|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 18:41:41 GMT -1
Thanks RR, that was very gracious of you after my brusqueness!
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 18:42:13 GMT -1
Another key aspect in the book is the edits made by four church councils, namely Pisa 1409, Constance 1417, Sienna 1424 and Basle 1434 that the churches of France and Spain must yield in points of antiquity to that of Britain, the implication being the church in Britain being older. A mutual friend, not active here now, figuratively described these as nothing more than a drink induced frenzy, would that be your conclusion too?
RR
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 19:00:28 GMT -1
Well---let's apply the method outlined above, rather than assuming a statement to be true simply because it is old. What do late medieval clerics know about the very early history of the Church, and how do they know what they think they know? What were their sources for their picture of how Christianity had spread in the 1st century? Were these sources likely to be accurate in point of historical fact? There were no history books in our modern sense or records from that time for them to consult; Tertullian (who was a major and much-read authority, one of the most important of the early western Church fathers) said that Christianity was present in Spain, Gaul, and Britain when he wrote, around 200AD; he is probably right, because the archaeology seems to confirm it (the Mamucium 'Pater noster' word-square), and if the Brits had christianity in the late 2nd century then the Gauls certainly had it earlier (because it spread from the eastern med and from Rome, coming up the Rhone to Lyon; there is some evidence for persecution in the fourth quarter of the century.) Another much more major source is Eusebius 4th century 'Ecclesiastical History', but this does not in fact mention Britain. It's likely therefore that the churchmen of the 15th century councils are dependent on Rhabanus (9th century) and therefore on the Joseph of Arimathea myth, for this allusion to the antiquity of the British church; since this is a medieval legend it cannot be used as a historical source for the 1st century, because you would then be using the legend itself to prove the historicity of the legend, which would be a lovely example of circular reasoning!
So since they had no accurate (in our modern sense) idea of the history of the primitive church, we simply can't give any credence to the statements of people living 1400 years after the events.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 19:14:02 GMT -1
Thus backing up your earlier remarks about the disparity between oral and factual history. That makes sense, it's obvious that to base suppositions upon evidence from such a wide period of time cannot be seriously considered without very strong evidence to counter the margin for error. To do so could be considered to be more about the person's personal agenda than the actual evidence.
RR
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Dec 4, 2009 21:58:05 GMT -1
RR - point is, who was Jesus? The most important person in the Christian tradition, right? Even named it after him Right, so if young Heysus came to Prydain on a tin-ship, what would he have done? Mulled about in some rain-soaked beach trading-market, probably lugged around big baskets, sat around with the other young-muscle types, had a bit of British beef and some ale, then sailed off back for Gaul or Iberia. Realistically, if he had actually been able to tell his name to someone (not many Dumnonii spoke Aramaic), would anyone have remembered it the next day? Nope. Just another worker on another merchant ship. So then, who DID remember it? Did Jesus tell people, later in life "Ahhh... Britain.. I went there before it became a popular Roman tourist destination. Not the same these days!". Maybe. But if he HAD travelled the proto-Empire, the Romans would have been all over it, especially during the Constantine era. "Jesus came here, it's written in Luke, he even stayed at the temple of Apollo, which is why it's going to be a great Christian Church!". Having Jesus freely moving around the Empire, even as far as Britannia, would have been something the Roman writers of the Bible would have been very much up for including, but it's not there. So if the story of him coming to Britain didn't get as far as Rome, how could it have gotten as far as Britain? So there are three options: 1) he came, and people here remembered him. Nah, no evidence 2) he came, and later told the story in Palestine, where they remembered it - nah, no evidence 3) That someone, possibly during the 9-11th century, thought it would get one over on the Franks/Dutch/Italians/Muslims/whoever by saying "Jesus came to Brittania! He graced us with his holy presence, which is more than he did for you heathens". Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Dec 4, 2009 22:09:06 GMT -1
its down to belief. Like the Virgin appearing at Lourdes, people desperately want it to be true so much, with their heart and soul, that it almost becomes true. For a medieval King of England, who's power and purpose comes from God, someone telling them that "those feet in ancient times did..." sprinkles the land with Magic, makes this wet, windy, suspiciously superstitious place one that is holy.
I don't think Dennis really believes Jesus did come here, he's just exploring the myth, seeing if there IS any factual evidence for it. And why not, good luck to him. I think he would do more of a service to history though if he did a Hutton and wrote a book on why it would have been 99% impossible.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 5, 2009 8:40:33 GMT -1
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
an old supervisor of mine used to describe everything he wrote as 'Ockham's Beard'...
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Dec 5, 2009 15:38:14 GMT -1
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem an old supervisor of mine used to describe everything he wrote as 'Ockham's Beard'... Lol!
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Dec 7, 2009 14:22:11 GMT -1
Do you consider this book to be no more than an exercise in tourist propaganda? (I assume you haven't read it? Or maybe you have?) I haven't read it and so have no oppinion on its actual contents.
|
|