| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
 |
|
There's a book in there somewhere...
The Applied Epistemologist's Handbook
(Or how to tell when the experts are talking bollox)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Historians, the obvious first port of call, are forbidden from studying the matter! All they can do is to study the contemporaneous written accounts of Vercingetorix coins, and of course there aren't any. |
But Historical Geographers being not so academically restricted presumably could have explored the topic. Why have they not done so?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | But there are also (probably) coins that are not forgeries that have been termed forgeries by these experts, simply because they cannot be logically sequenced in terms of The Great Coin Myth. |
We know for certain that these are the coins most likely to be real. They are the only coins I would consider using in any attempt to rebuild a factual history of coinage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | If someone bothered to look into the Historiography of Ceasar's novel, they would soon discover that the thing wasn't heard of until after the Renaissance |
Has anyone here actually read De Bello Gallico?
I think my suspicion has been aroused to the point that I think I might read it myself to see how it holds up. I've found a copy online, the only thing that's putting me off is this bit in the preface;
| Suetonius (Suet.12Caes.Julius.56), in his biography of Julius Caesar states that the Gallic and Civil Wars were written by Caesar, and that the 8th book of the Gallic Wars was written by (Aulus) Hirtius. Suetonius also indicates that either Caesar's friend Oppius, or Hirtius likely wrote about the Alexandrian, African and Spanish wars, but that their authorship was not certain. |
Does this mean that Suetonius has to be a forgery as well?
I'm not pointing this out to pour cold water on the idea, as I'm quite open to the idea of either or both being fakes, I just fear I might end up going round in circles.
Has anyone been through this already to save me the hassle?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| N R Scott wrote: | | Has anyone been through this already to save me the hassle? |
Scott, if you undertake this task, you will be the first person in history to read Caesar skeptically, and thus will immediately become the greatest expert in all the world on the matter -- that I promise. That anyone will ever listen to you -- that I can't promise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
While looking up this Caesar business I came across this;
Jesus was Caesar -
http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html
The claims made are a little spurious, but none the less quite interesting. Here's some of it;
| Names resemble each other in writing and phonetically -- Gallia and Galilaia, Corfinium and Cafarnaum, (Julia) Mària and Marìa, Nicomedes of Bithynia and Nicodemus of Bethania, etc. Other examples are not as obvious but can still be recognized: Junius (Brutus) and Judas, Brutus and Barabbas, Senatus and Satanas, etc. |
And;
| There is an easily recognized pattern: the miraculous victories of Caesar become the victorious miracles of Jesus. Accordingly Caesar's clashes with the Caecilii, Claudii and Metelli mutate into the healing of the blind (lat. caecilius = blind), lame (lat. claudius = the lame) and crippled (metellus mistakenly from mutilus = mutilated) | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bede wrote of 'Maelmin' and 'Adgefrin' (Milfield and Yeavering) in his second book of his Ecclesiastical History of the English People...
in the North-East of England...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Well that settles that! And so I come full circle.
It was back in the year 2000 that I started my journey down this road of meta-skepticism. It began then when I encountered a line of argument that convinced me that Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
The opposing position was the one I had held life long. Until I encountered that particular counter-argument -- on a Web site entitled, The Jesus Puzzle -- I would have considered loony, the notion that Jesus did not exist. But seeing the perfection in the reasoning, and recognizing that it resolved the most puzzling aspect of the New Testament (the theology of Paul), I abandoned my old position immediately. I became -- somewhat reluctantly -- one of the loons.
But I would not remain a mere loon for long. Shortly I would go completely bonkers.
I continued to follow the debate between the Jesus believers (by all means not all of them religious) and the Jesus doubters. There was one appeal the proponents of the historical Jesus made often; they claimed that there was more evidence in favor of the historicity of Jesus than there was of Julius Caesar.
Of course the Jesus detractors would have none of this. They cited the myriad of historical references to Caesar and contrasted this with the paltry number associated with Christ.
But something about this objection stuck with me.
It was this; If Jesus didn't exist, might not Caesar be just as fantastical? To doubt Christ was not to acknowledge Caesar. Neither might be any more real than the other.
That Jesus and Caesar might be inspired both by the same common mythology I could never have imagined. Until now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| N R Scott wrote: | There is an easily recognized pattern: the miraculous victories of Caesar become the victorious miracles of Jesus.
Accordingly Caesar's clashes with the Caecilii, Claudii and Metelli mutate into the healing of the blind (lat. caecilius = blind), lame (lat. claudius = the lame) and crippled (metellus mistakenly from mutilus = mutilated) |
An interesting ref to lameness. I could add that Emperor "Cladius" was according to orthodoxy lame and cuckolded by his wife.
Thread Cloak not Dagger, has lots on this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| nemesis8 wrote: | | Thread Cloak not Dagger, has lots on this. |
Cheers. I'll get onto this thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| I could add that Emperor "Cladius" was according to orthodoxy lame and cuckolded by his wife. |
Claudius is the only Roman emperor celebrated as a scholar. In myth lameness is associated with knowledge, usually of the esoteric kind, as in the Scottish 'Cluitie' meaning the Devil who is portrayed with cloven hooves and wells with a reputation for healing, clootie wells, are decorated with torn strips of cloth (cf. St. Martin's cleft cloak).
Cloven hooves feature in Jewish dietary laws separating clean and unclean animals, an extra toe is also called dewclaw i.e. Jew-claw (clew=claw).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the AE interpretation of this text?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Claudius is the only Roman emperor celebrated as a scholar. |
Would I be right in saying that Henry VIII is the only English Monarch celebrated as a scholar?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
There was Alfred the Great but he turned out to be a forgery. ("Too," as you would put it.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
