Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Anatoly Fomenko?


  • Please log in to reply
221 replies to this topic

#46    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 June 2013 - 10:57 PM

Nice atmosphere you’re creating :-)

Good you are so fluent in many languages, but do you really try to understand people?

Again: Before I dismiss the general statements of Fomenko (and others) as ‘Roman’ events a reflection of middle age events, I wanted to check on what archeological evidence fe Rome’s foundation 2700 years back in time is based on. That is not outrageous.

Merely texts won’t do for me, because that’s the bottom line: is there proof that these are authentic?
Of course,  I need to prove first they are not and Fomenko is right untill i can doubt Roman history (I don’t get why that should be the rule but that seems to be the case :-)

Safest way to get rid of the that rule:  there must be other independent archeoligical proof if the matter is that sure.
If you take those texts for granted and enough, fine. I don’t, so I look further.

I’m not pretending to know all, that I leave up to others. You even seem to know what I read or not :-)
For me it doesn’t have to be that I need to prove Fomenko right before I can understand why many more people doubt the history we take for granted.

Last one: if this insanity and total nonsense upset you too much, just let it go ;-)


#47    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:30 AM

I skipped around on the Wiki page till I saw...

Quote

According to New Chronology, .... All events and characters conventionally dated earlier than 11th century are fictional

Come on... All of history fits inside 1000 years?? That is madness.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#48    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 10 June 2013 - 12:35 AM

View PostVan Gorp, on 09 June 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Again: Before I dismiss the general statements of Fomenko (and others) as ‘Roman’ events a reflection of middle age events, I wanted to check on what archeological evidence fe Rome’s foundation 2700 years back in time is based on. That is not outrageous.

Merely texts won’t do for me, because that’s the bottom line: is there proof that these are authentic?
Of course,  I need to prove first they are not and Fomenko is right untill i can doubt Roman history (I don’t get why that should be the rule but that seems to be the case :-)
What about Mt Vesuvius and Tree core samples. It can be shown that the trees grow at a Known Rate, leaving a ring each year, and that the Vesuvius erruption corresponds to a darkened year, and the ash layer corresponds in the same way to activities that occured above it. And those preserved remains of Roman Citizens in Pompeii are not lies. They can be seen today. So there exists a known event at a known time, that is backed up by natural science in the form of ash layers and tree ring counts.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#49    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    "If we would know, then we would be more wisdomed."

  • Member
  • 9,553 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 10 June 2013 - 07:10 AM

View PostVan Gorp, on 09 June 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Nice atmosphere you’re creating :-)

Good you are so fluent in many languages, but do you really try to understand people?

Sometimes, but I refuse to understand militant ignorance, which is what you appear to be adopting here, in suggesting everything from the ancient world is a fake. I may be wrong in my impression, though, but all I have to work with is what you give me.

Quote

Again: Before I dismiss the general statements of Fomenko (and others) as ‘Roman’ events a reflection of middle age events, I wanted to check on what archeological evidence fe Rome’s foundation 2700 years back in time is based on. That is not outrageous.

And you got some and ignored it. As I said earlier, evidence you choose not to accept is not the same a total lack of evidence, and it's disingenuous of you to pretend it didn't even happen.

Quote

Merely texts won’t do for me, because that’s the bottom line: is there proof that these are authentic?
Of course,  I need to prove first they are not and Fomenko is right untill i can doubt Roman history (I don’t get why that should be the rule but that seems to be the case :-)

Define your terms of 'authenticity', first. Since you have a track record of (apparently) ignoring what you don't want to discuss, we should agree on terms before we do anything else, or we'll just argue around each other, as we seem to be doing here.

Quote

Safest way to get rid of the that rule:  there must be other independent archeoligical proof if the matter is that sure.
If you take those texts for granted and enough, fine. I don’t, so I look further.

In its strictest sense, history and archaeology are two completely different studies. You might as well suggest someone use painting to 'prove' poetry. Archaeology uncovers and evaluates specific physical artifacts. History is the /intrepretation/ of events as expressed through (primarily) written texts but also by artifacts. It generally doesn't deal with events prior to the written word. While history and archaeology may be able to brace each other up on certain points, it's a critical misunderstanding of both fields and what they do ask archaeological evidence to back up completely historical texts in the way you want.

Quote

I’m not pretending to know all, that I leave up to others. You even seem to know what I read or not :-)
For me it doesn’t have to be that I need to prove Fomenko right before I can understand why many more people doubt the history we take for granted.

Fair enough; you have not, however, demonstrated any working knowledge of any text or referred to them. You may well know them and have read them. I encourage you to cite specific examples of falsehood in them as evidence for your claim if you do know them.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#50    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 10 June 2013 - 07:43 AM

View PostVan Gorp, on 09 June 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Merely texts won’t do for me
Hmmm, if that is the case then why are you here, because all is texts, writing on a screen. I think nothing written here will convince, and likely as more and more evidence is presented, then you will demand more and more, though it will never be enough to satisfy you I think.  So, pick up your shovel and trowel and get to Rome and start digging. Then you can write a report, but as it will be "text", then don't expect it to be believed as any proof. I hope you see the point I am making.....


#51    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 10 June 2013 - 10:59 AM

View PostTutankhaten-pasheri, on 10 June 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Hmmm, if that is the case then why are you here, because all is texts, writing on a screen. I think nothing written here will convince, and likely as more and more evidence is presented, then you will demand more and more, though it will never be enough to satisfy you I think.  So, pick up your shovel and trowel and get to Rome and start digging. Then you can write a report, but as it will be "text", then don't expect it to be believed as any proof. I hope you see the point I am making.....

I think Van Gorp meant some quote from known Latin texts, for example ""Livius said this and that".

But as far as I know Romans used not only stone to carve their text on but also papyri, and some of those have been radiocarbon dated.

Same thing with the Nag Hammadi Manuscripts: these mention Jesus and have been radiocarbon dated to a  couple of centuries CE, and thus far older than Fomenko wants Jesus to be.



.

Edited by Abramelin, 10 June 2013 - 11:03 AM.


#52    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 June 2013 - 08:16 PM

Ok, thnx for all the feedback (I mean that).

Jaylemurph, DieChecker, Tutankhaten-pasheri, Abe

Again the beginning of a work week, bit short of time while I’d rather spent the time discussing with you.

First: I don’t want to annoy,  highjack the subject or fill space with my militant ignorance (amusing language, but clearly makes your point). I’ll take care for that.

It’s true I seem to reject some textual 'evidence', it’s my handicap and have to live with that.
But I just don’t want to stop there, that’s why I try to overcome this handicap and look where my interests go.

Taking your advice at heart and try to dig further for other archeological evidence, check further on reliability of carbon dating for specific finds.
The remnants of trees combined with ash information and Roman artifacts and foundation of Rome,  I was also thinking about: but didn’t manage yet (on the net) to find a reference to the conclusive relation between those (if you can give a hint for more info: please share further).

Intersting, maybe some subject for anyone else who wants to tackle/confirm Fomenko: check what he brings concerning Pompei with the other available evidence. I’m not that far yet.

About those original texts and authenticity, I won’t drag to long but to precise myself: I think they can be handled as authentic if they are composed the same amount of years back, as the the pretended author would have lived and if we are sure it’s an original peace of text stemming from the same period.  Many copies go from hand to hand, but is there prove that once an original of them existed? And if so, does the orginal meet above specs?

For an example the Germania of Tacitus. Jaylemurph, I know I lack sometimes the references but here I try to give some indications of my thoughts.

In my opinion there are 2 ways to doubt the authenticity of the text:

- How/ where and when it has been discovered (Poggio Bracciolini boosted that he had discovered half of Latin literature, mainly in German monasteries (Sankt Gallen, Reichenau  Hersfeld…) Before these founds I’m told  historians had nothing heard of Tacitus.  If true at least something to take note off.  Below a link which is actually dismissing this thought of forgery.  A work with much usefull information in the line of forgery (it's a roman, oh no this won't give any credibility :-) is Mysterium of Monaldi& Sorti. Don't worry, i know they wrote the roman to sell books, but did a lot of research which they use in the afterwords.

http://www.tertullia...pearse/tacitus/  The 're-naissance' (invention) of antiquity is studied in this way in whole different light.  My issue is: how trustworthy are these discoveries/types like Bracciolini.

- And a study of the Latin text itself.  Because I don’t pretend to be farther in this matter than f.e. Leo Wiener, below a link to a book (not complete) where parts of his study can be seen.

http://books.google....forgery&f=false


This is my last week before holdiay, so projects at work need to be finished and little time remaining for really interesting stuff like this, so be it for this time.
But I’ll take the subjects brought on and look further, thnx.


#53    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    "If we would know, then we would be more wisdomed."

  • Member
  • 9,553 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:25 AM

View PostVan Gorp, on 10 June 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

Ok, thnx for all the feedback (I mean that).

Jaylemurph, DieChecker, Tutankhaten-pasheri, Abe

Again the beginning of a work week, bit short of time while I’d rather spent the time discussing with you.

First: I don’t want to annoy,  highjack the subject or fill space with my militant ignorance (amusing language, but clearly makes your point). I’ll take care for that.

Let me be very specific about the use of that term -- it only applies to your position in this particular discussion, not to you, personally. (There are people I would happy extend it to as an apt description, but not you.)

Quote

It’s true I seem to reject some textual 'evidence', it’s my handicap and have to live with that.
But I just don’t want to stop there, that’s why I try to overcome this handicap and look where my interests go.

As I (sort of) said, there is a certain level of skepticism that is healthy and not a handicap. Anything that keeps people on their toes, as you have done, is not without value. Going past that point, though, in dismissing all of Classical literature as a fake is sort of a Greek tragic fault: right idea imperfect in its execution. I think.

Quote

Taking your advice at heart and try to dig further for other archeological evidence, check further on reliability of carbon dating for specific finds.
The remnants of trees combined with ash information and Roman artifacts and foundation of Rome,  I was also thinking about: but didn’t manage yet (on the net) to find a reference to the conclusive relation between those (if you can give a hint for more info: please share further).

This isn't addressed solely to me, but I'm not of much use for this. There are lots of other people here who certianly can be, and I appeal with you to them for some specific evidence to look at.

Quote

Intersting, maybe some subject for anyone else who wants to tackle/confirm Fomenko: check what he brings concerning Pompei with the other available evidence. I’m not that far yet.

And I'll certainly make an effort to look into this. It's summer, so I have more free time than I might at other points of the year.

Quote

About those original texts and authenticity, I won’t drag to long but to precise myself: I think they can be handled as authentic if they are composed the same amount of years back, as the the pretended author would have lived and if we are sure it’s an original peace of text stemming from the same period.  Many copies go from hand to hand, but is there prove that once an original of them existed? And if so, does the orginal meet above specs?

Sort of. Most phililogical study starts with the assumption -- valid or not -- that the text is leigitmate. I'm not aware of any text that can be traced back with authority to the author, off hand. Many can be traced back to an individual copy or translation. And I can't think of any medium used by the Greeks or Romans that would last that long (well, marble, but that's not exactly suitable for an extended piece of writing).

A good bet, however, might be something like City of God by St Augustine; it was written at the end of the Classical period by someone of importance. I have a decentish copy -- I'll look into that.

Quote

For an example the Germania of Tacitus. Jaylemurph, I know I lack sometimes the references but here I try to give some indications of my thoughts.

In my opinion there are 2 ways to doubt the authenticity of the text:

- How/ where and when it has been discovered (Poggio Bracciolini boosted that he had discovered half of Latin literature, mainly in German monasteries (Sankt Gallen, Reichenau  Hersfeld…) Before these founds I’m told  historians had nothing heard of Tacitus.  If true at least something to take note off.  Below a link which is actually dismissing this thought of forgery.  A work with much usefull information in the line of forgery (it's a roman, oh no this won't give any credibility :-) is Mysterium of Monaldi& Sorti. Don't worry, i know they wrote the roman to sell books, but did a lot of research which they use in the afterwords.

This doesn't sound right. Tacitus was known by his contemporaries (Pliny the Younger has a letter we still have written to him). He was also referred to in the 3rd Century by Tertullian; Ammianus cited him and started his own history where Tacitus left off. Cassiodorus and Jordanes both cite him as a reference, writing slightly later. In the early Middle Ages, he's referred to by Peter the Deacon and by less well known Frankish writers during and after Charlemagne's rule.

Quote

http://www.tertullia...pearse/tacitus/  The 're-naissance' (invention) of antiquity is studied in this way in whole different light.  My issue is: how trustworthy are these discoveries/types like Bracciolini.

Part of what Jordanes cited in his Getica was from the Germania, so it's not a question of Bracciolini inventing the text, unless he also invented Jordanes; if he did, then he did an almost perfect impression of him. Tacitus' style is distinctive and there's no substantial difference to me in the style Germania and other writings (and it's very similar to the Agricola, with which it's often republished.)

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#54    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:36 AM

I found an interesting webpage about the works of Tacitus:


Tacitus and his manuscripts

Introduction

There are quite a number of misleading statements about this subject circulating on the internet, including the curious idea that Tacitus was forged in the 15th century by Poggio Bracciolini.  This page has been written to place the facts at the disposal of those interested, and references to more information.  The intended audience is the interested layman.  All this material is derived from the sources listed.

I've also added a short paragraph on the allegations that Tacitus' works were forged.



http://www.tertullia...pearse/tacitus/


#55    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,310 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 12 June 2013 - 03:00 AM

View PostVan Gorp, on 09 June 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

All fair enough, it was a try to get a real grip on the much talked evidence that is abundant why Rome should be founded  2700 years back.
To pursuade myself.

Did not accomplish that yet. And have the feeling we all don't have any real evidence (and do not care for that) what backs this believe (only from authority of others, they certainly will have investigated it thouroughly).

Because that is what i just asked myself (Jaylemurph): non-circular and straight forward evidence (point to it: eg which document is dated that far back and can be linked to the founding, which founds where and when). Not just summing up some texts where things are mentionned that are equal questionable in datings, general classifications: papers, buildings, coins, ...

When there is a guy mentionning the whole Roman age in middleages, cross references and coins can be set apart and won't do to tackle: they move along to the middleages (apart from the many proven fakeries).

I think there is at least a point that we all are very easy going in believing old quakery that stands for ages, but very tendentious if that is being questionned.

View PostVan Gorp, on 09 June 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

That deliberate fraud on the gullible could have taken place much earlier. Let's laugh together :-)
Fomenko is not the first or the last to mention this, so laughing him away won't settle the case of the general assumption that ancient history are merely myths written down and copied by middleage monks and frauds.
What is ridiculous and fantastical is the sucking of Romulus and Remus by an animal, and there are more of such tales that go along with other statements of same authors that we do take seriously because we think those statements are not to be proven because they just are 'the reality' (repeated by the gullible).

The founding of Rome around 700 BCE belongs to the mytho-history of the Romans. This is not to say it's absolutely incorrect, but the Romans themselves incorporated it into their traditions (the date is actually around 750 BCE). Their own historians were doing their best to back-date their history to the founding age, and it works out in modern terms to be around 750 BCE. There is the fact that archaeological excavations in the oldest areas of Rome have found evidence for settlements dating to the eighth century BCE, but that's not the same as actually saying this was the founding of Rome.

But the fact is, the earliest history of the Romans is still shrouded in mystery, academically speaking. Archaeology and related fields search for empirical evidence, and turning to the myths is not usually a part of this quest. For that matter, Romulus and Remus are only one founding myth. Just as popular to the ancient Romans was Aeneas' escape from Troy and eventual arrival in Italy (ever read The Aeneid?).

There's little doubt kings ruled Rome in its earliest years, and the later Romans composed many tales about them, but almost nothing is tangibly known about these kings or their time, academically speaking. What is known is that Rome started to become a force to be reckoned with in the Hellenistic period. Think of Pyrrhus of Epirus and his personal unfortunate military engagements against the Romans in the early third century BCE (and hence our modern cliché "Pyrrhic victory").

What Fomenko and others like him are doing with their "New Chronology" is compressing incredible lengths of history into the blink of an eye. We would have to move up by many centuries not only Rome but the entire Hellenistic age, preceded by Classical Greece and its earlier periods stretching back to Mycenae. At the same time, then, we would have to compress the much more ancient ages of the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt and Nubia and Mesopotamia and Persia, to name but several. Greece itself owed many of its advances and traditions to these much more ancient peoples.

In other words, Fomenko's entire premise is laughable and, frankly, not worthy of consideration. It is an amateurish (if not delusional) approach to ancient history. While it's true that some people fall sway to Fomenko and similar ilk, at the same time he has had no bearing on the world of academia and never will. His entire premise does not survive scrutiny. When weighed against the modern science employed by archaeology and related fields, Fomenko simply falls flat.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#56    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2013 - 07:43 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 12 June 2013 - 03:00 AM, said:


What Fomenko and others like him are doing with their "New Chronology" is compressing incredible lengths of history into the blink of an eye. We would have to move up by many centuries not only Rome but the entire Hellenistic age, preceded by Classical Greece and its earlier periods stretching back to Mycenae. At the same time, then, we would have to compress the much more ancient ages of the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt and Nubia and Mesopotamia and Persia, to name but several. Greece itself owed many of its advances and traditions to these much more ancient peoples.


Not totally so that he (and others) only compresses all of the so called ancient 'civilisations', but also seeing much of them parallel/duplicated/mythological descriptions of same events.
In a blink of an eye it was in the time of Scaliger that practical all the ancient events were placed in a stretched timeline, without backing of any 'modern' science.
What a genius that must have been, knowing things we are trying to proof now :-)


#57    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 15 June 2013 - 08:23 AM

There are many stumblings blocks to New Chronology (Old snake oil). That nobody could read Hieroglyphs until early 19th century is but one of them. This ridiculous time compression has ended by 19th century, so how is the history of AE shoe-horned into this nonsense? How can these "devious" monks in middle ages, with no knowledge of AE history, alter history to include something totaly unknown to them?. It is easy to manipulate something that was known to them, for instance the history of Greece, Rome and most parts of the Levant except Egypt. But AE is a huge block that New Chronology simply canot deal with, except by ignoring it or evasions. It does not matter there is a (fake) dispute over age of Pyramids and Sphinx, for those arguments demolish New Chronology anyway. It does not matter there is dispute about the exact length of the reign of some kings, or that there may have been an overlap between the passing of one old king and the emergence of an heir. It does not matter that there may yet be discovered more gaps in the various lists of kings, though unlikely in the dynastic period IMO. For apart from some wanting to put age of Giza monuments back about 5 000 years, which goes against New Chronology, the disputes about reign length ony affect the overall chronology of AE by decades, and probably not more than a century or more, certainly not the millenia required by New Chronology. One of the flaws of New Chronology is that it primarily looks at battles and important people, it ignores culture, the growth of culture, it's spread. It ignores linguistics, it ignores archeology, it ignores the work done my countless reputable scholars over the centuries. And for what? so Fomenko can make a few $ from gullible fools. I am not against discussion, but here is far too much ignoring of reality and commonsense, of trashing an accept view simply for the sake of argument. Why should anybody here waste time when they know reality will never be accepted, and that NO proof of various mad ideas will EVER be given, only constant demands that reality must be proved. It would be an interesting day on this forum when somebody with a view so outrageous as Fomenko's starts a thread with a list of their beliefs and why they believe it, and backed up by some evidence that can be discussed. But I don't hold my breath about this happening soon.

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 15 June 2013 - 08:29 AM.


#58    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2013 - 09:24 AM

I prefer not to talk in terms of fools but depending the standpoint one takes the question seems always to boil down to: 'What is the evidence for the opposite view'.
If we are honest: why do we mostly go along with classic views: not because we studied all that evidence, but beceasue we think it all has been studied that well before.
I take your point not to 'trust' Fomenko by his books. But only questionning classic view, seems enough to be labelled gullible.

Then what about Hardouin? You can't say he was out for the big bucks and that he was a layman in classic history.


#59    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 15 June 2013 - 10:18 AM

Buying books that are obvious nonsense, except to study them to disect the nonsense, is foolish, it is like buying charms to keep "evil" away. As for Hardouin, well, he shows that even educated and intelligent people can be as foolish as anybody.

You say this

Quote

What is the evidence for the opposite view
I still wait, for saying you do not believe in accepted history, whether all or only parts, is simply a personal statement by you. I can say I believe the Moon is made of chocolate and is inhabited by pink elephants, anybody can say anything. But to try to demolish accepted history needs some proof, not simply belief. Don't just say history was fabricated by monks in middle ages, prove it, give reasons why they would do this, show what person or group has directed that this be done. Proof, please....


#60    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 June 2013 - 12:38 PM

Yes I understand the fact that kind of proof is needed when one should want to demolish the steady belief of most in classic history.
Totally right I guess.

Maybe it doesn’t seem like this, but to be clear: this is not my interest.  Would feel sorry if I have to leave the forum for this :-)

I just want to share that while not believing classic history can be laughable for most, I find it a natural reflex and common sense not to do so.  
Sorry again, please don’t ask for proof to me.  If you would ask me: I couldn’t even give you proof the earth is round, except some nice pictures and stories I’m convinced to believe in :-)

But bit more back to detail: interesting point why.

Don’t pretend to know the full scale of Hardouin’s thoughts, but roughly the context he saw the scam in was that actual ‘atheists’ like Benedictin monks (later Calvinists and Lutherians) used the scripts to give their mission more ancient authority.
That's maybe for some other topic, interesting that Hardouin looks at those groups as atheists.
His Jesuit background can be involved, though later on he was boycotted even by his peers.
I think his belief is that a common true christianlike belief shared by the common people (without much authority involved) was highjacked and perverted in the late middleages by authorities using the writing monks in falsifications and faking much of the history for more credibility around the foundations of their authority.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users