is a way for russians and slavs to find some history before the 1000s (before Mongol invasion). They identify themselves with byzantines, same way the americans think they are modern romans.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  335. Ano4 says:
    @Seraphim

    That would be the Kingdom of Jordan today, I was referring to what is nowadays Saudi Arabia, although it was a kind of frontier territory between the Byzantine, Persian and Ethiopian Empires at the time. The “lawless far south-east” with a clannish tribal quasi anarchy being the norm.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  336. Mefobills says:
    @gay troll

    Religion is mostly male chauvinist law justified by false history.

    OK then. Tell us all how great Matriarchies are and the great civilizations wymmnn have created.

    Or, how about when Gay’s take over…. how great that works out.

    With regards to Taxes… taxes are the uptake of money that the King issues.

    Money belongs firmly in the law, and Jesus emphatically said that money is part of Caesar.

    In other words, the sovereign KING (not the Church) is to issue money, and then recall it with taxes.

    Again, the Bible is about Credits and Debts and Jesus made things very clear (if interpreted with words that have their original meaning).

    If you are butt-hurt about a ruling male Patriarchy being sanctioned as the logos, then too bad for you. Deviant in-groups and women are not allowed to take-over the levers of power.

    • Agree: Ivan
  337. ariadna says:
    @Seraphim

    “Now he writes fictional history.”
    He does, but not well. I am not setting the bar so high as to complain that he is no Roberto Calasso or even the poor man’s Daniel Brown. He lacks the imagination and the wit to write historical novels and has a wooden style that makes reading him a drudgery. If he could manage a few passable paragraphs of erotic intrigue, say an adulterous romance between a talented and handsome forger of ancient artifacts in Constantinople and the wife of an Eastern Orthodox priest (they do marry, for those who don’t know) he might enliven his writing quite a bit. Even better: let the adulteress be the real brains behind the forgery whose merits are not recognized because she is a woman!
    Then he could submit his productions to Silhouettes, Nora Roberts’ publisher. Still, even so, he must first remove some howlers in his present manuscript, too glaring even for an all-American audience.

  338. Mefobills says:
    @Peter Grafström

    According to Lyndon Larouche et al the Venetians were both behind the corruption of the church and simultaneously sponsored Martin Luthers opposition.

    LaRouche has a giant blind-spot when it comes to the Jew and Usury.

    His analysis of monetary history stops with the bank of england in 1694.

    Martin Luther’s opposition was mostly due to the indulgences, which were Jewish usury at root.

    If you are a monetary historian and ignore the Jew, then there is something wrong with your brain function. You have to actively ignore data. LaRouche avoided the third rail probably for self preservation.

  339. Ivan says:
    @R.G. Camara

    Dude doesn’t know much about the Orthodoxi either according to the knowledgable Orthodox people such as Seraphim.

    But it has brought forth much learned commentary which is a history lesson in itself. From the way the wheels are being taken apart I doubt if the toy cart will make it past the finish line in usable form by the promised third article. Nonetheless it’s an interesting exercise.

    • Agree: ariadna
  340. FB says: • Website
    @eknibbs

    Thanks for your thoughts on the Bede eclipses…

    I don’t want to keep flogging this because I think the issue of Bede and his eclipses is a relatively minor one in the overall scheme of things…

    But just one final technical point about the Bede eclipses…again, if we consider the eclipse season of between 31 and 37 days, occurring twice a year…and the fact that there will be only two [sometimes three] eclipses per season means that an eclipse that is off by even two days, may in fact fall exactly on that particular day of the year in another century…

    At the very least, that would certainly introduce enough doubt to make the purported eclipse date meaningless…I’m sure you would agree with that, since mathematical probability clearly favors the latter…

    That is why it is not enough to say, well the eclipses occurred over Rome and Bede had contacts with Rome as well as Roman books…

    In any case, I agree with the author that the eclipse thing is not conclusive one way or the other in the case of Bede…although I do think it pretty much destroys the Scaligerian chronology completely, as Newton’s analysis has shown…and that is a much much bigger issue, since our entire historical frame of reference was pretty much erected by this one man…

    The big issue is that Scaliger in the 16’th century, is the one man who actually put dates on all this stuff retroactively, which dates are now accepted as gospel by the historical profession…

    But let us note that the very notion of chronology is to synchronize events…to say that if Jesus existed at this particular time, then the Roman Emperor Tiberius was in power at that time, etc…

    Historians have been doing this kind of synchronizing for a long long time…the question for us is, how reliable is this…are we to trust this work from a handful of individuals in the entirety of written history completely…?

    Armenian translation of Eusebius’s Chronicon, 13th century manuscript

    The first such work of assigning a chronology that synchronized events was the Chronicon by Eusebius, purportedly in 325 AD…of course the original Greek text is lost…

    The Eusebian dating method in his ‘Universal History’ [not too ambitious there…LOL] was the Anno Mundi era, meaning the events were dated according to the supposed beginning of the world as per the Hebrew Pentateuch…

    Next we have another fellow supposedly around 500 AD, Dionysius Exiguus, who then recompiles everything into his own invention, the Anno Domini version of chronology, which begins with the incarnation of Christ…

    Bede then comes along and makes this dating system the basis of what eventually becomes accepted chronology…you mention the ‘consular dating’ method [ab urbe condita] which was in use in Bede’s time and previously…this of course started not from AD, but from 753 BC, the supposed founding of Rome…

    Next comes Joseph Scaliger in 1583 who…

    …reconstructed the lost Chronicon [Eusebius] and synchronized all of ancient history in his two major works, De emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurus temporum (1606).

    Incredibly…

    Much of modern historical datings and chronology of the ancient world ultimately derives from these two works.

    So basically we have to trust Scaliger and even Eusebius [and his ‘lost’ work] before him, that their efforts at ‘synchronizing’ historical events, all based on various scribblings of unverifiable provenance that have turned up over the centuries, that all those dates, recompiled across several dating systems, somehow all line up perfectly and are completely accurate…?

    That is a pretty tall order for someone more inclined to trust physical science, which tells us unambiguously that Scaliger’s record of hundreds of astronomical events over the last 2,000 years [which are today easily checked] require us to rewrite the laws of orbital mechanics…

    And today we have bona fide academics like Heinsohn and Fomenko that easily poke holes in this obviously quite weak chronological construct [Heinsohn interestingly relying on very real discrepancies in the archaeological record]…yet we are supposed to ignore such broadly based criticisms as unfounded…?

    I’m reminded of the ‘broken telephones’ parlor game…but the historical profession seems to want us to take it seriously and not laugh…

  341. Robjil says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    The big question for me about Heinsohn is why he does not question the dogma of the Holocaust? He even adds fuel to that Holocaust fire. If he was real historian looking to set the record right in history he would not do this. The Holocaust agenda has been biggest muzzle on humanity in the entire history of humanity. It is no joke to push it like he does.

    Heinsohn wrote a homily for the Holocaust in the Journal of Genocide Research in the year 2000. Here is the article he wrote for that journal.

    http://migs.concordia.ca/documents/HeinsohnHitlerandtheJewishPeopleJGR.pdf

    The title for his Holocaust homily is this. He is very servile to his masters.

    What makes the Holocaust a uniquely unique genocide? GUNNAR HEINSOHN

    Easy answer if he was truthful. Since the early 1800s, Zionist Top Jews have wrote about “6 million” Jews in peril in many major papers of the western world. It was wanted to look like it happened. A messed up Central/Eastern Europe, all bombed up and millions of refugees fleeing would be a good way to do it. It was done that way. Who would know the difference?

    This next quote does not make sense. There is no proof of a gassing program in the concentration camps at all.

    p.419

    On June 25, 1941,only three days after the attack against the Soviet Union,the Holocaust began—not yet with gas but with mass shootings of Jews by SS units,Einsatzgruppen, and local collaborators wherever the German front included a Jewish community.Gassing of exhausted Jewish slave workers began in August1941 in gas chambers of the euthanasia program within Germany.On September 3, 1941,experimental killings in gas chambers were started in Auschwitz-Birkenau.The killing with gas trucks was introduced on December5,1941,in Chelmno.

  342. Old Jew says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Marco Polo and his hollow staff. Not Constantinopolis.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  343. Old Jew says:
    @Robjil

    Giraldi needs you.

    • Thanks: Robjil
  344. eknibbs says: • Website
    @FB

    I just find your objections unreasonable. The evidence for the distant past – anyone’s version of it – is fragmentary and will have to involve a consideration of what is more probable. There is no other way to win historical arguments. What is more likely: 1) An ancient eighth-century chronicler gets the date of an eclipse that happened before he was born wrong by a day or two, in a world where his parents had no writing implements to hand and there were no reference works or almanacs or any general means of determining past events. Or, 2) An ancient chronicler claiming to write in the eighth century who gets an eclipse wrong by a day or two, despite all the aforementioned limitations, is totally accurate, and the minor error is actually down to his writing in a totally different century than the one he claims? Despite the fact that nothing else about his chronicle, at all, places him in the arbitrarily eclipse-determined century? And also, there are three or four eclipses. How many of them work in the same century, and the same set of years claimed, that is not the eighth century, when he claims to be writing?

    This is your difficulty.

    and the fact that there will be only two [sometimes three] eclipses per season means that an eclipse that is off by even two days, may in fact fall exactly on that particular day of the year in another century

    Which century? We have manuscripts of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History that are very nearly contemporary with Bede himself. Search Wikipedia for the Moore Bede and the St. Petersburg (formerly the Leningrad) Bede. And to head off palaeographical skepticism: These are in obviously early rare insular scripts with early insular marginal annotations. This is confirmed by the evidence of the texts they carry: They are very near to Bede in space and time.

    Is your theory that Bede was an ancient chronicler who anticipated the Christianisation of Britain (a Christianisation we know to have occurred, for it influenced many subsequent events) from two or three centuries back, and whose one- or two-day errors in his occasional eclipse reports indicate his ability to foretell future events?

    You appear to think that modern historians rely on some kind of Scaligerian 16th-c. chronological frame. This is emphatically not true. Nobody (aside from early modernists who study Scaliger) reads these old things at all. Modern historiography depends upon its own chronological research since the nineteenth century, as I have tried to show here. Research on consular dates: A preoccupation of 19th and 20th c. scholarship. Informed by new archaeological finds, new approaches to evidence, new editions. Major critical editions of our histories and chronicles: 19th c., 20th c. Major critical editions of charter evidence: 19th c. for the oldest documents, many old things re-edited as standards increase in 20th c., new editions of medieval sources now.

    Scaliger compiled data from many sources. I hope you can appreciate, from just the Bede example, how each source presents its own deeply complex local issues; and that drawing conclusions from early modern compilations of many different texts about eclipses is not an exercise that I can grasp the utility of. Which source are you worried about? How is it wrong, and why? These are the questions to ask.

  345. Not Raul says:
    @Mefobills

    Supposedly, Larouche sometimes used the term “Venetian” as a code word for “Jew”.

  346. @First Millennium Revisionist

    The discovery of Venus’s ionic tail, which Velikovsky predicted, is reported in
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420842-900-science-planets-tail-of-the-unexpected/
    Europe’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has shown that the tail stretches some 45 million kilometers into space, more than 600 times as far as anyone realised. It stretches “almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.”
    The article is of course careful not to call it a cometary tail and would presumably argue that comets, being nothing but dirty ice balls, have tails consisting of water vapor, a proposition that is becoming more dubious every year.

    In another report, this time using comet terminology, ESA’s Venus Express has made unique observations of Venus during a period of reduced solar wind pressure, discovering that the planet’s ionosphere balloons out like a comet’s tail on its night side. This tail is much smaller.
    http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/When_a_planet_behaves_like_a_comet

    For more recent discussions/updates of the Velikovsky comet theory, have a look at James McCanney and Wal Thornhill:
    https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_maccanney07.htm
    https://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-balloon-goes-up-over-lightning/

    Most interestingly, when the scientific establishment cancel-cultured Velikovsky in 1973, they had to come up with an alternative explanation for why the surface of Venus was so hot. Thus was born the runaway greenhouse effect. So we can all thank Velikovsky for our current runaway global-warming crisis./s

  347. @Mefobills

    Larouche doesnt have a blind spot about jews, on the contrary if you had seen more of his writings you would find that he mentions several of them but unlike you he isnt singleminded and brings in important actors hidden by mainstream historians eg the Venetians who also sponsored the knights of Malta like a higher power above the jewish moneylenders as described by Christopher Marlowe just before he died or went into exile.

    Was he silenced for revealing that? Who knows.

    Those knights and the knights templars and the freemasons have been in a symbiotic relation with all the instruments of the powerful and those who only see the jews are missing that there is a symbiosis and those other parts of the wealthy class remain less visible.

    The exclusion of Venice as a major subverter of Europe by most mainstream historians is connected with the fact that Britain emulated the methods of the Venetian oligarchy and about that time also began to coopt the jews in order to create an empire.

    It was at that time that Britains elites began to claim that they were the real israelites and that London was Jerusalem.
    This has been going on for centuries and they keep saying that anglosaxons and celts are the real israelites.
    Why?
    Because the jews paid them or coerced them?

    Not at all, because they wanted them to run Britains errands.

    And were bothered about the jews working for Portugal Spain and Holland.

    But there was no reason for the british elites to openly admit it. On the contrary it was much better to encourage britains rivals to bash the jews, so it would be easier for Britain to coopt them.

    In order to make profits from moneylending it is advantageous to have a monopoly-resembling dominance.
    It would be better for the erection of a british empire if the jews would become much closer to Britain.
    Not because the jews are so indispensible but usury makes you impopular.

    So having the jews do the dirty job for Britain but less so for her rivals was the aim.

    That is the explanation for Britains absurd claims about British Israelism.

    The historical details about some semites coming to Ireland or elsewhere up there very long ago may have some truth in it but that isnt important.

    The important thing is perception management

    They have similarwise dug up old backward forms of Islam and were able to support the rise of the muslim brotherhood in a form suited to Britains imperial interests.

    One recurrent purpose over the centuries has been to use muslims against Russia.

    Al Bannas family according to the website of MB had a business where they repaired watches and sold grammophones.

    Thierry Meyssan points out that watchmaking was reserved for jews in Egypt.

    I am not claiming anything about MBs founder having jewish parents but should that turn out to be the case it isnt very likely that the zionists would have organised it.

    They wouldnt want to risk having such a weak spot that could have been used to dismantle the whole operation.

    Britain however was involved, and Al Banna was very young and the British mode of operation is to pick them young. Britain was behind Mazzinis Young Europe and Young America and all similar youth organisations.
    And Britain would most certainly be able to exercise more control over Al Banna if they knew about some such family background. So they might well have targeted his parents even before he was born.
    That was an aside but it goes well together with everything else in the imperial intrigues.
    No matter who Al Banna was the british did recruite several jewish activists for various purposes.

    Continuing about Britains manouevering to get the most out of the jews,

    In order to prevent the jews to have a similar close collaboration with Britains rivals on the continent the british elites created both christian zionism in the US and the Israel project and only after having nurtured antijewish tensions on the continent did the british manage to corrall the jews into zionism

    Anglozionism like Saker puts it takes the two partners in the right order for it is indeed an ANGLO project.
    A puritan anglosaxon project with, at Cromwells time, a british colonial empire as the aim.

    It is in my view absurd to claim that Britains empire was forced on them (when the BoE resulted after Holland and Wilhelm III came into the picture and what followed), and that the powerful british empire that dominated until recently (and still owns the greatest landmass in the world about the size of China and Russia combined) was something the aristocracy didnt desire.

    However all those who forget everything except the jews are a great help for continuing to cover up the successful symbiosis between them and the aristocracy.

    Nazisms background was likewise nurtured by roughly the same circle of british elites starting in the entourage of Palmerston.

    I dont think historians have a blind spot about Britains leading role in launching the nazi ideology, but it is such an embarrassing fact that they wont touch it.

    The Germans on the other hand probably believe that if they bring it up it will be damaging for Germany as well since the british managed to infiltrate the german cultural elite.

    Germans have already carried a grind stone around their necks for the Hitler era and the british undoubtedly deliberately arranged things in this manner anticipating that there would be a mutual interest to avoid that subject.

    Thus when a german author did expose this connection it was the british who contradicted it.

    But the jews are a much covered topic on the web.

    The truth about Britains support for all kinds of radicalism including nazism zionism and communism is much less exposed by such altmedia commenters.

    It is much much more common to have a blind spot about Britains true role.

    • Thanks: FB
  348. FB says: • Website
    @Peter Grafström

    About abiotic oil…

    The problem with your postulation about organic matter being ‘convected’ down to great depths where there is sufficient pressure [20 atmospheres or more] and temperature [over 300 C] for that biomass to be turned into oil is that it violates basic physics…

    Fluids cannot flow from low pressure to high pressure…if you open the valve on your car tire the air [about three atmospheres inside the tire] will jet out into the atmospheric pressure ambient air, not the other way round…

    The same holds for fluids deep within the earth, whether oil or molten rock…it can only go up from the high pressure below, not get sucked down…especially if a pathway is opened up [such as a fissure] that opens the high pressure region below to lower pressure above [like opening the tire valve]…

    Also you seem to imply that the movement of fluids is ‘convection’…it’s not…convection is specifically the transfer of heat from a moving fluid to another fluid, or to a solid…

    The bulk movement of fluids is simply fluid flow, and is always from high pressure to low pressure…if the fluid is not moving then heat transfers by means of conduction…radiation is the third type of heat transfer…

    • Replies: @Peter Grafström
  349. LYDIA says:
    @fitzhamilton

    At Even, Ere the Sun Was Set by Henry Twells
    141—AT EVEN, ERE THE SUN WAS SET

    [MORE]

    At even, ere the sun was set,
    ⁠The sick, O Lord, around Thee lay;
    O in what divers pains they met!
    ⁠O with what joy they went away!

    Once more ’tis eventide, and we,
    ⁠Oppressed with various ills, draw near;
    What if Thy form we cannot see,
    ⁠We know and feel that Thou art here.

    O Saviour Christ, our woes dispel:
    ⁠For some are sick, and some are sad,
    And some have never loved Thee well,
    ⁠And some have lost the love they had

    And some are pressed with worldy care,
    ⁠And some are tried with sinful doubt;
    And some such grievous passions tear
    ⁠That only Thou canst cast them out;

    And some have found the world is vain,
    ⁠Yet from the world they break not free;
    And some have friends who give them pain,
    ⁠Yet have not sought a friend in Thee.

    And none, O Lord, have perfect rest,
    ⁠For none are wholly free from sin;
    And they who fain would serve Thee best
    ⁠Are conscious most of wrong within.

    O Saviour Christ, Thou too art Man;
    ⁠Thou hast been troubled, tempted, tried;
    Thy kind but searching glance can scan
    ⁠The very wounds that shame would hide!

    Thy touch has still its ancient power;
    ⁠No word from Thee can fruitless fall:
    Hear in this solemn evening hour
    ⁠And in Thy mercy heal us all Amen.

  350. Seraphim says:
    @Smith

    Most of what we know about ‘ancient Greek pagan civilization’ comes via the Byzantine Empire.
    Russians and Slavs were part of the ‘Byzantine Commonwealth’. The Western hatred of Byzance (and the Orthodox Church) has been transferred to them also.

    • Replies: @Smith
  351. @LYDIA

    Thank you, Lydia. Pray for me, I’m in deep need of grace and repentance. These are very dark times, likely to become much darker. We need to encourage each other, blessing those cursing us, loving our enemies as they hate us, seeking forgiveness in our witness, that we may yet meet our Master in friendship.. Your words here seem to me a singular grace, that I very much needed to read. May God bless you for them.

  352. Seraphim says:
    @Old Jew

    My old friend,
    I am sorry that I have to correct you. The story of the monks bringing the eggs of silkworms to the Emperor Justinian was told by the historian Procopius, who said only that they came from India and brought the eggs from India. The story of the hollow walking stick is related by Theophanes and attributed to a ‘Persian’ coming from the ‘country of the Serres’ (which was China). All in the VIth century AD.

  353. @FB

    Are we totally sure the eclipses were in the originals, and not annotated later in the by the copyist/translator?

    • Replies: @FB
  354. Seraphim says:
    @Ano4

    Yes, but the whatever ‘heterodox’ did not go into Arabia Deserta.

    • Replies: @Ano4
  355. tiami says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    “In fact in 1014, but the manuscript corrected by Rodulfus carries indisputably the date 710; nothing explains such a mistake.”

    The 710 date is written in Anno Diocletiani dating system which was one of the main ancient counts (not sure why nobody mentions it.) Bede for example didn’t use the term Christ but Dominus which was also one of Diocletian titles. Only in 1627, the French Jesuit theologian Denis Pétau (Dionysius Petavius in Latin), with his work De doctrina temporum, popularized the usage ante Christum (Latin for “Before Christ”) to mark years prior to AD. So all the talk of 8th, 9th century usage of Anno Christi is just rubbish if we don’t take into account that is the right historical place of Diocletian according to Heinsohn and that AD stood for Anno Diocletiani.

    But how is it given in Diocletiani system?

    1014 – 710 – 20 = 284

    Why – 20? Read paragraph 16. http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N06-EN-326-372.pdf

    On ”Dionysus Exiguus” and Dionysius Petavius relations read paragraph 13.9.

  356. @ariadna

    The “cult,” as you call it, does have the same Creed as the Catholic one, kids memorize it as soon as they learn to read and it is recited in church.

    OK. I wasn’t sure. But still, it seems to me that the Orthodox mass (I used “cult” by mistake, it is the appropriate word in French) is much less constraining: people come and go and walk around the icons as they want, not like the Catholic mass: sit, stand, recite, eat, go away. So I assumed I would feel much better in an Orthodox mass, not to mention the beauty of the churches…

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @ariadna
  357. @Robjil

    The big question for me about Heinsohn is why he does not question the dogma of the Holocaust?

    I understand your viewpoint. It is a question. It is a shame. When I found out, I was very disapointed. I wish Heinsohn had never written this article, with its grotesque title (I haven’t read the article). But is that a sufficient reason to consider his work on the first millennium worthless? No, and you are obviously disingenuous when you claim it is.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  358. Seraphim says:
    @Robjil

    The only reason behind the Fomenko-Illig-Heinsohn anti-Scaligerian war seems to be: “The Nativity of Jesus Christ accordingly comes nearer to us: with incalculable consequences for all depending data “before” and “after Christ”, among them an indictment of the Church for forging its Scriptures and perpetrating the biggest hoax in history.

  359. @FB

    The names of the Consuls are engraved in stone so I suppose there’s no denying that.

    Fasti Capitolini: the list of every Roman consuls and dictators, from 483 BC to 19 BC. The original marble tablets, created during the reign of Augustus, were discovered in 1546 in the Roman forum.

    But could even that have been forged at that later date of “discovery”? Then comes ascribing dates to those consuls and eknibbs knows how it’s done and is confident in the dating.

    Just commenting …

    • Replies: @tiami
    , @FB
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  360. Robjil says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Yes, to me it does.

    It means that he will not be looking into all the details of ancient or medieval history with an open mind.

    Since Jewish history, has been around for “5000” years as Nick Cannon was forced to say then Heinsohn has to lie about all the things that he finds on Judaism in ancient and medieval history.

    • LOL: tiami
  361. @Lurker

    This looks like a medieval tower to me. You seem to miss the point of the article: all Roman buildings may be younger than we think. Using this “lighthouse” as proof that other Roman buildings could survive for two thousand years is a circular argument. By contrast, comparing such buildings with much younger buildings showing a more advanced state of ruin is not circular, but empirical. For example, if you compare below the Pont du Gard (50 AD) and the Aqueduc of Maintenon (17th century), you start to wonder how the first can still be in such good condition if it is as old as we are told.

    • Agree: Biff
    • Thanks: FB
    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @Lurker
  362. Robjil says:

    Since Constantinople is one the main topics of these posts. What is happening in old Constantinople these days. Turkey the controller of this heritage is turning the Hagia Sophia into a mosque. I know that representative art is not allowed in Islam. So I wonder what will they do with the world heritage artwork in this church.
    So far, they will only cover them up with curtains.

    https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/07/10/what-will-now-happen-now-to-hagia-sophias-byzantine-mosaics/

    Following Turkey’s decision to annul the 1934 conversion of Constantinople’s Hagia Sophia into a museum, paving the way for its reconversion into a mosque, questions are asked about the fate of numerous mosaics that decorate several of its interior walls.

    Many social media users are expressing horror at the thought of Hagia Sophia being turned into a mosque, with the ancient mosaics would be covered up — or even worse — removed.

    Turkey’s daily Hurriyet reported that the mosaics will be covered up with specially-designed curtains during Muslim prayers and that visitors would be asked to take off their shoes before entering, as is the case with all mosques.

    The original mosaics were not destroyed by the Ottoman conquerors but merely covered up when the city was captured in 1453. When Hagia Sophia was converted into a museum, they were uncovered so that visitors would enjoy them.

    Egypt respects ancient Egypt as its past. Mexico respects its native American past as its past. Why can’t Turkey grow up and respects the past that it stands on.

    Here are some photos of artwork that is in danger from primitive Turkey. Sorry if that word primitive upsets some people, but actions taken by Turkey are primitive thinking.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  363. @eknibbs

    My question about consuls would be: What proof do we have that all those consuls do not refer simply to the medieval Roman Republic, the one founded in 1144? Or, if there was a previous Roman Republic, that it doesn’t date from a few centuries earlier, rather than one millenium? I do believe that, contrary to what you claim, historians rely on Scaligerian chronology, without even knowing it. It is the backbone of everything, and th frame of their thinking. When they read about a consul, they simply assume that it fits into the time block of 509-27 BC. they don’t ask themselves if it does, they know it does. That is why Fomenko, a mathematician attacked by historians, responded that historians don’t even know why history is. I have never read in any mainstream book on history any questionning of the basic chronological backbone (except for very ancient history of the second or third millenium BC).

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @eknibbs
    , @Robjil
  364. Robjil says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    The pyramids are even older.

    Newgrange in Ireland is even older. Stonework can last for quite a long time.

    Newgrange is a Stone Age monument in the Boyne Valley, County Meath, Ireland. It was built about 3,200 BC (5,200 years ago) during the Neolithic period, which makes it older than Stonehenge and the Egyptian pyramids. Newgrange is a large circular mound with a stone passageway and chambers inside. The mound is ringed by large stones known as kerbstones some of which are engraved with artwork.


    https://www.irishcentral.com/uploads/assets/resized_Newgrange_to_Have_its_Widest_Ever_Audience_on_Shortest_Day_of_

  365. tiami says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Just by look and font used this is 16th century monument. Just saying.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  366. Ano4 says:
    @Seraphim

    They reached Mecca and Yathrib (Medina). And according to our anonymous commenter who discussed Manichaen influence upon Christianity and Islam, they have also heavily impacted the Bedouin Arab tribes. I gather that he implies that they were the Hanifs known in pre-Islamic society. Although I would not dare speculate about it. Maybe he could add some more of his clearly knowledgeable input and clarity this matter for us.

  367. FB says: • Website
    @eknibbs

    Scaliger compiled data from many sources…Which source are you worried about?

    I’m ‘worried’ about the whole notion of a guy in the 1500s [Scaliger] taking a compilation of ‘universal history’ that was neatly ‘synchronized’ in column rows on a page of paper 1,200 years prior [Eusebius]…and then determining ‘dates’ when everything was supposed to have happened based on this…despite the fact that those dates used to be calculated from ‘the beginning of the world’, then the ‘founding of Rome’ and then the incarnation of something called a ‘Christ’…and despite the fact that we have absolutely no idea if that nifty ‘synchronization’ of historical events compiled 1,700 years ago has anything at all to do with the price of bananas…

    What could possibly go wrong with such a ‘scientific’ scheme…?

    You appear to think that modern historians rely on some kind of Scaligerian 16th-c. chronological frame. This is emphatically not true.

    Nobody (aside from early modernists who study Scaliger) reads these old things at all.

    And no modern physicists actually read Newton’s Principia…but every engineer and scientist uses that physics every day…

    Of course the entire notion of Newtonian physics was found inadequate in a most fundamental way [frames of reference] after the advent of electromagnetism and we had to revise our understanding completely with a new understanding of relativity…without which we would not have modern science at all…nor GPS, nor nuclear energy etc…

    But the difference is that the historical profession still does use that entire Scaligerian chronology framework…whether anybody reads it or not, it is simply assumed as a given…

    Btw, I did look up the Moore Bede, which is named such because it is a copy that was owned by a 17’th century Bishop…

    The Moore Bede is traditionally dated to 734–737 on the basis of the so-called Moore Memoranda, a series of chronological notes preserved on f. 128v.

    Although the validity of these (and similar notes in The Leningrad Bede) as evidence for the manuscript’s date has been challenged vigorously, the manuscript can be dated securely to the 8th century on palaeographic and codicological grounds.

    And what is that paleographic method…?…it’s the study of ancient handwriting…and codicology studies the materials, binding and techniques used to make old books…

    Yes, it all sounds positively ‘secure’…especially when one starts from a set of dates originated by Scaliger and Eusebius…

    Look, my point is not to deny the techniques that have been developed by modern historians, which I’m sure are quite ingenious and methodical and have plenty of merit in their own right…but they all hang on a timeline of history that was put together many centuries ago and does not at all comport with either archeological, nor astronomical science…which means to me at least that this entire timeline is not anything approaching a very solid frame of reference…just as Newton and Galileo’s frames of reference were found not to be physical reality…

    • Agree: tiami
    • Replies: @eknibbs
    , @eknibbs
  368. Biff says:
    @Robjil

    Stonework can last for quite a long time.

    It can also crumble in short order – materials, weather conditions, maintenance, ph of rain and materials, building technologies among the many factors.

  369. Smith says:
    @Seraphim

    Really?

    Greek-Roman pagan civilization knowledge was spread to nearly all corners of Europe, even in Egypt and the ME.

    Byzantium was great during the period of the “early Medieval era” i.e. fall of the WRE and the Viking period, but when Charlesmagne start making empire, there is a slow decline of Byzantium and they are gradually beaten by the latin and the islamic arabs.

    And the whole “Roman empire being fake” is simply ridiculous shit. The Han empire in the east has contact with the Roman emperor in Rome (not Constantinople), and for the Roman empire to be fake, Han empire is also fake, and nobody is gonna accept that.

  370. Seraphim says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    At the Orthodox Liturgy (that’s the correct term when you talk about Orthodox cult) stand for the entire duration of the services which can be very long, only the elderly and the frail are allowed to sit. They do not come and go around the icons as they want, but only at the appropriate times, when they enter the Church. Otherwise they stand still in a reverential attitude in their places for hours, concentrating on the words of the service, crossing themselves, bowing and prostrating to the ground at the appropriate times. You won’t feel better at an Orthodox service (especially at a Russian one, which easily can last three hours – Greeks are more lax). You must kiss the beautiful icons.

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @FB
    , @RSDB
  371. FB says: • Website
    @Commentator Mike

    Well…the church I was forced to attend as a child also had an impressive set of marble tablets of the Ten Commandments, which I was sure were directly from Moses…

    The English inscription might explain why Moses smashed those tablets in a rage, after receiving them from Yahweh in an incomprehensible language…

    Apparently my childhood church was able to retrieve those pieces from the Negev desert and glue them back together…

  372. FB says: • Website
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    I don’t think we can be sure of much of anything when it comes to ‘history’…

    If you look for example at one of the most iconic battles of history, at Chalons in 451 [supposedly]…between the Huns of Attila and the Roman-Visigothic Federation, historians cannot agree on ever very basic things…such as who actually won…!

    Some historians wonder if it even happened…

    It has been suggested by Hyun Jin Kim that the entire battle is a play on the Battle of Marathon, with the Romans being the Plateans on the left, the Alans the weak Athenian center, and the Goths the Athenian regulars on the right, with Theodoric as Miltiades and Thorismund as Callimachus.

    The return home by the Goths to secure Thorismund’s throne is the same as the return to Athens to protect it from sedition and the Persian Navy.[72][73]

    Not unsurprisingly perhaps, this particular historical interpretation has received ‘mixed’ reviews in professional circles…😁

    The Huns at the Battle of Chalons by Alphonse de Neuville (1836–85)

  373. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    What proof do we have that all those consuls do not refer simply to the medieval Roman Republic, the one founded in 1144? Or, if there was a previous Roman Republic, that it doesn’t date from a few centuries earlier, rather than one millenium?

    A lot of proof, actually. Please see the book on Late Roman Consuls that I cited above. The nature of the proof is different in the east and west and for each pair of consular names. Your chronological theories requires that all of this evidence be overturned. Here is the nature of it: There are famous and heavily studied fasti consulares that provide lists of consuls for each day of the year. Just for example consider the Chronograph of 354, which provides a list of consular names from the republican era through AD 354. Exactly 353 entries before the end, in the midst of these consular names, it provides a note on the birth of Christ, so we know that we are not in the twelfth century or a century or two earlier or later. Each set of consular names is fixed chronologically by listing in which day of the thirty-day lunar month and on what day of the week the consular year in question began. The original fourth-century codex does not survive! But it is hard to claim forgery here: It was known in the ninth and tenth centuries and famous even then. And, the consular names it attests are found in other sources and on coins and inscriptions from the ancient world. Nor is this Chronograph the only such list. It is merely one of the most comprehensive.

    I do believe that, contrary to what you claim, historians rely on Scaligerian chronology, without even knowing it. It is the backbone of everything, and th frame of their thinking.

    Then I would issue a challenge, and it should be simple to meet it: Give me one date, accepted and repeated by modern historical scholarship, for any non-legendary event in the first millennium AD that depends on Scaliger and that we would not have without Scaliger.

    I am aware that a while ago Anthony Grafton wrote a book in which he spoke at moments of Scaliger as if he were the father of modern historical dates. That is kind of like calling Newton the father of Newtonianphysics. It is an overstatement in any case, but even if we take it at face value, it is not true in the way you seem to insist it must be. If we show that Newton made some kind of error in calculating some constant, Newtonian physics is not stopped dead in its tracks. People after Newton took their own measurements and the principles rest on independent appraisals of the evidence. It is the same with our dates.

  374. eknibbs says: • Website
    @FB

    Let me put it differently: Nobody uses Scaliger to date anything today. Historical dates that we use in modern historical research on the ancient and medieval past have nothing to do with Scaliger. We have done our own chronological research and fixed our own dates.

    The only thing that happened under Scaliger, is that chronological research began to mature and scholars became interested in finding objective evidence for the dates of events and trying to fix them in time and place. In this period various basic historical dates became objects of systematic inquiry for the first time, and a sequence of dates similar to that we have today emerged.

    In much the same way, classical literature came to be printed and reprinted from the Renaissance and subjected to philological scholarship, such that the editions in circulation then began to approximate the editions of classical literature we have today.

    BUT: In neither case do we depend on those older early-modern scholars. Since the nineteenth century we have unearthed and edited our own sources and done our own chronological research. Our chronology is much subtler and more reliable today than it was then. It is a total reinvestigation of the problem, not an extrapolation from their work. In the same way, classicists have gone back to the manuscript tradition and re-edited classical literature. We have our own editions that look superficially similar but have a totally different evidentiary basis.

  375. @Robjil

    Egypt respects ancient Egypt as its past.

    Maybe Egyptian Egyptologists and a few others respect ancient Egypt, but your average Egyptian refers to the pyramids as “haram” – not much respect in that! Ask any Cairo taxi driver to take you to the pyramids at Giza by directing him to “Haram” and he’ll know where to drop you off.

  376. eknibbs says: • Website
    @FB

    And, I just want to add, you can doubt the dates of manuscripts or anything you want, but you can’t totally dismiss the manuscript evidence as easily as you seem to. In addition to many other things suggesting an early date, the Moore Bede has accumulated marginal notes in Tironian shorthand, a complex system of ciphered/abbreviated writing from Late Antiquity. It had been almost but not totally forgotten in the Merovingian period, but the Carolingians revived it. After the ninth century all knowledge of the system was totally lost. An understanding of Tironian notes and how to decipher them had to be re-established by modern scholarship, and still today the people who can reliably work with them are very few. So, you can push the Moore Bede to the ninth century, but not later. And then, no later than the early tenth century (and probably earlier), Bede’s History is translated into the Mercian dialect of Anglo-Saxon English: an entire language that was lost after the Norman Conquest in the eleventh century. Also not an easy thing to forge or invent after the fact, if that’s what you are suggesting. At moments the translator, through his choice of words or small expansions, even seems to demonstrate an independent cultural knowledge of some of the events and stories Bede relates.

  377. FB says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    At the Orthodox Liturgy…they stand still in a reverential attitude in their places for hours, concentrating on the words of the service, crossing themselves, bowing and prostrating to the ground at the appropriate times.

    By golly, that sounds exactly what I need…where do I sign up…?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  378. I am glad to announce that Professor Gunnar Heinsohn, at my invitation, has emailed to Professor Eric Knibbs a response to his comments on this thread. Since he Cced me, I assume he doesn’t mind me quoting from his text. I only reproduce here his words on the crucial issue of first-millenium written sources with AD dates (other subjects will be addressed in my next article):

    Allow me to describe how I try to approach written sources tied to the years 1-930 AD: (A) I always ask whether written sources were found stratified on top of each other following the chronological sequence of our textbooks. I want to know where the text is located today and whether it is an original or a copy of a “lost” original. I am not fanatical about this, so I would be content with not 100 or 10 but just one of the approximately 4,000 Roman cities exhibting stratified texts.
    [I am curious about original manuscripts, you hinted at, from the 1st millennium with AD written on it. For nearly thirty years, I have been searching for sources from ancient scholars – dated 300, 500, 700, or 900 AD in our textbooks – in which these men present evidence to their contemporaries that they were active during those same years. I do not know such sources so far.]

    Here it seems that Pr Heinsohn is challenging Pr Knibbs to indicate precisely which original mansucripts from the first millennium carry AD dates. I must say that I have been a bit disappointed by Pr Knibbs’ elusive words on that crucial issue, and would much appreciate fi he could give us some specifics.

    I get curious when manuscripts on topics that are expected as a matter of course are entirely missing. A famous example is the lack of Roman mathematics during Imperial Antiquity (1st to 3rd century AD). The specialists are stunned. I ask them if there really are no mathematic texts written in the Latin style of the 1st/2nd century AD. Of course there are, the best among them answer immediately. Alcuin of York (Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, 735-804) is seen as one of them. But he lived with Charlemagne in the 8th/9th century and would therefore not be considered. Alcuin’s Propositiones ad acuendos iuvenes are seen as the earliest general survey of mathematical problems in Latin. He wrote (Epistola 172) to Charlemagne that he had sent to his court “certain figures of arithmetic for the joy of cleverness.”
    (B) I am particularly interested in manuscripts of indispensable content. It is mostly about laws and morals. In Jewish culture, for example, risponsas are always required to interpret the Torah in new contexts or circumstances. In a nation capable of writing there should be absolutely no gaps between 1 and the 930s AD in this vital field. Furthermore, in the 1st millennium AD, no other group has left more handwritten original manuscripts than Judaism. For Imperial Antiquity these are mainly the Qumran scrolls up to the 2nd century AD. From 870 AD onwards, it is the countless texts from the Geniza of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo. Nevertheless, Judaism complains about a silent period of more than 700 years in the 1st millennium AD and a simultaneous interruption of the evolution of the Hebrew language. Just for illustration purposes (the specialist literature has long since become overwhelming) I attach the photo of a friend that he recently sent me from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

    (C) Roman law is, of course, even more important for the history of civilization. The manuscript situation in the first millennium AD is as patchy as in the Jewish cultural area. In the 5th/6th century AD and then again in the 9th century AD, the same jurists are consulted as in the 2nd/3rd century AD. For more than 700 years the legal culture stagnated. In the 9th and 6th centuries, the same Latin is used as in the 2nd century. One laughs at Justinian (527-565 AD), who instead of a current law left behind a law museum. I can defend the emperor against accusations of insanity, because I can show his contemporaneity with the Severan emperors (190s-230s AD) stratigraphically. He places his column in the Augustaion-Court of Septimius Severus in Constantinople. In the same city, he strolls along the Mesa Boulevard of Septimius Severus. In the Hippodrome of Septimius Severus he holds his circus games, and in the Zeuxippos Bath of Septimius Severus he takes a swim. (See in detail https://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-ravenna-and- chronology.html.)
    (D) I get curious when manuscripts on topics that are expected as a matter of course are entirely missing. A famous example is the lack of Roman mathematics during Imperial Antiquity (1st to 3rd century AD). The specialists are stunned. I ask them if there really are no mathematic texts written in the Latin style of the 1st/2nd century AD. Of course there are, the best among them answer immediately. Alcuin of York (Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, 735-804) is seen as one of them. But he lived with Charlemagne in the 8th/9th century and would therefore not be considered. Alcuin’s Propositiones ad acuendos iuvenes are seen as the earliest general survey of mathematical problems in Latin. He wrote (Epistola 172) to Charlemagne that he had sent to his court “certain figures of arithmetic for the joy of cleverness.”
    We do not understand how Alcuin could learn mathematics and write it down in Ciceronian Latin after the crises of the 3rd and 6th century, when there were no more teachers from Athens, Constantinople and Rome to instruct him. But a stratigraphic view can help. For the 9th century octagon of Charlemagne, a thermal bath from the middle of the 2nd century is being removed. When did the Frankish Imperator Augustus live? He himself never mentioned that he was crowned 800 AD. However, Charlemagne and Alcuin (with his manuscripts and letters) cannot have lived in the 2nd century, because primitive huts from the 930s AD onwards are directly connected to the dark earth covering the 9th/10th century Carolingian buildings in Aachen. (See in detail https://www.q- mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-the-stratigraphy-of-rome-benchmark-for-the-chronology-of-the-first-millennium-ce.html; https://www.q- mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-ravenna-and-chronology.html.)
    And yet Charlemagne’s 9th century buildings and technologies (down to the chemical fingerprint of the wall paint) cannot be distinguished from those of the 2nd century. Since Alcuin cannot have written in the 2nd and 9th century at the same time, both centuries must have coincided. This eliminates the so far unsolvable problem that no apartments, latrines, aqueducts, ports, roads, kitchens, etc. were built in Rome between the 230s and 930s AD (see overview on next page that also shows the poor beginnings after the 930s cataclysm). In non-existent years it is simply not possible to build.
    (E) Finally, I am interested in the cause of the sudden cessation of the kind of sources we are used to for the first millennium. Some historians feel that everything from the period 1-930 AD belongs to the same civilization, as if the crises of the 3rd and 6th centuries had never occurred: “The tenth century was the ‘age of Iron’ (saeculum ferreum), the Dark Age (saeculum obscurum). / When the Carolingian unity began to crumble and then collapse, when a period of renewed and universal anarchy in social relationships came /, when the light of the splendid but chronologically and geographically limited Carolingian Renaissance was extinguished, it would seem that the development of Latin Europe became retarded./ A symptom of this regression may be the situation that in the period from about 920-960 as far as we know, nothing of any great interest in the fields of intellectual development or literature appeared (J. Strzelczyk, “The Church and Christianity about the Year 1000)”, in P. Urbanczyk, ed., Europe around the Year 1000, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DIG, 2001, 41-68 / 42f.).
    You have discussed with First Millennium Revisionist the dating of texts relating to England’s first millennium AD. I will therefore illustrate my – definitely adventurous-sounding – equation of the 1st -3rd century with the 8th-10th century with Lundenwic and Londinium. They are located about 1.5 km m away from each other in the realm of modern London. Both suffer a dark earth catastrophe. For Lundenwic it is dated to the 10th, for Londinium to the 3rd century. However, if the stratigraphy is allowed to speak, then both parts of London go down together in the early 10th century. (See in detail. https://q-mag.org/london-in-the-first-millenium- a-d-finding-bedes-missing-metropolis.html.)

    Would Prof Knibbs care to comment?

    • Thanks: FB
    • Replies: @FB
    , @eknibbs
  379. @Robjil

    Yes, of course, but 1) megaliths and tumuli are a totally different matter, and 2) Newgrange, like Stonehenge and many other such monuments were in fact very much restored. All the white stones you see on Newgrange were taken from around it in the 19th century, and put back there under the assumption that this was their proper place. Still, the question remain: How old, really?

  380. @Smith

    The Han empire in the east has contact with the Roman emperor in Rome (not Constantinople), and for the Roman empire to be fake, Han empire is also fake, and nobody is gonna accept that.

    In other words, if our chronology is correct, then how can it be false?
    Can you prove what you say, about Han dealing with Rome?
    FYI, Heinsohn has not said much about China, but here is one quote:

    “why the invention of hand-made paper takes about 700 years to spread from China to east and west.” “The enigmatic absence of paper in Japan, so close to China, up to the 8th century AD, when it was suddenly produced in 40 provinces, can be explained, too, by taking into account that the Han stratigraphically are some 700 years younger than in textbook chronology.”

    By the way, there are two Han dynasties: the early one (202BC-220AD) and the later one, from 947 AD. Curious, isn’t it?

    • Agree: tiami
    • Replies: @Smith
  381. Robjil says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Now I understand why Heinsohn is “fearful of Judaism”. Fomenko has the same “fear of Judaism” in his chronology. The “fear of God” is so old school. The new thing is “fear of Judaism”.

    https://www.stolenhistory.org/threads/my-thoughts-on-chronology-1-by-anatoliy-fomenko.770/

    .s. not surprisingly, wiki has more criticism than not on Fomenko New Chronology (Fomenko) – Wikipedia

    but I did see this tidbit that Jan Irvin and Jacob had mentioned in one of their shows:

    Unlike other popular conspiracy theories New Chronology is not anti-semitic per se, but it contains claims that may be unwelcome by Jewish communities like that the Old Testament is newer than the New Testament, placing Jerusalem in Constantinople and projecting stereotypes of Jews by proposing that Jews originate from bankers in the Russian Horde that adopted the religion of Judaism, itself a derivative of Christianity and not the other way round.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  382. FB says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Whoa Nellie…!

    What a tremendous intellectual debate we have here now…

    I said right from the first article that this is a high water mark for this website…and now we get this, an intellectual slugfest of the first order…

    Many thanks to the author for engaging Prof Heinsohn in this discussion…and also to Prof Knibbs who is very game as well…tremendous stuff…Prof Heinsohn has clearly opened with some devastating haymakers [I’m reminded of Iron Mike in his prime], but I expect Prof Knibbs to nimbly thrust and parry…let’s see how some of these questions are played out…

    For me the archeological evidence is something I can sink my teeth into…although I have zero expertise in the field, I fully recognize how meticulously scientific this discipline is…

    …no apartments, latrines, aqueducts, ports, roads, kitchens, etc. were built in Rome between the 230s and 930s AD…

    BOOM…

    However, Charlemagne and Alcuin (with his manuscripts and letters) cannot have lived in the 2nd century, because primitive huts from the 930s AD onwards are directly connected to the dark earth covering the 9th/10th century Carolingian buildings in Aachen.

    WOW…primitive huts…in the tenth century…?

    Amazing stuff…folks, Prof Heinsohn’s website has so much material of interest that is very well written and easily digestible by the layman [like myself]…I can’t recommend it enough…

    Creation of the First Millenium

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  383. eknibbs says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    I did not mean to be elusive. I simply didn’t realise this was the data you wanted, and I didn’t quite understand Heinsohn’s request. If what you want are ninth-century manuscripts with AD dates, sure. Right now it is the weekend in the Era of Corona, so perhaps you’ll permit me merely one manuscript reference with an AD date – the first one I stumbled across as a young student many years ago, as a research assistant. I don’t know how many you want me to provide. I will just start here.

    The codex is Sankt-Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 272. It carries various works of the court scholar and Tours abbot named Alcuin. At the end we find a brief poem, added by an unknown scribe who was presumably a party to high political matters. After his poem, this same scribe adds a brief chronological note with an incarnation (AD) date, to indicate when he put pen to parchment.

    Photos are available online. Please go here:

    https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/list/one/csg/0272

    And then select at the top page (“Seite”) 245. We are interested in the last eight lines on that page. I will transcribe and translate. It says:

    Anno DCCC.VI. ab incarnatione domini indictione XIIII anno (corrected from anna!) XXXVIII regnante Karolo imperatore VIII Id. Fe. die Veneris, divisum est regnum illius inter filiis suis, quantum unusquis post illum habeat. Et ego alia die hoc opus (…)

    In the year 806 from the incarnation of the Lord, in the fourteenth indiction, in the 38th year of the reign of the emperor Charles, on the eighth day before the Ides of February, on Friday, his kingdom was divided among his sons, insofar as each of them might have after him. And I, on the second day [completed] this work.

    Eighth day before Ides of February = 6 February = Friday. That’s correct for 806. Charlemagne became king in 768, so his 38th regnal year is also correct for 806.

    The primary contents of the codex is this theological treatise by Alcuin of York, De fide. This particular manuscript carries the first, unrevised version of De fide, without a series of minor corrections in (very) slightly later codices. That would be consistent with an early date (before 806: the scribe responsible for this note and the poem is not the same as that who copies the rest of the MS).

  384. Robjil says:
    @Robjil

    Heinsohn and Fomenko are twins. They both have a “fear of Judaism”. Judaism has a 500o year old history according to Nick Cannon. This duo has to get over this fear. Maybe both can read up some articles at the Unz site to get over this ” fear of Judaism”. There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

    https://www.stolenhistory.org/attachments/new_chronology-pdf.16876/

    Also useful to know is that Jewish spook Gary Kasparov (real name Weinstein) was hired to promote New Chronology. That should put you off it if nothing else does. And of course this reminds us that as “out there” as Fomenko is claimed to be, he nonetheless manages to skirt the Jewish question in almost every instance. Wikipedia admits he is not being accused of anti-Semitism by most. But of course if he were onto anything important, he would be.After reading my papers, ask yourself what the odds are of being able to rewrite history, uncovering all the important frauds, while skirting the Jewish question? I have shown it simply isn’t possible. Believe me, I would have preferred to have skirted the Jewish question myself. But as an honest researcher, I have to tell you it wasn’t possible. As you know, I hedged a bit in the beginning, but as the evidence piled I up, I quit doing that. Now I just report what I find, letting the chips fall where they may.

  385. Mefobills says:
    @Peter Grafström

    I’ve made the case that England was invaded through Amsterdam by Jewry.

    My comment history is full of data to support this event.

    It was not the Venetian’s….so sorry.

    Venice did get corrupted later in history, and this also correlates in time with Jewish usury method being imported. Whatever malign influence of Venice there was, they are pikers compared to the Jews. Any monetary historian that avoids this elephant in the room is not paying attention. LaRouche had to know, and he ignored it. Why?

    Which came first chicken or egg? I suspect it was a corrupt class of Venetians who wanted to engage with slave trade in North Africa.

    Nazism and national socialism was born of the long history of German’s being independent of the Roman empire. Nazism was not ideology from England, and in fact NSDAP was a reaction against finance capitalism as it emanated from London/Wall Street, and its Bolshevik construct.

    • Agree: Robjil
  386. Smith says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Indeed, because it involves interaction between different parts of the world, and that cannot be fake due to politics on both ends (why would chinese/roman fake them, and why?)

    There were trades that resulted in ancient items (ancient coins, ancient glassware from Rome, ancient silk from China) end in their equivalent locations, as well as their acknowledgement of each other in geography, which can be sum up here:
    https://ltl-school.com/han-china-roman-empire/

    And there is a Han dynasty BEFORE the actual Han Empire started by Liu Bang (called Western Han), the famous Han Empire took the name from another well-known dynasty during the Warring states, and the Later Han also took the name from Liu Bang’s Western Han. In similar cases, there are many Jin dynasties in various chinese periods.

    But one thing can be certain is the Later Han dynasty doesn’t share the same history of Liu Bang’s Han. You will not be able to find an equivalent of Liu Bang, Xiang Yu, Zhang Liang or Emperor Wu of Han in the Later Han (which lasts only FOUR years).

    FB goes on and on about archeology, but archeology goes against what your thesis is saying. There are more evidences of connections between the ancient worlds than the Holohoax.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @ivan
  387. @FB

    I said the mantle is solid so it isnt convection of a fluid but of a solid which, like all solids has a limited resistance against having its shape altered under mechanical loads.

    The fossile material just is dragged a long with the convecting solid mantle

    There is one depth and if I recall correctly it is somewhere around 500kms(not sure about the precise depth) down at a temperature of 1500C where the phasediagram seems to indicate that near that specific depth only it may be in a liquid state.
    Btw
    Below the mantle in the core there still is no liquid state but a strange kind of crystaline state, where the crystal planes are relatively free to oscilate laterally but not radially and that 2D motion takes care of the increased entropy without which it would conflict with the laws of thermodynamics.

    The physicists who explain that use the parallell with the shuffling of a deck of cards

    But if the mantle had been a liquid it would still have been able to drag the fossile material in my view.

    I think you are visualising it as convection in a bowl of water or something.

    The depths of the earth dont allow anything like that

    All this said, I have never seen anybody touch this.

    I mean with the temperatures down there I would expect any macromolecule to be completely dissociated into simple molecules and ions.

    So no matter how sophisticated hydrocarbons were brought down, the chemistry would have to synthesise everything from scratch when it returned to lower depths, say at some tenths of kms.

    Maybe there is something I have missed but I cant see how anything would be able to prevent every kind of solid or liquid substance from having to follow the convection in the mantle.

    The convection cells are huge having radii on the order of a thousand kms, so maybe there arent small convection cells which otherwise might enable fossile material to circulate to less extreme depths and temperature.

    • Replies: @FB
  388. Seraphim says:
    @FB

    At an Orthodox Church, obviously. You may have one in your area.

    • Replies: @FB
  389. ariadna says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    First, thank Tiami (comment #364) for explaining to you the dating systems that confused you. If there is anything left of your opus after you take all the false statements about the dating and their corrolaries you may resubmit it somewhere else.
    Second, your reply to me:
    — The French word “culte” has a different connotation from that of the English word “cult.” Which of the two language is more problematic for you?
    — You make glaringly false statements and when challenged say “I wasn’t sure”… Why not “I had no clue but that didn’t stop me from pretending I was dispensing information?”
    — During no Orthodox service do those in attendance traipse around the church around icons. I see that Seraphim has already corrected you so I won’t belabor the point. You never set foot in an Orthodox Church nor did you bother to get a reliable witness to describe the liturgical service to you. Bloopers galore. Lazy. A wannabe history revisionist with an agenda should apply himself a little more.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Colin Wright
  390. Seraphim says:
    @Smith

    One would be struck and dumbfounded by the similarities between the Cucuteni-Ariușd-Tripolie/Trypillie Culture from Romania/Ukraine (cca. 5000 BP) and the roughly contemporaneous Yangshao/Ban Chiang (Thailand) cultures. Recently Romanian and Chinese archaeologists started to address the problem. Identical representations of the Taiji, Swastika, Triskelion symbols strongly suggest a common worldview, which I would call (after specialists in Chinese, of course) “The Supreme Polarity that is Non-Polar” (an approximation of the Chinese terms Wuji and Taiji). Archaeological excavations at both ends of the area reveal similarities in all aspects of social life (settlements, technologies, art, religion).

    • Agree: Ano4
    • Replies: @Ano4
    , @Smith
  391. Ano4 says:
    @Seraphim

    Interestingly much Y haplogroup R1a in the Chinese Han in that area. Unexpectedly the Y haplogroup R1a Z93 also turned out in a late Tripolyan burial. Earliest Xinjiang paleogenetics are also R1a, but don’t know what clade.

    https://indo-european.eu/2020/03/earliest-r1a-z93-from-late-trypillian-in-the-podolian-volhynian-upland/

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  392. Seraphim says:
    @FB

    The point is that Prof Heinsohn’s website has so much material of interest that is very well written and easily digestible only by laymen like yourself, without the risk of losing your teeth.

  393. Lurker says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    It’s standing next to a medieval church. The details of construction are somewhat different, layers of stone and tile.

  394. eknibbs says: • Website

    I propose to add one reference every day to another pre-AD 1000 MS with incarnation dates. I will try to provide a mixture of references to manuscripts that are well known and more obscure examples. Yesterday I mentioned Sankt-Gallen 272. That chronological note is important because it is the only source that provides the actual day on which Charlemagne’s 806 kingdom division scheme was enacted.

    Today I would draw attention to Paris, Bibl. nationale Ms. lat. 2341. Link here:

    https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85409594

    If you navigate to fol. 13r you’ll find a list of moveable feasts (i.e., the dates of those liturgical celebrations associated with easter, including easter itself) for the years 843 through 923. In the topmost left column you’ll read: ANNO INCARNATIONIS DOMINI NOSTRI IESU CHRISTI DCCCXLIII …, that is: In the year of the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ 843 … Beneath that all the entries are keyed to incarnation dates. 844, as you can see, is the next entry at line four.

    A closely related manuscript, with much the same contents, is Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit BPL 173, which has a nearly identical list on fols. 34v-38r. Two anomalies: 1) The list is longer and begins with the year 824. 2) This manuscript was however almost surely copied much later than the Paris codex, in the tenth century.

    I would propose this theory: Both the Leiden and Paris codices descend from the same lost exemplar. This exemplar contained a list of feasts beginning with 824. Such lists, like our own calendars, are only useful for future dates: You want to know what date Easter and associated feasts occur next year and the year after and so on. The scribes responsible for the Paris MS thus shortened the list of moveable feasts to omit past entries. Thus the Paris codex was probably copied in the 840s (the date squares entirely with its script). The Leiden codex was produced by much more literal scribes. They were probably copying well after 923, so strictly speaking the entire Easter list was out of date. Nevertheless they included the whole thing.

    (And with that, I have actually provided two pre-AD 1000 codices with AD dates! Tomorrow is a day of rest so I have done my Sunday work in advance.)

  395. ivan says:
    @Smith

    Kind of strange that both China and India would conspire with Rome to distort ancient chronology.

    https://indianexpress.com/article/research/ajantas-roman-connection-how-trade-with-the-empire-made-india-rich-6135323/

    Perhaps the fetching Pompeii Lakshmi was another fake inserted by the Rogerers to deprive the Forteans of their glory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeii_Lakshmi

    • Agree: Robjil
  396. Seraphim says:
    @Ano4

    See: “A DNA Genealogy Solution to the Puzzle of Ancient Look-Alike Ceramics across the World” Anatole A. Klyosov, Elena A. Mironova
    @file:///C:/Users/User/Download/AA_2013081209570455.pdf

    The massive presence of Taiji, Swastikas, Triskelions symbols and the spiralic decoration on Cucuteni and Yangshao painted pottery and their persistence in the decoration of Bronze Age artifacts precludes IMO their ‘Yamnaya’ origin where they are conspicuously absent.

  397. this is total garbage and yes jewish russian duginist flavor propaganda fact the Church’s teachings remains consistent and in 1958 the same year as sputnik Nasa and St Pius the 12th and Siri’s adl jew freemaosn commie beating all on the record.

    Take your illiterate Eurasian garbage and go home to Tel Aviv Marxism Zionism judaism same thing no difference.

    St John Chryostom St John of the Cross St Athanasius and St Jerome all thoroughly with this nonsense…

    The jews paid some mercs in newly “converted” pagan age…so what it was condemned…

    Pope Gregory did none of it and why are you whining about this.

    The Original orthodox church was butchered in the early 20th century….

    Seat of Moses Seat of Peter…

    In reality “western Christianity” and “eastern Christianity” non existent only Christianity which followed the successor of Peter as attested to by Sacred Scripture long established before the split for political reasons….and this incident and other things…one thing is though for sure most of the heresies and schisms and apostasies in fact came from the East.

    This is attested too….stop larping and read some real history not ignorant illiterate stuff written by jews their masons of silly communists…btw the official in exile Russian orthodox church still opposes Russia Puting and the “former” soviet republics thoroughly in bed with Israel

    and does not bat an eye…..

  398. @eknibbs

    Thanks. That’s pretty specific.
    Here is a screenshot

    Of course, there is always the possibility that this addition by an unknown scribe is a later addition
    I wish Prof Heinsohn would comment on that.

  399. FB says: • Website
    @Peter Grafström

    I said the mantle is solid so it isn’t convection of a fluid but of a solid…

    Look, you’re talking a lot of gibberish now…convection ONLY occurs in fluids, ie gases and liquids, NOT solids…convection in solids is impossible due to the fact that in a solid material the molecules are fixed in place and attached to each other and not able to move about as they do in a liquid or gas…please look up the basics of convective heat transfer…

    And again, convection is only the transfer of heat, not the fluid flow itself…

    There are convective cells in the liquid part of the earth’s mantle, where the fluid does circulate as a fluid would that is being heated, same as a pot of water on your stove…the hot water at the hot base rises up and the cool water near the surface drops down, due to a change in relative density…convection in the atmosphere works the same way, and we see this kind of convection in thermal rising currents that form cumulus clouds…[gliders and sailplanes as well as eagles and hawks fly by this method by circling in rising thermals…]

    But as for convection and convective cells in the earth’s mantle that is hundreds of kilometers below the earth’s surface which is covered with a solid crust, as well as the outer mantle which is still solid for quite a depth…this is called the lithosphere and the ductile [semi-fluidic] mantle is hundreds of kilometers beneath the surface…

    There is absolutely NO possibility that any organic matter from the surface could ever end up at those depths and have anything to do with convective cells in that molten layer…

    I’m considering this discussion closed as of now, since this abiotic oil thing has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion here…

  400. @eknibbs

    On second thought, I find this case less than convincing: Alcuin’s text is here dated not even by the scribe who copied it, but by a later addition to the manuscript. Even if it can really be established that the date fits a Friday, why would an anonymous scribe add a poem to Alcuin’s works and then conclude with such precise dating. The possibility of this dating being post 1000 AD seems to me quite strong.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @eknibbs
  401. @eknibbs

    it provides a note on the birth of Christ, so we know that we are not in the twelfth century or a century or two earlier or later.

    I don’t understand the logic here.

    The original fourth-century codex does not survive! But it is hard to claim forgery here: It was known in the ninth and tenth centuries and famous even then.

    Here I don’t see the reason for your confidence.
    Your comparison between Scaligerian chronology and Newtonian physics is perfect. Newtonian physics was tested and proven by innumerable experiments and observations. The experimental test to prove or disprove Scaligerians chronology is stratigraphically based archeology. It is no secret that archeology has already disproved a lot of history. But Heinsohn shows, by quoting archeologists themselves, that many betray their own craft by submitting to the established historical narratives rather than to stratigraphic reality. Some quotes are very impressive in the convolutions used to justify the unjustifiable. Here is how Israeli archeologist Moshe Hartal is quoted in an Haaretz article (as reproduced in Heinsohn, “Arabs of the 8th Century: Cultural imitators or original creators?” (2018):

    “During the course of a dig designed to facilitate the expansion of the Galei Kinneret Hotel, Hartal noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750[CE]), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132[CE]). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation – two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,‘ says Hartal. ‚‘I was simply dumbfounded‘ “ (Barkat 2003).

    • Replies: @Robjil
  402. eknibbs says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    This is another of those additions that accumulate on blank folios at the end of a manuscript. As I explained before, such miscellaneous additions are common. Because Alcuin’s texts precede this poem, they must necessarily precede this addition. It is extraneous to the thing you wanted, namely ninth-century AD dates. The script is obviously quite early, again this point is just not arguable. and it is just not credible to place this after AD 1000.

    You asked for specific manuscripts. I provided one in which a scribe literally says “I copied this poem in the year of our Lord 806 directly after this well-attested event on Friday” in a clearly early Latin script, and you find it doubtful. I just don’t see any purpose in continuing this exercise, whereby you demand evidence, I produce exactly what you demand, and you declare it invalid for arbitrary and unclearly expressed reasons.

    The experimental test to prove or disprove Scaligerians chronology is stratigraphically based archeology.

    First, there is no “Scaligerian chronology”, as I have tried to explain. I don’t know what you think my purpose is here, in engaging with you, other than to explain my field and the arguments that prevail within it as honestly and simply as I can. What you have done here, is create a simulacrum of my field, which is vaguely similar to it. Then, you have refuted that, while totally ignoring the actual dating practices that historians today observe.

    No practicing archaeologists will support your view that stratigraphic archaeological finds are necessary for history – not least because this amounts to subjecting ancient and medieval history to evidentiary burdens that do not apply to Renaissance, early modern or modern historical events. Manuscripts, coins, and inscriptions do not have to be buried in the ground to carry evidentiary value. Archaeological strata are themselves dated by the objects they contain and therefore subject to directly analogous processes of chronological positioning as our manuscripts.

  403. eknibbs says:
    @eknibbs

    To put it another way, dating things via written sources was not invented by Scaliger in the sixteenth century. These are ancient practices that have been common to historians since the field was invented. Medieval chroniclers use written sources available to them to date events. Nothing about that is “Scaligerian.” Written sources are also by and large how historians of the Renaissance, the early modern era, and indeed modern history, achieve their dates.

    Before I leave you, I’ll provide you with a fourth ninth-century codex with an AD date. Clm 14429 at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, online here:

    https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0001/bsb00012957/images/

    Navigate forward to fol. 1r.

    Purely by accident, this is another Alcuin manuscript. It contains items he wrote in the course of the Adoptionist controversy, among other things. It was copied at the order of Bishop Baturich of Regensburg in the year 821, as the bishop himself writes on the first folio recto:

    “hoc volumen ut fieret ego baturicus scribere iussi episcopus pro divino amore et remedio animae meae anno domini DCCCXXI et V ordinationis meae”

    “I, Bishop Baturich, ordered that this volume be copied, out of divine love and for the salvation of my soul, in the year of the Lord 821, and the fifth year of my ordination.”

    Often texts copied on the outer recto of manuscripts suffer wear and fade over time, as this one has. Somebody has used reagents to restore legibility and unfortunately, in the longer term, only damaged these words further. Every word is, however, still legible, although with some difficulty; and the crucial AD date (beginning of third line) quite clear. 

    Baturich became bishop of Regensburg in 817, so 821 was indeed the fifth year of his episcopate.

    • Replies: @eknibbs
  404. Robjil says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Heinsohn and Israel are happy together. That make sense. Israel does not care about about artifacts except Jewish ones. There are not much Jewish artifacts, so pour cement all over Israel carelessly.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01811-w

    Paving over archaeologically valuable sites isn’t unique to Israel, Mizrachi says. In Turkey, for example, the 12,000-year-old town of Hasankeyf, a monumental site on the Tigris river, has slowly been submerged beneath the new Ilısu dam. But some archaeologists say that the situation is particularly problematic in Israel compared with many other countries. One big issue is that the majority of the IAA’s budget comes from the salvage digs before construction projects — and the government itself is the biggest developer in Israel, says archaeologist Uzi Dahari, a former deputy director of the IAA. The country is also building rapidly to keep up with a surging population. Archaeologists also argue that the Israeli government favours saving ancient Jewish sites, especially in Jerusalem, over ones linked to other religions.

    In Israel, says Mizrachi, “there are no red lines, or any understanding or rules [for] what should be kept and should be destroyed”.

  405. @Commentator Mike

    discovered in 1546 in the Roman forum

    Ok. I’ll take their word for it.
    How big is that thing? Where did they hide it?

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  406. @Smith

    for the Roman empire to be fake, Han empire is also fake

    Which it is, btw.

  407. @eknibbs

    In any case, this date does not contradict Heinsohn’s general chronology, since, according to him, the time-block assigned to Charlemagne is accurate from the stratrigraphic viewpoint. The problem is with the earlier time-blocks assigned to Italian Rome and to Constantinople. This will become clearer in my next article, but to get a basic picture, here is a simple (simplistic) scheme of the three time-blocks that are simultaneous according to Heinsohn. So, if it is confirmed that manuscripts dated between 700 and 900 contain explicit AD dates, it only contradicts Heinsohn’s supposition (not essential to his stratigraphic analysis, “admittedly only a speculation”, as he writes to Prof. Knibbs) that AD dates came in use only when the Church decided that 1000 years had passed since Christ (based on Revelation 20).

  408. I was hoping that someone would comment about Chi-Rho. As I wrote, I suspect that it predates Christianity, and was absorbed into it through reinterpretation, just like Christmas, the Divine Mother (Isis, Artemis, etc) and so many other things. One possibility is that it is the Latin letters P and X standing for Pax. But that doesn’t seem very satisfying, since it is found in Constantinople, and bears the other Greek letters alpha and omega. The most logical would be that Chi-Rho referred to Apollo or some Greek equivalent of Sol Invictus, since the figure on top left mosaic doesn’t seem to be Jesus but rather Constantine. Does anyone have a suggestion?

    • Replies: @FB
    , @Kapyong
  409. @eknibbs

    Thank you for this extra work. Despite what I wrote in my comment 413, I am very much interested. But what is the accepted date for Bibl. nationale Ms. lat. 2341 , and on what basis?
    You say the Leiden manuscript was “almost surely copied much later than the Paris codex, in the tenth century.” But how can the Paris ms be dated before the tenth century, if it mentions dates “for the years 843 through 923”? I’m a bit confused here.

  410. eknibbs says: • Website
    @eknibbs

    Actually, have a few more.

    There are several early manuscripts of the Royal Frankish Annals, which provide annual summaries of events from a quasi official perspective, under Anno Domini headings. Here is one such early ninth-century codex:

    https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Reg.lat.617

    Literally every entry through 813 or 814 is under an anno domini designation. Year by year by year. Again, this clearly a ninth-century codex.

    Earlier in this thread I cited the Moore Bede, in early insular minuscule. This manuscript, I noted, has received annotations in the cipher known as Tironian notes, which proves that it was on the Continent in the ninth century (the only place and time, beyond Merovingian-era France, these notae were known). On the very last page it has also received an Anglo-Saxon translation, in Northumbrian dialect, of Caedmon’s hymn. It is one of the very few extant texts in Northumbrian that has come down to us at all. It is assuredly an eighth-century manuscript, but here I will entertain the view that it was copied in the ninth century for the sake of argument and to accommodate impossible skepticism.

    Full facsimile here:

    https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-KK-00005-00016

    This manuscript contains the whole of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History with all of the anno domini dates therein. Bede obviously believed he was writing in the early eighth century, and at the end he lists a series of recent events culminating in the year 731. Thereafter we find the so-called Moore Annals, a series of further chronological notes for the years through 734, also keyed to Anno Domini dates. All of this is described on the website indicated above, which also includes many further remarks on the age of this manuscript and its history.

    Of course there were many other ninth-century copies of Bede’s History on the Continent, many of them derived from the Moore Bede itself. All of these repeat Bede’s anno domini dates.

    It would be trivial to list many more pre-1000 manuscripts with AD dates. I can’t imagine how this misunderstanding emerged but the skepticism leveled against obviously very early codices like Stiftsbibl. 272 (which also presents a quite early version of the De fide, as I noted, and I ought to know because I edited the De fide: text and manuscript are here in harmony) because they have the dates that revisionist theories deny is strange to me and unreasonable.

    And a final remark on archaeological strata: It is extremely common to find them disturbed or scrambled by all kinds of events, and remarks to this effect are all over the literature. The earthquake of 749 that disturbed the strata Heinsohn is talking about in your quote is also abundantly attested in written sources. (And note they are disturbed strata: It is not one layer on top another, but both intermingled.) So here is an event we have in writing; and we have evidence of this earthquake in the archaeological record. This ought to be a perfect non-Scaligerian moment for you, wherein written records are confirmed by archaeology. In this case geologists confirmed the earthquake evidence, so there is another level of evidence entirely. Be that as it may, the Heinsohn theory elides this earthquake entirely (ignoring the demanded coincidence of written sources and archaeology), in favor of juxtaposing Umayyad and Roman artifacts. How is it that the archaeologists in question found this juxtaposition jarring in the first place, as the Haaretz article reports? Umayyad and Roman ought to be indistinguishable everywhere according to the theory. And yet they are not and this particular strata was recognized as an anomaly.

  411. Seraphim says:
    @eknibbs

    Have a good rest. I anticipate a long match and the challenger is ‘coriace’. He won’t admit defeat until he is KO.

  412. tiami says:

    I’d love to hear opinion how is it possible that Bede who is considered to live in the 8th century, uses the concept of „nullam” as we do it today? It is a common assumption that the concept indicating a single digit and the number „zero” was unknown in Europe until its symbol (0) was obtained from the Muslims in the early 12th century.

    In his book Robert Newton examined in detail the solar eclipses recorded in the medieval chronicles, and Bede came into „his picture” when Newton studied those solar eclipses of Bede which were observed or calculated in Italy (sic!).As Newton wrote it, he does not wish to be involved in a discussion about the history, how the „0” as a number concept gained ground, but it is clear for him on the basis of Chapter XX of „De Tempore Ratione”(725) that Bede calculates with the zero.

    How is that possible?

    https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/so-where-does-this-leave-bede/#comments

    • Thanks: FB
    • Replies: @eknibbs
    , @FB
  413. tiami says:

    All Latin manuscripts in Carolingian Minuscule and Visigothic Script that are said to have been written before the late 14th century are misdated and/or flagrant forgeries.

    https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2019/01/18/the-roman-empire-in-three-acts/

  414. FB says: • Website
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    The letters chi and rho are Greek letters, staples in engineering, as with all Greek letters…think of pi in mathematics…

    Rho is an ‘r’ sound, not a p, even though it looks like one…its most common use is for density, such as air density, which is always called rho…

    Chi looks like an x but is really an ‘h’ sound…less common than rho but still pops up regularly…I would guess that the ‘h’ in chi is for ‘hristos’ ie Christ…also we see the ‘r’ of rho immediately following the ‘h’ of chi in ‘hristos’…

    Main point being that these are GREEK letters, not Latin…

  415. @Hippopotamusdrome

    According to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasti_Capitolini

    The original form of the fasti is thought to have consisted of four large tablets, each of which was several feet high.

    In 1540, Pope Paul III authorized the recycling of stone from the forum for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica. The structures in the part of the forum where the fasti were discovered were dismantled between August 15 and September 14, 1546. Some of the stone was sold to stonecutters to be reused in the construction, while some was sold to lime burners to be used for cement. The work was carried out by a company of local quarrymen, with little regard for the archaeological value of the ancient structures, but the scholars Onofrio Panvinio and Pirro Ligorio observed the demolition, and noticed a portion of the fasti still embedded between pilasters in a wall. Other portions were found scattered nearby, and the scholars rescued them, ordering further tunnels dug in order to search for more fragments. Some were found embedded in nearby buildings, indicating that stone from the same area had previously been reused

    Thirty fragments of the Fasti Capitolini were recovered, along with twenty-six fragments of the Acta Triumphalia, or Fasti Triumphales, dating to the same period and recording the names of Roman generals who had been honoured with a triumph. Cardinal Alessandro Farnese brought them to the Palazzo dei Conservatori on the nearby Capitoline Hill, where Ligorio and Michelangelo reconstructed them, based on the observations of Panvinio and Ligorio.

    So the great Michealangelo helped to restore them. Ain’t that something!

  416. @tiami

    Just by look and font used this is 16th century monument.

    That was my first impression but I’m no expert. But if you read on, this is apparently a reconstruction by Michaelangelo and Ligorio.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasti_Capitolini

    A real work of art, eh?!

  417. eknibbs says:
    @tiami

    The mathematical concept of zero is not the same as the concept of absence. Latin has words for “nothing” and medieval Latin uses these words all the time.

    In c. 20 of De temporum ratione Bede speaks of years “when there is no epact”, in quo nullae sunt epactae. The epact is the age, in days, of a moon phase on 22 March. In year 1 in the 19-year cycle (after which the pattern of lunar interactions with the solar calendar was thought to repeat), the moon on 22 March is a new moon. There is, in other words, no moon on 22 March in year 1 of 19, and thus no epact. Bede goes on to explain: In years when there is no epact, that is, when the moon is new on 22 March, the moon on 1 January is 9 days old, on 1 Feb. 10 days old, on 1 March 9 days old etc. These are base numbers, to which the epacts can be added for years 2-19, which will yield the age of the moon on the kalends or the first of every month. This is what Bede explains in c. 20 of De temporum ratione.

    To say that nobody could write of there not being an epact in the eighth century is thus basically saying that nobody could write of a new moon. Bede does not say to “add zero” to achieve the age of the moon on the kalends in year 1. He says there is no epact in year 1 of the cycle, and he no mathematical operation at all. He just gives the ages of the moon for the kalends of all twelve months as “regular numbers”, to which (nonzero) epacts are to be added in years 2 through 19.

    Only in modern translation is Bede’s line rendered “when the epact is zero”.

    Now I really must rest.

  418. @Lurker

    The Middle Ages supposedly lasted 1000 years! I should have said: “It looks like an abandonned tenth-century tower (at the earliest), standing next to a church built (or rebuilt) the fourteenth-century (with a gothic arch), and restored much later.”

    • Replies: @Lurker
  419. @First Millennium Revisionist

    Sorry, I get it. The purpose it to set FUTURE Easter dates. I’ll read more carefully the next one.

  420. @FB

    re: Fasti Capitolini

    Like with those ancient manuscripts it would seem that even these engravings in marble are later copies of some long lost originals. Michelangelo’s handiwork is impressive. Presumably there are still some fragments of the originals left, or are they just the remains of Michelangelo’s early trials of completing the list? But Prof. eknibbs could tell us there is independent verification of this from other sources – but how original? Or just more copies of copies?

  421. Smith says:
    @Seraphim

    Western civilization (Greece, Rome, Frank/Germany) and eastern civilization (Mongol, China, Japan, Vietnam) all share remarkably similarities in thought, culture and even religions. This is because our cultures all come from some places in Central Asia, except asians go east while europeans go west.

    I believe we only divert when abrahamics cult start to infiltrate and the enlightenment movement that spreads “individualism” comes in, this is why collectivism and national identity is still alive the more eastern you go in Yurop, while France almost doesn’t believe in ethnicity/nationality anymore.

    And people mention Fomenko a lot now. Why do people here take him seriously? His ass gets laughed out of Russia and he claims history is actually about a “Slav-turk” Russian Horde (that is also the mongol).

    Like that is so wack, especially when mongols are still alive.

    @Hippopotamusdrome:

    OK bro, please elaborate on why you think Western Han is fake.

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @tiami
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  422. tiami says:
    @Smith

    What place in Central Asia? Lol
    Slavic is spoken from Kamchatka to Adriatic Sea and also connected to oldest written language – Vedic Sanskrit. On the other hand there are only 4 milion Mongolians today. Who have never heard of Gengis Khan until recently.

  423. FB says: • Website
    @tiami

    Thanks so much for this excellent article on Bede…

    In his book Robert Newton examined in detail the solar eclipses recorded in the medieval chronicles, and Bede came into „his picture” when Newton studied those solar eclipses of Bede which were observed or calculated in Italy (sic!).

    As Newton wrote it, he does not wish to be involved in a discussion about the history, how the „0” as a number concept gained ground, but it is clear for him on the basis of Chapter XX of „De Tempore Ratione”(725) that Bede calculates with the zero.

    I had already mentioned the Nasa astrophysicist Robert Newton much earlier in the discussion and his work on establishing that the 370 eclipses recorded in the accepted historical chronology simply are bogus…

    Now we see also Bede using the ‘zero’ more than a century before this number system first came into use in India…!

    I’m afraid this roundhouse from Newton sends our Prof Knibbs crumbling to the canvas…his ‘explanation’ to your comment is really nothing more than quite unconvincing wordplay that does not address Dr Newton’s stunning revelation about the calculation of dates in Bede, not simply the word he used to describe a new moon that is not visible…😂

    And speaking of Prof Heinsohn, who is mostly concerned about stratigraphy in the archeological record…ie where in the layers of earth artifacts are found…his work is so impressive and extensive that there can be no doubt from the many thousands of excavation sites that the third century equals the sixth century equals the tenth century…there are no layers where these are one on top of the other as they should be, in all those thousands of sites…

    Gunnar Heinsohn: The stratigraphy of Rome – benchmark for the chronology of the first millennium CE

    • Thanks: tiami
    • Replies: @tiami
  424. @eknibbs

    I do appreciate your valuable contribution to this debate, and will study them more carefully. I admit I am not the proper interlocutor here, and wish that Prof. Heinsohn would join directly into the debate. In any case, despite my hypercritical skepticism, and having read your comments 414 and 421, I consider that you are convincingly proving that AD dates do feature in ninth-century manuscripts, which invalidates the theory that AD dates were invented by the Gregorian Reformers: they must date from the Carolingian era. I gratefully acknowledge it, and will take it into account. But you must recognize that you have not proven more than this point. You have not provided AD dates in manuscripts earlier than the ninth century. And (as I said in comment 418), what you have proven does not affect Heinsohn’s general theory. You say (comment 421), that “It would be trivial to list many more pre-1000 manuscripts with AD dates.” I agree that it would be trivial to provide more ninth-century manuscripts with AD dates, but what about eighth-century manuscripts with AD dates? Can you provide one?
    Regarding Scaligerian chronology, it is perhaps a mistake to insist on this name. The point is that every modern historian is working inside a paradigm that says that there was Antiquity, then Late Antiquity, then the Early Middle Ages, etc. What revisionists like Heinsohn are doing is challenging this paradigm. And they are challenging the assumption that medieval writers were thinking inside this paradigm. I agree that this paradigm predates Scaliger. It was planted by the medieval church, but did not fully cristalize as a collective assumption until the Renaissance. And even then, as I mentioned in this article, we find some authors thinking that the Roman Empire was just a few centuries away.
    You write in you comment 384 If you assume that there was Roman Antiquity, then Late Antiquity, then one thousand years of Middle Ages, you are working inside a prefabricated, manmade box and not questionning the box. You say “We have done our own chronological research” and “various basic historical dates became objects of systematic inquiry,” but can you explain what this “research” and this “inquiry” consist of? Again, as I just wrote in my previous comment, there is only one way that chronology can be proven or disproven, and that is stratigraphically based archeology, as Heinsohn insists.
    Regarding Bede, in response to your comment 421, I’d like to know what you think of the thesis of James Watson that I mention in the article: “James Watson has shown that it was originally a History of the English People with no mention of Christianity; it was heavily interpolated during the tenth century, Watson says, when ‘most of the ecclesiastical notices in the work have been engrafted with the original history.’” That means we don’t have here any proof of AD dates used prior to the tenth century (ninth according to you).
    Finally, regarding archaeological strata and the miraculous earthquake (your comment 421), Heinsohn shows that anomalies of the kind I mentioned are all over the place. But that is the subject of my next article.
    Thanks again, Professor Knibbs for humbly, patiently, and bravely sharing your expertise. It has been extremely informative. I will take the time to read again your comments, and it will surely help me to get a more mature understanding of the questions you have addressed. And I will try to get a copy of your book Ansgar, Rimbert and the Forged Foundations of Hamburg-Bremen.

    • Replies: @tiami
    , @eknibbs
  425. Kapyong says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    “One possibility is that it is the Latin letters P and X standing for Pax.”

    Hahaha !

    Oh, wait ….

  426. RSDB says:
    @Seraphim

    Do Orthodox churches usually have a daily Liturgy?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  427. gay troll says:

    Joseph Atwill makes a strong case in Caesar’s Messiah that the Gospels are a deliberately forged history. His thesis that the Gospels are a darkly humored lampoon of Titus’s campaign against Judea is well supported by comparing the Gospels with the writings of Josephus, especially War of the Jews. I disagree with Atwill’s conclusion that Josephus composed the Gospels along with his other works, because this again places the Gospels further back in history than the period when they are first attested to, i.e. 130-180 CE. To accept Atwill’s thesis is to believe that the Gospels were written in direct response to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, when in fact they were a historicizing spin on Gnostic and other mystery cults. Atwill also argues that War of the Jews, with no reference to Christian beliefs, attempts to prove that the prophecy of Daniel has come to pass. Certainly Josephus’ work could have been interpolated by the creators of the Gospels or later caretakers.

    • Replies: @Patagonia Man
  428. Lurker says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    The top of the tower has indeed been rebuilt at some point. The difference is visible in the pic.

  429. Iris says:
    @ariadna

    — The French word “culte” has a different connotation from that of the English word “cult.” Which of the two language is more problematic for you?

    Oh, come one. The French word “Culte” has the sense of “Worship”, as in an official, formal religion, with no negative connotation whatsoever.

    It is very clear by now who the FMR is, and that he is a native French speaker, which is why he made the understandable mistake to utilise a fake cognate. Please stop being rude and disingenous just because you don’t agree with his ideas.

    • Replies: @ariadna
  430. Robjil says:

    I looked at Gunnar’s “work”. He says a lot about the “love” concept of Judaism in it. Does he read the news about what Judaism is now doing to the US and the world? This makes me very skeptical of Gunnar’s “work”.

    https://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohnthe-creation-of-the-gods-sacrifice-as-the-origin-of-religion.html#W5UVuvNg
    The creation of Gods p.177 6th installment

    Here is an example of his “work” about the “love” ethic of Judaism.

    As a rightist-Nietzschean, Adolf Hitler endeavored to turn back the revolution from archaic Israelitism to the love ethic of Judaism by annihilating Judaism: “Our revolution is not merely a social and political one. We are standing before a tremendous overthrow of moral concepts and of the spiritual orientation of man. With our movement only, the time of the middle, the Middle-Ages, have come to an end. We put an end to the mistaken ways of humanity. The tables from Mount Sinai have lost their validity. Moral conscience is a Jewish invention.”684

    Does he realize what Israel has done in the past seventy five years? Before that what diaspora Judea has done since 12.23.1913.

    USS Liberty 6/8/67
    9 11- 9/11/01
    Jewish neocons pushing “the Seven Nations to Destroy” part 2 theme ( 1st one made Israel of the Torah) in the Middle East
    Israel’s creation and support for Isis and Al-Qaeda.

    He should read “The Controversy of Zion” by Douglas Reed.

    In it, he names the Jewish Zionists who pushed for WWI to get the Balfour and WWII to get Israel.

    Also, Laurent Guyenot’s “From Zion for Yahweh” would be a good read for Heinsohn.

    Another good book for him to read would be “Solving 911” by Christopher Bollyn

    Where is the “love” ethic in all these wars and destruction, Mr. Heinsohn?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  431. @FB

    Yes, I know, but my question was: if Chi-Rho does not stand for Christos, as I believe it doesn’t, what could it stand for? Chrysopolis (golden city)?

    • Replies: @Anon
  432. Robjil says:

    Heinsohn and Fomenko work on the same team – protect Zion.

    This is a quote from Miles Mathis, he is a bit odd in some of his writings, but he has wrote some well thought out criticisms about this disinfo movement by Heinsohn and Fomenko. It all about us not focusing on what is happening now in our present time. Israel must be hidden from view and what it is doing to our planet now.

    http://mileswmathis.com/newchron.pdf

    You will say, “If Fomenko has been working on this for decades, how can it be aimed at you? You weren’t even working back then.” Well, it wasn’t originally aimed at me. Originally it was just another project of misdirection and opposition control. It was part of the worldwide Project Chaos. But once I hit the scene, New Chronology was accelerated and turned in my direction, hoping to snare me and my readers. Very few people had heard of Fomenko before about 2008, but now he is being promoted like never before. Strangely, New Chronology seemed to begin its present rise concurrently with Flat Earth—which also was going nowhere until it began to be heavily promoted in the past decade. But whether or not you agree I am right to take this stuff personally, I recommend you take it personally. Whoever you are, this crap is aimed right at you, and it just a small part of an ever-increasing storm of agit prop and disinfo. If you are not angry in my defense, be angry in your own defense. You should be furious these projects are being run against you.

  433. @ariadna

    ‘… Bloopers galore. Lazy. A wannabe history revisionist with an agenda should apply himself a little more.’

    I suspected reading these articles would prove to be a waste of time. Thanks for confirming the wisdom of my decision.

    • Replies: @ariadna
  434. As an acoitheist, I cannot wait for the third article! The Protocols of Zion demands that the Goyim be enamoured of classicism. I had to insult my dictionary for the meaning of ‘classicism’. I have spent many, many hours meditating on the underlying meaning and metaphysical reasoning behind that rule. So far, these articles have cleared up a question as if sent from the gods that Zion insist I believe exist/ed.
    Religion was the most poisonous gift White man ever received from those whose god promised them they’ll “rule the nations of earth with an iron fist.” Always the friggin’ iron fist!

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  435. The article is far from a waste of time. The alleged bloopers (actually minor nitpicks) have no bearing on the explosive information and persuasive arguments put forth.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  436. Smith says:
    @tiami

    Prolly Northern India/Pakistan.

    Also, who told you mongols only know Genghis Khan recently? You know both east and west fought the mongols right? They weren’t slavic.

    Is that you, math nerd Fomenko?

    @FB:

    Really now? You think India invented the concept of nothingness/empty in the 8th century? They invented the zero, but nothingness/absence of value has existed way before that, you can use Daoism as an example of people acknowledging nothingness.

  437. Seraphim says:
    @tiami

    Nobody speaks ‘Slavic’ from Kamchatka to the Adriatic Sea, but Russian, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian.

    • LOL: tiami
  438. Seraphim says:
    @RSDB

    No, only Sundays and Feast Days.

    • Thanks: RSDB
  439. FB says: • Website

    Just a little sidetrack story to illustrate how tenuous our grasp of even quite recent history really is…

    Everybody knows by now about the Tulipmania in 17’th century Holland, that was supposed to have been a huge speculative bubble that literally wrecked the country…

    Well, now we find out that the whole thing is basically a myth…

    For decades, economists have pointed to 17th-century tulipmania as a warning about the perils of the free market. Writers and historians have reveled in the absurdity of the event…

    The only problem: none of these stories are true.

    Turns out it was a quite minor event…nobody really went bankrupt, people weren’t thrown in jail and the Dutch Republic, at that time the the world’s leading economic and financial power [despite its long-running war of independence against Spain, which it mainly fought by financing mercenaries] hardly was affected at all, and continued being the wealthiest country and leading colonial power, the Smithsonian tells us…

    There Never Was a Real Tulip Fever

    So if tulipmania wasn’t actually a calamity, why was it made out to be one? We have tetchy Christian moralists to blame for that.

    Sound familiar…?

    Once again, organized religion generates a myth and gets everyone to believe it, even the historical profession…

    In this case it was the Protestants…the doomsday myth about tulipmania came…

    …from propaganda pamphlets published by Dutch Calvinists worried that the tulip-propelled consumerism boom would lead to societal decay. Their insistence that such great wealth was ungodly has even stayed with us to this day.

    Also interesting to note the many commenters here arguing about how ‘fake’ the WW2 genocide of Jews must be…yet they object strenuously to any suggestion that the fantastical historical narrative about some kind of ‘Ancient Rome’ two thousand years ago [one of the silliest yarns ever invented] must be taken as completely accurate…

    How completely ridiculous…

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  440. ariadna says:
    @Colin Wright

    “I suspected reading these articles would prove to be a waste of time.”
    I thought so too but no more! Not after I understood his agenda. I am in awe of the scope of his ambitious enterprise.
    See if you agree:

    He claims neither the ancient Greek nor the ancient Roman civilizations existed. Everything we know about them, archeological artifacts, monuments, architecture, writing, are fakes fabricated in the ME in Byzantium and other places in Europe. Of course, Socrates never existed. A certain Plato had to be invented in order to claim he did. Historical figures like Julius Caesar, inventions! No punic wars. (He never mentioned Hannibals’s elephants and I would not ask him because you know by now my sensitivity with respect to animal slurs.)

    At first it sounded to me like a demented denial of the Western civilization (with a sequel on Christianity). But think carefully about the implications of this. Which is a more astonishing feat: the Western civilization built from its Greco-Roman roots over thousands of years, or its tale forged in a few centuries from scratch with the appropriate ruins strewn in? What does it take to accomplish such a forgery?
    Enormous genius, imagination, talent and hard work. If the whites have been capable of creating all this in, say, six centuries and in the seventh they rested, they are divine!

    I predict that our little revisionist, derided by many, will go places. He only needs a bit of publicity before lots of organizations named “It’s divine to be white” will grab his thesis and run with it. It is irresistible. Like Judaism. Not many Jews are able to reject rotundly their personal superiority anchored in the superiority of their tribe. And theirs is an unearned entitlement, a freebie from Yahweh, whereas according to this thesis the whites earned it!

    • Thanks: Robjil
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Robjil
  441. ariadna says:
    @Iris

    I don’t recall reading your comments before so I don’t know: are they always this boring and superfluous?

    • Replies: @Iris
  442. Seraphim says:
    @paranoid goy

    It is actually a ‘rod of iron’.
    “Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth [for] thy possession. 9 Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron (ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ); thou shalt dash them in pieces as a potter’s vessel” (Psalm 2:9).
    ” And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron (ράβδῳ σιδηρᾷ); as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star” (Revelation 2:26-29).

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  443. Iris says:
    @ariadna

    Jumping on the “White/Christian” victimisation bandwagon is a cheap populist shortcut for the simple-minded, used by those unable to present coherent refutation to contradict the author, and actually unable to understand his article altogether.

    Byzantium, whose outstanding contribution to human civilization has been deliberately stolen and dismissed, also was White and Christian.

  444. Iris says:
    @ariadna

    I don’t recall reading your comments before

    That’s because you suffer from Alzheimer or dementia.

    You addressed me before, and I remember you alright: you are the uneducated commenter who does not even that know Latin and Ancient Greek are still taught at University.

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @ariadna
  445. Seraphim says:
    @taylorseries

    The ‘explosive information’ is just the explosion of winds that precedes the final emission of the load of waste.

    • Replies: @taylorseries
  446. Seraphim says:
    @Robjil

    It looks that he already invited Heinsohn to confront Prof. Knibbs!

    • Replies: @Robjil
  447. Seraphim says:
    @FB

    Heinshon is not archaeologist, nor historian for that matter.

  448. tiami says:
    @FB

    I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who felt Prof Knibbs explanation rather unconvincing. Now let’s see if anyone has solution for The Newton problem. 😉

    • Agree: FB
  449. @gay troll

    My dear boy,

    You said: “because this again places the Gospels further back in history than the period when they are first attested to, i.e. 130-180 CE”

    It is the consensus of Biblical scholars that the Gospels were written in ~40 to ~80 CE – and even that’s ~10 – ~50 years after the Crucifixion & Resurrection!

    So Atwill’s contention that they were written as a way of moderating the zealotry of Judaism after the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 CE) with further rebellions erupting in 115, culminating in the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 CE), is chronologically incorrect.

    I respectfully suggest that your reliance on one interpretation, that of Atwill, is an exercise in confirmation bias.

    Cheers!

    • Replies: @gay troll
  450. @Seraphim

    Actually, my bible calls it a staff. Usually, I translate it as “sceptre” in all my essays. All just brainwank.`The real issue is the actual ‘rule with force over the grazing animals’. No, that is not in any bible, I’m sure, but it oozes out of every religious seam of every religious person.
    In any case, my beef is with the entire concept of religion as a worthwhile activity for humans. “White, Black and Red” cultures are not affected. Far’s I can see, the Jews, the people of Quetzlcoatl, and for reasons I am investigating, certain Chinese and Japanese, are the only people obsessed with vengeful gods, demons and blood sacrifice. Currently trying to produce a video tying Quetzlcoatl to Jesus via Jahwe and Jehova.
    What is that Chinese link, though? Any thoughts? Anybody? As per the subject matter of the main article, just about all our history is fabrication, and archaeologists seem to me in a satanic conspiracy to smear the concept of religious significance upon every pot shard.
    Oh, and only the Jehovajesusians have been so effed up as to invent a satan…

  451. tiami says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    Again I would like to point out to the problem with ”Dominus” in AD counting system. Which ”Dominus” is meant in those early AD dates (with assumption those books are original and not copies)? Diocletian or Jesus Christ? Looks like not many people are awere that Anno Domini/Diocletiani was one of the main counting systems back then and it was Dyionisus Exiguus who changed it to Domini/Christi to supress memory of merciless tyrant who started biggest persecution against Christians (hmmm?).

    It looks there’s some 700 years difference between Diocletiani and Christi systems not 284. Suffice to say this is how we got extra centuries…

  452. eknibbs says:
    @First Millennium Revisionist

    As for eighth-century anno domini dates: I don’t understand why this question matters, or what is proven by anno domini dates in the eighth or the ninth or the tenth centuries. Start by looking at the significant eighth-century manuscript tradition of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica. There are four or five other such manuscripts in addition to the Moore and Leningrad Bedes. All have anno domini dates.

    Watson’s old book is not even minimally convincing. He literally just walks through Bede’s text, picks out passages he doesn’t like because of something they imply about Scotland or something he thinks is improbable or unlikely to have happened, and calls it a later interpolation. I have faced enormous and intractable skepticism on this thread for pointing out simple things attested by the historical record. How much of Watson’s honestly foolish argument will survive if you turn that skepticism on him?

    Below the fold I will try again to explain ancient and early medieval chronology. Eras are surely a later construct. Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages, etc. But the sequence of years and the chronology is present in the sources themselves, and our ancient and medieval sources take great pains to locate themselves chronologically according to multiple overlapping dating systems.

    Above all, I will try again to explain ancient dates, and consular years, and the problems they pose for you one more time.

    [MORE]

    1. Consuls served one-year terms in pairs. In Antiquity they gave their names to the year in which they served. Today, textbooks say that “Diocletian seized power in AD 284.” In the third century, they said “Diocletian seized power when the emperors Carinus and Numerianus were consuls.” Note that they did not use Ab urbe condita dates generally. They had unique names for each year – the names of the consuls.

    2. You will say: “We don’t know if Carinus/Numerianus WAS AD 284. It might have been some other year. I will do you one better: Strictly speaking, there never was a year AD 284. The year AD 284 is a construct of modern history. Forget about it. For the purposes of this discussion we will start by saying that in the beginning, there was only ever a Carinus/Numerianus year. (This is a simplification: There were many different local reckoning systems in the ancient world. But bear with me.)

    3. We have lists, transmitted to us mainly by manuscripts, the fasti consulares. These name the consuls for each year. (The fasti capitolini, discussed in these threads, only lists consuls for the republic and they are not my concern here. I am interested in later fasti from the imperial era.) The details are messy, as we must expect for any real evidence from the past. The Chronograph of 354 is only one such document that I discussed in a vain attempt to communicate in some partial way the richness and complexity of this evidence.

    4. People have been comparing different sources for the fasti consulares for centuries. By and large, they have found that the fasti agree on the major details and transmit roughly similar lists of consul-years. In the interests of simplicity I will elide details like the suffect-consuls (consuls who took office midway through the year because of some upset or the death of a prior consul or whatever: Diocletian made himself consul upon his usurpation and became suffect-consul after Carinus) and so on. We will stick with Diocletian. From the accession of Diocletian to the accession of Justinian, the collective evidence of the fasti attest to 243 consular years. That is to say, disregarding suffects and smoothing details, there are 243 consular names separating these emperors. The emperors themselves are embedded in the consular dates, because the emperors periodically assumed consular office. The fasti, then, say that 243 consular years intervened between the start of these emperors’ rule.

    5. Consular years are not just in the fasti. They are everywhere in our sources for this world. Inscriptions, coins and papyri also attest to the vast majority of these consular years. Imperial constitutions are dated according to these years. Later constitutions (which refer to ealrier constitutions) hail from consular years that are later in the fasti. For most consular years, most years in the style of “Carinus-Numerianus”, we have a different mix of papyri, inscriptions, coins, all from different places, naming this year as the year of their creation/inscription. With all kinds of problems, sure! Consuls served only for a year, and it took time to have grave stones carved, for news of that year’s new official consuls to reach the provinces (so they continued to provide post-consul dates from the last attested consul), there were political controversies and the western emperor refused to recognize the eastern emperor’s consuls, on and on. But the system is there, and actually the problems are reassuring, because they are evidence of real people in antiquity trying to determine the consular name of each year and then implement it, insofar as they can, given all the limitations of the ancient world, in their own letters and tomb inscriptions.

    6. The fasti are not fantasy, is what I am saying. They are not a learned construct. The consular years they record were actually recognized on the ground and archaeological evidence, the gold standard in your view, proves it. You know who else uses consular dates? Major church councils of the later empire, and their surviving acts anchor huge and widely reported ecclesiastical events in the consular dating system. Also, early historians and chronicles use them. You will demand that I provide proof, and I will cite, for probably the fourth time, the imperfect and confusing and difficult compendium entitled “Consuls of the Later Roman Empire,” by Bagnall et al. This is a massive reference work which collects a) all of the evidence of the fasti consulares for each year from Carinus/ Numerianus onwards, including contradictory names and omissions and all manner of other irregularities; and b) all the other sources attesting to each of these consular dates as named in the fasti from Carinus/Numerianus onwards. The coins, the papyri, the very many inscriptions especially from Rome, references in laws, references in literary texts. A few other things too. The authors merely summarize sources published elsewhere. They are compilers.

    7. So we have consular years and they provide relative dates. Diocletian became emperor 243 consular years before Justinian became emperor. The Council of Chalcedon met 76 consular years before Justinian became emperor. Most dates in the ancient world are of this sort and thus placed relatively on the same scale of consular time with each other. We know the years before and the years after.

    8. In Egypt, some people dated by counting forward from the era of Diocletian. This was one of the many regional systems of reckoning that differed from consul-years in the empire. The church of Alexandria used the Diocletian era. It had easter tables that began, not with consul-year Carinus/Numerianus, but with a synonym: Diocletian year 1. Remember, we know from the fasti and inscriptions the consular name of the year Diocletian acceeded, so this is a matter of definition. Dionysius Exiguus knew the Alexandrian calendars. All he did, with his anno domini dates, was provide a different set of numbers to the Diocletian era. He increased them all by 284 (simplifying very slightly). So the easter tables of Dionysius Exiguus provide us with a second set of year-names: a continuous set of numbers. The consul year Maximus/Aquilinus was Diocletian year 3 according to Alexandrian easter tables which is year 287 according to Dionysius who just adds 284 as I said.

    9. Dionysius Exiguus and his dates only became important a lot later and they don’t matter as much as you think they do. Other sources have their own dating systems. We have discussed Gregory of Tours a lot here. Gregory of Tours knows that his predecessor, the famous St. Martin of Tours, died in the consular year Caesarius/Atticus. He is not the only source to know this. Other sources too say Martin died in year Caesarius/Atticus. There are so many inscriptions also bearing the consul-year date Caesarius/Atticus that Bagnall et al. have formatting problems listing them all. This well attested consular year is 130 consular years before the accession of Justinian. Gregory of Tours also says 197 years have intervened from this Caesarius/Atticus year in which Martin died to the time of his own writing. Can we translate these years across systems? Why yes. Caesarius/Atticus translated into the Diocletian era is 113, translated into Dionysian era is 397. Gregory of Tours believes he is writing in a year that WE would call AD 594.

    10. Was Gregory crazy? No. He is even corroborated in other sources, like the chronicle of Marius of Avenches, who provides annual notes keyed to consular years. Of course when the consuls dry up after 540, Marius has to provide post-consul dates, counting forward from the last consul. He relates some of the same events as Gregory in his histories. Thus we have consular year names for the beginnings of the reigns of different Merovingian kings. In the seventh post-consulship of Basilius, Theudebald became king, and in the fourteenth year of the same post-consulship, Theudebald died. We know from the fasti – confirmed by all manner of independent evidence as I said – that Basilius held the consulship fourteen consul-years after the accession of Justinian. Applying Diocletian-era or Dionysian-era numbers to these years is a matter of counting forwards. It is a definitional matter. Theudebald died 271 consul-years after year Carinus/Numerianus, which is by definition the Diocletian era 271 or Dionysian (AD) era 555.

    11. What is important about having consular year names for the accession and death dates of Merovingian kings, is that the Merovingian kingdoms themselves dated according to regnal years. So sources like Marius, which give us consul years for the date Merovingian kings acceded, show us which consul-years accord with which Merovingian regnal years. This is a great part of why Marius is writing in the first place: He wants to explain when things happened according to different reckoning systems. From Marius we can calculate dates across systems as follows: The second year of king Theudebald = year 8 of post-consulship of Basilius (or eight years after Justinian abolished the consulship) = 265 consul-years after the accession of Diocletian (i.e., Diocletian era 265) = Dionysian era (AD) 549, which we get just by adding 284. Later Merovingian sources like Fredegar date by regnal years. We have a chain of Merovingian regnal year dates reaching backwards, anchored in consul-year dates for the earlier Merovingian kings. And consul years, as I said, are equivalent to certain Diocletianic or Dionysian years as a matter of definition. It is just a different way, a much later way, of referring to these years.

    12. Now, somebody in this thread will surely complain that this is a mess and why should they believe it. A word about that: Multiple concurrent reckoning systems are messy, sure, but they have to align, and when they don’t, we know there is a problem someplace. These are mutual controls on chronological information. When you have popes writing letters dated to the year of their pontificate, and kings responding with letters dated to the year of their reign, the systems have to line up. It has been very telling to see the modern assumptions of chronological revisionists, that the ancient world used one monochrome scale, like AUC dates. Thus all you have to do is find an error to shift the whole system up or down. The reality of ancient dating is very much the opposite. Each consul-year is a one-year scale unto itself; or, in the case of the same consul serving multiple years, a two- or three-year scale. The post-consulship of Basilius lasts a few decades only. Every time there’s a new consul, you start over from zero. Errors exist but they’re localized by the unique year-name system. It is alien to us but strangely consistent and you can appreciate why it was ued. And on top of that there are the regnal years and the years since Martin’s death and so on: All separate systems of counting that have to agree.

    13. If you count the Merovingian regnal years recorded in our sources forward, they take us well into the seventh century, when we have as I said well over 30 original papyrus documents of Merovingian kings. These are dated to regnal years. Thereafter we have authors like Bede. His chronological works place him in a very clear relationship to past events, for example past bishops of Rome, the Gregorian mission to England, and so forth. For the later Carolingian era we have again in the documents a chain of regnal years extending all the way back to the Arnulfings, and a growing use of anno domini dates as I have said, particularly in annalstic sources. These permit us to key the separate scale of Frankish regnal years to anno domini years, which as I have said are just Diocletian eras in disguise, which have a clear association with the consul-year system of Antiquity, because we know in which consul-year Diocletian acceded. This is the chronology and how it works. It is not an invention of Scaliger. Our sources relate themselves to various chronological reckoning systems very deliberately, and situate themselves relatively to one another.