• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

Status
Not open for further replies.
My suspicion is that you have fallen into a confirmation bias trap with regard to the use of the term, reliable evidence. If you have formed an opinion about something and evidence exists which provides support for a proposition that is opposed to your belief it is very easy to discard that evidence as unreliable. When one has formed an opinion it takes strong evidence to counter that opinion and for some people that strongly cling to beliefs no matter how strong the evidence is they will not change their opinion. It is certainly possible that this does not apply to your beliefs with regard to this, but my claim here is that your style of argument suggests it has.

How can it be determined that you yourself have not fallen into a confirmation bias trap?

Do you not regard the NT as unreliable?

You need to ask HJers how they can simultaneously and conveniently admit the NT is unreliable but still accept it as reliable ONLY for specific events which appear to support an HJ.

HJers appear to have fallen headlong into their own confirmation bias trap.
 
I wasn't arguing that the NT is like Beowulf. I don't think you can directly compare texts in that way, especially ones from such different societies.

I would think that some parts of the NT could give an insight into the thinking of Jewish sects, how they interact with other sects (often with hostility), how they teach, what charismatic Judaism is like, the role of eschatology and apocalypticism. Then of course, you could study how Christianity began to pull away from Judaism, and which ideas were retained, and which kept.


You could do all this whether or not you are an adherent of HJ or not, unless of course, you subscribe to the view that it is all forged. But presumably forgeries can give historians a lot of information.

Isn't that hilited bit getting rather far from the discussion, which is, correct me if I'm wrong, whether evidence for an HJ can be found in the documents of the NT or not?
 
... Tacitus Annals with Christus was a very very late forgery and was fabricated after the end of the 4th century or after Sulpitius Severus "Sacred History".
Why a forgery as early as that? As already discussed, the earliest extant manuscripts of books 1-6 is ninth century, and of 11-16, probably 11th century. So by your reasoning these works cannot have been composed earlier than in those times. If they were, then your argument that the NT cannot contain pre-180 AD writings because there are no earlier extant manuscripts except possibly a tiny and ambiguous fragment: that argument of yours falls to the ground.
 
Isn't that hilited bit getting rather far from the discussion, which is, correct me if I'm wrong, whether evidence for an HJ can be found in the documents of the NT or not?

Well, you asked me how historians might use the NT as a historical source for information. But I think scholars like Vermes argue that in the synoptics, the portrayal of Jesus is a credible one, given what is known about messianic claimants, wonder-workers, and so on, who seem to have been around in 1st century Judaism. But Vermes had an extensive knowledge of Jewish texts from the intertestamental period, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I guess few of us have.

This seems to counter the argument that since Jesus is portrayed as a kind of impossible figure, he must be fictional. This seems a poor argument to me, imbued with anachronistic thinking, as if ancient Jews thought like us! I don't think the Vermes-type argument 'proves' that Jesus is historic, but it shows him as a credible portrayal. Further than that, I don't see how we can go, although some scholars seem pretty certain!

And of course, you could still argue for a spontaneously evolving archetypal figure Jesus, who matches known characteristics of the hasidim of the time. Whatever.
 
Why a forgery as early as that? As already discussed, the earliest extant manuscripts of books 1-6 is ninth century, and of 11-16, probably 11th century. So by your reasoning these works cannot have been composed earlier than in those times. If they were, then your argument that the NT cannot contain pre-180 AD writings because there are no earlier extant manuscripts except possibly a tiny and ambiguous fragment: that argument of yours falls to the ground.

Your posts are always filled with fallacies, misrepresentation and your own illogical strawman arguments.

I have not claimed or argued that copies of manuscripts from the 9-11th century cannot contain pre-180 CE writings.

I am specifically arguing that based on the evidence Tacitus Annals 15.44 with the passage on Christus was interpolated no earlier than the end of the 4th century.

1. No Apologetic writer used Tacitus Annals to argue that the Christ had already come.

2. c 325 CE when Eusebius' "Church History" was composed Tacitus Annals was not used to prove the Christ had already come.

3. c 400 CE when Severus' "Sacred History" was composed Tacitus Annals was not used to prove the Christ had already come.

4. For hundreds of years Church writers used the forgeries in Josephus to prove the Christ had already come.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a very, very late interpolation and was manipulated sometime after Severus' Sacred History" c 400 CE.
 
I continue to dispute your use of the word, evidence, IanS. My definition is consistent with most of the dictionary definitions that you listed and I think it is close to the way the word is used most often. The criteria I use for what constitutes evidence:

My criteria is that for something to be evidence of a proposition it must not be known to be false and it is must be supportive of the truth of the proposition if it is true.


This is, admittedly, a loose definition. The advantage of a loose definition for the word, evidence, is that it mostly avoids the kind of semantic arguments that you often engage in these threads. You frequently make the claim that something is either not evidence, or not reliable evidence. The problem with that is that the thread diverges into a discussion what is evidence and what is reliable evidence. If you think something can be shown to be false, just state why you think that thing is false. If you think that something doesn't support the proposition even if it is true just explain why you think that. Characterizing a claim as not evidence or not reliable evidence just adds your personal opinion about the meaning of the word, evidence, becoming unnecessarily an element of the discussion.

My suspicion is that you have fallen into a confirmation bias trap with regard to the use of the term, reliable evidence. If you have formed an opinion about something and evidence exists which provides support for a proposition that is opposed to your belief it is very easy to discard that evidence as unreliable. When one has formed an opinion it takes strong evidence to counter that opinion and for some people that strongly cling to beliefs no matter how strong the evidence is they will not change their opinion. It is certainly possible that this does not apply to your beliefs with regard to this, but my claim here is that your style of argument suggests it has.




Dave - I’m well aware of confirmation bias (I did a short Psychology course on that a while back). And after spending 20 years in research physics I’m also well aware of what counts as reliable evidence of something (whatever else a dictionary might say).

But apart from that, as I pointed out above, I’m not using any different dictionary definition from anyone else anyway.

Also there seem to be a problem with your own definition, as you have written it. You wrote this -

“ …it is must be supportive of the truth of the proposition if it is true.”

You seem to be assuming that the proposition has to be true to begin with. But that would be wholly inadmissible of course.

But getting back to confirmation bias - you seem to be thinking I have some sort of pre-determined bias here (which I am seeking to confirm). But what actual bias do you think that is? It really does not matter at all to me whether Jesus was real or not. And I do not have any strong opinion about it either way.

The only reason I think it’s important, is because I think it would be highly detrimental to modern day Christianity if it had to agree that the basis upon which it stands was probably untrue.

But whichever way anyone want’s to look at it, the biblical writing cannot itself be evidence of a living Jesus, if only because the writers themselves never knew anyone called Jesus, and they did not report any evidence from anyone who was ever thought to have known Jesus.

All that’s contained in the biblical writing is evidence of peoples beliefs. But there is nothing there which is actually evidence of any the people knowing a living Jesus.

Writing like that could have contained such evidence. It might have been written by named eye-witnesses whose reliability and accuracy could be verified. Or it might have described physical evidence open to later discovery and testing etc. Those things would not of course be anything approach proof, and claimed eye-witness accounts might still be highly suspicious etc., but at least it would not be so hopeless as to be obviously inadmissible as any kind of reliable evidence at all.

But in fact, neither the gospels nor Paul’s letters contain anything remotely like that.

On the contrary, what these letters and gospels do contain is the very opposite, where the evidence on every page is that those authors were so unreliable as to write demonstrably untrue fiction and religious superstition throughout. And only then, as a matter of un-supported un-evidenced religious beliefs drawn from their Old Testament. That is not evidence of Jesus.
 
Dave - I’m well aware of confirmation bias (I did a short Psychology course on that a while back). And after spending 20 years in research physics I’m also well aware of what counts as reliable evidence of something (whatever else a dictionary might say).

If I weren't on ignore I'd point out that you're well aware of what counts as reliable evidence in physics.

Can someone point this out to him ?
 
This seems to counter the argument that since Jesus is portrayed as a kind of impossible figure, he must be fictional. This seems a poor argument to me, imbued with anachronistic thinking, as if ancient Jews thought like us!



Who said that was their argument (highlight)?
 
Dave - I’m well aware of confirmation bias (I did a short Psychology course on that a while back). And after spending 20 years in research physics I’m also well aware of what counts as reliable evidence of something (whatever else a dictionary might say).

But apart from that, as I pointed out above, I’m not using any different dictionary definition from anyone else anyway.

Also there seem to be a problem with your own definition, as you have written it. You wrote this -

“ …it is must be supportive of the truth of the proposition if it is true.”

You seem to be assuming that the proposition has to be true to begin with. But that would be wholly inadmissible of course.

But getting back to confirmation bias - you seem to be thinking I have some sort of pre-determined bias here (which I am seeking to confirm). But what actual bias do you think that is? It really does not matter at all to me whether Jesus was real or not. And I do not have any strong opinion about it either way.

The only reason I think it’s important, is because I think it would be highly detrimental to modern day Christianity if it had to agree that the basis upon which it stands was probably untrue.

But whichever way anyone want’s to look at it, the biblical writing cannot itself be evidence of a living Jesus, if only because the writers themselves never knew anyone called Jesus, and they did not report any evidence from anyone who was ever thought to have known Jesus.

All that’s contained in the biblical writing is evidence of peoples beliefs. But there is nothing there which is actually evidence of any the people knowing a living Jesus.

Writing like that could have contained such evidence. It might have been written by named eye-witnesses whose reliability and accuracy could be verified. Or it might have described physical evidence open to later discovery and testing etc. Those things would not of course be anything approach proof, and claimed eye-witness accounts might still be highly suspicious etc., but at least it would not be so hopeless as to be obviously inadmissible as any kind of reliable evidence at all.

But in fact, neither the gospels nor Paul’s letters contain anything remotely like that.

On the contrary, what these letters and gospels do contain is the very opposite, where the evidence on every page is that those authors were so unreliable as to write demonstrably untrue fiction and religious superstition throughout. And only then, as a matter of un-supported un-evidenced religious beliefs drawn from their Old Testament. That is not evidence of Jesus.

Thanks for the response. Just a few comments:
The criteria that I believe to be a reasonable basis for determining whether something is evidence of a particular proposition or not are these:

1. For something to be evidence it must not be known to be false
2. For something to be evidence it must be supportive of the proposition if it were true.

I don't mean in anyway to say that the proposition has to be true. If both parts one and two are true the proposition still might be false.

Looking at the issue of historicity of Jesus with regards to these criteria, I think in general the earliest evidence of the HJ is the most unreliable but if it were true it would provide the best support for the proposition that an HJ existed. Later evidence for existence of the HJ tends to be more reliable but it also provides only weak support for the existence of the HJ even if it is true.

On the issue of confirmation bias, what I tried to say with regard to your insistence on what is evidence and what is not evidence is that it suggests that confirmation bias might be influencing your views. You very well may have a good handle on your confirmation biases with regard to this issue, but you seem to have a gut feel self ascribed ability to judge what is evidence and what is not evidence with regard to this issue and the process is not completely apparent by which you make that judgment and one idea is that only something that supports your view can be evidence.

As to your career in physics: Wow, that is amazing. I started out as a physics major, but decided I wasn't smart enough and needed to pick a career where if I wasn't a genius I could still make a living. Of late, I have been trying to get some sort of an understanding of the Schrödinger equation without much success.

As to the criteria for reliable evidence in physics: One problem I see with the issue of transferring a sense of what is reliable evidence in physics to what is reliable evidence in history is that evidence in physics can usually be recreated so if something can't be recreated it is reasonable to discount the evidence entirely. This leads, I propose, to a situation in physics where distinguishing different degrees of reliability with regard to evidence isn't that important. I would imagine that evidence would generally be either very reliable or very unreliable. Perhaps there is sometime where there is ambiguity where attempts to recreate the evidence are ongoing but eventually things settle out and the results are either reliable evidence or just flawed experiments.

As to your comments about evidence from the NT
I think that you and I agree that the Gospels do not provide much support for the existence of an HJ. I am not sure what to make of them actually. Mostly from my perspective they are obvious fiction. They convey stories in a style in which the storyteller makes no effort to provide a plausible explanation as to who could be present to be recording the events. My thought has been that this style worked because people that read the Gospels had a sense that supernatural events are possible and their assumption was that the story writer could have derived his knowledge of events supernaturally.

Despite the above I don't think the Gospels can be completely written off as some sort of evidence for an HJ, but I'm not sure, I'm just open to the idea. The Gospels, IMO, are more important as clues to the origin of Christianity than as a source of information about a hypothetical HJ. But even here the clues are obscure. It doesn't seem possible to pin down where they were written, who they were written by and whether Hellenistic Jews had anything to do with their creation.

As to your dismissal of Paul:
I don't know. I remain open to every Paul theory I've ever seen. I just don't know how you can prove any of them impossible at this late date.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that hilited bit getting rather far from the discussion, which is, correct me if I'm wrong, whether evidence for an HJ can be found in the documents of the NT or not?
Well, you asked me how historians might use the NT as a historical source for information. But I think scholars like Vermes argue that in the synoptics, the portrayal of Jesus is a credible one, given what is known about messianic claimants, wonder-workers, and so on, who seem to have been around in 1st century Judaism. But Vermes had an extensive knowledge of Jewish texts from the intertestamental period, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I guess few of us have.

zugzwang, I asked you how the NT can be used to argue the historicity of Jesus, not the plausibility of such a character.



This seems to counter the argument that since Jesus is portrayed as a kind of impossible figure, he must be fictional. This seems a poor argument to me, imbued with anachronistic thinking, as if ancient Jews thought like us! I don't think the Vermes-type argument 'proves' that Jesus is historic, but it shows him as a credible portrayal. Further than that, I don't see how we can go, although some scholars seem pretty certain!

Did I make that argument?
I think not.


And of course, you could still argue for a spontaneously evolving archetypal figure Jesus, who matches known characteristics of the hasidim of the time. Whatever.

You could, perhaps.
Could you return to my question, please?
 
...As to your comments about evidence from the NT
I think that you and I agree that the Gospels do not provide much support for the existence of an HJ. I am not sure what to make of them actually. Mostly from my perspective they are obvious fiction. They convey stories in a style in which the storyteller makes no effort to provide a plausible explanation as to who could be present to be recording the events. My thought has been that this style worked because people that read the Gospels had a sense that supernatural events are possible and their assumption was that the story writer could have derived his knowledge of events supernaturally.

Despite the above I don't think the Gospels can be completely written off as some sort of evidence for an HJ, but I'm not sure, I'm just open to the idea. The Gospels, IMO, are more important as clues to the origin of Christianity than as a source of information about a hypothetical HJ. But even here the clues are obscure. It doesn't seem possible to pin down where they were written, who they were written by and whether Hellenistic Jews had anything to do with their creation. ...

I enjoy reading your musing on the subject, davefoc.
I found the hilited bit very true, davefoc, especially since we know they were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 6970 CE. They seem to hark back to 'the days of yore', IMO.
Given that they're written in Koine, they're clearly meant to fill the role that religious tracts do in modern times.

Anyway, I quite like the idea of hypoJ as an alternative to the terms MJ and HJ
 
Last edited:
David, the entire problem here is that you were simply wrong to say that all of history would collapse if we ruled things out of consideration on the basis that all we had as “evidence” was anonymous hearsay with no other supporting evidence at all.

That is wrong. That would not rule out all of ancient history. It would not rule out events such as your example of Thermopylae.

And the reason is (as I already explained several times above), because contrary to what you were saying, it is in fact not the case that genuine academic university historians claim that such events really happened on the basis of anonymous hearsay evidence alone … far less do they claim such things on the basis of the sort of anonymous hearsay which we have for Jesus, where it is actually a chain of multiple anonymous hearsay sources known only from the writing of much later religiously devoted self-serving copyists, claiming constant untrue fiction on every page, and where those fictional beliefs are known to have been copied from what the authors thought was divine religious prophecy in their ancient religious books from centuries before!

No sane academic, in any field, could possibly claim that we should believe anything on that sort of “evidence”. And I’m quite sure they do not make any such claims about Thermopylae either.

So it’s quite untrue for anyone to say that sort of ancient history would all collapse.

The problem with the Jesus case, perhaps uniquely in all of ancient history (except of course for other similar religious beliefs), is that it’s practitioners, who are bible-studies scholars, mostly in the devoutly Christian USA, such as Bart Ehrman and all his colleagues (such as Dominic Crossan) of whom he says "almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees", do say that such evidence is good enough not merely to say they think Jesus existed, but as I have pointed out here numerous times, they say it is a matter of undisputed “certainty”.

And this is a case where the claimed “evidence” of Jesus comes entirely from the biblical writing (there is no independent external non-Christian writing which does not, as far as anyone can honestly tell, rely on what had already been written in gospels), and where the gospel writing is -

1. Entirely anonymous, from writers who never knew Jesus at all
2. Where those gospel writers were recounting stories from yet earlier anonymous people who also did not know Jesus,
3. Where the earlier anonymous people were said to have believed that even earlier people had been disciples of Jesus and knew what he had said and done.
4. But where none of those people ever confirmed a single thing that was said in any gospel
5. Where not one person ever wrote anything about Jesus during his lifetime
6. Where even for a century or more after Jesus was thought to have died (ie c.30AD) almost no historians even mentioned his existence at all
7. Where the few such as Tacitus and Josephus who did mention anything about Jesus, only mentioned him in passing in a couple of very brief sentences.
8. Where those authors such as Tacitus and Josephus were not even born at the time and could not possibly have ever known what Jesus did, except through even more hearsay from unnamed unknown sources.
9. Where even that quite hopeless anonymous hearsay supposedly mentioned by Tacitus and Josephus etc., is only known in copies written 1000 years later by Christian religious copyists themselves.
10. Where the only primary source ever known, i.e. the biblical writing, is so hopelessly unreliable and non-credible that it claimed completely untrue fiction about Jesus on virtually every page.
11. Where all of the biblical writers, inc. Paul, repeatedly stressed that they had obtained their Jesus beliefs by interpreting what they believed to have been prophecy written centuries before in the OT.
12. Where authors like Randel Helms have written in detail with entire books showing exactly where, how and why those gospel authors took their Jesus stories from specific passages in the books of the OT.
13. Where even that anonymous gospel hearsay, and the letters attributed to Paul, all reporting impossible supernatural fiction, and all very clearly obtaining their messiah beliefs from what they thought was the divine certainty of their OT, even that is not known from any of the original writers, but again only known from self-interested Christian religious copyists writing from about the 4th-6th century onwards (i.e. for relatively complete forms with substantially readable detail).
14. Where all of that Christian copying, whether it’s copies of Josephus and Tacitus etc., or copies of earlier gospels etc., is known even to the most devout bible-scholars and theologians, to have suffered from frequent “interpolations”, i.e. alterations, additions and deletions of what was originally written, wherever the later copyists and their masters wished to change things according to their changing beliefs.


Hearsay sources like that, i.e. 1 to 14 above, are not only totally inadmissible in the case of Jesus, as they would be in any legal case, but they are most definitely not used in other areas of ancient history such as Thermopylae, to conclude on that sort of anonymous hearsay devotional writing alone, that any event like Thermopylae was actually a real fact, or even probably a real fact … that sort of utterly useless fatally flawed “evidence” is not remotely good enough to conclude anything at all about any claimed historical events or figures.

And just to repeat, in case you have lost the drift of this - that is why we, in this thread, most certainly should be using the same sort of evidential considerations that have been universally established in law, and rejecting anonymous hearsay of that sort as reliable and/or credible in any measure at all. It needs something vastly better than that before you can even begin to describe it as “evidence” … and that means “evidence” of what is actually being claimed, not “evidence” of something else entirely (such as merely being evidence that people often wrote about quite absurd superstitious religious beliefs).

This is a déjà vu!
 
He is right about that, is he?

OK, where did I ever do what you claimed? Where did I fail to distinguish between using any historic text as a source for historical "analysis" (i.e. investigation?) vs. using a text as reliable historical record?

Do you distinguish between using any historic text as a source for historical "analysis" (i.e. investigation?; yes, investigation if you like) vs. using a text as reliable historical record? Really? And what about this: “and rejecting anonymous hearsay of that sort as reliable and/or credible in any measure at all.”?

If you accept that a text that is not a reliable account of facts can be a font of information for the historical (critical) analysis we would advance a lot in this debate which seems to me absolutely run aground.
 
pakeha

especially since we know they were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 6970 CE.
We don't know that of Mark. For example, Jesus says nothing non-trivial about the destruction of the Temple, and the author treats the remark as a lesson, not as a prediction.

The author's gee-whiz reaction is more the marker of dating than would be Jesus making a prediction. Any moron could have seen a generation in advance that the Romans and Palestinian Jews were on a collision course, and how that would turn out. What can only come afterwards is the author crowing about how prescient Jesus was - and there's no hint of that in Mark.

Given that they're written in Koine, they're clearly meant to fill the role that religious tracts do in modern times.
It is unclear what Mark's purpose was. His is apparently the first instance of the genre, so it is possible that finding uses for the book was as much an invention as the writing of the thing.

Certainly the uses of Paul's letters evolved over time from resolving immediate business concerns, through development of ever more abstruse doctrine, and then later on to witness of Jesus when finally doubt was admitted about that point.

Perhaps Mark wrote in Koine because that's the only language in which he could write.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Mark wrote in Koine because that's the only language in which he could write.
Yes, quite probable. A hostile commentator on gMark states this.
To summarize, the canonical Gospel of Mark is an anonymous book written outside of Palestine in a Gentile language to a Gentile audience sometime during or after the Jewish-Roman War. The author is hostile to Jews and to the apostles. He does not know Jewish laws or customs. He does not know the geography of Palestine. He does not like Peter. He never makes any claim to have known Peter or to have ever been to Palestine.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm However, more friendly writers also make the same points about gMark's ignorance of Palestinian geography and so on.
 
zugzwang, I asked you how the NT can be used to argue the historicity of Jesus, not the plausibility of such a character.





Did I make that argument?
I think not.




You could, perhaps.
Could you return to my question, please?

I have said that the Vermes-type arguments show the portrayal of Jesus as a credible and plausible one. I don't see how one can go beyond that, to any kind of certainty as to historicity. One could say 'plausibly historic'.
 
pakeha


We don't know that of Mark. For example, Jesus says nothing non-trivial about the destruction of the Temple, and the author treats the remark as a lesson, not as a prediction.

The author's gee-whiz reaction is more the marker of dating than would be Jesus making a prediction. Any moron could have seen a generation in advance that the Romans and Palestinian Jews were on a collision course, and how that would turn out. What can only come afterwards is the author crowing about how prescient Jesus was - and there's no hint of that in Mark. ...

Thanks for your take on the dating, eight bits.
Time to reread Mark and he dating thereof, it is!


I have said that the Vermes-type arguments show the portrayal of Jesus as a credible and plausible one. I don't see how one can go beyond that, to any kind of certainty as to historicity. One could say 'plausibly historic'.

True, and one could also say, plausibly written fiction, using those same arguments. It's not difficult to see the gospels as a portrayal of a generic character in a historical setting, is it.
 
pakeha


We don't know that of Mark. For example, Jesus says nothing non-trivial about the destruction of the Temple, and the author treats the remark as a lesson, not as a prediction.

The author's gee-whiz reaction is more the marker of dating than would be Jesus making a prediction. Any moron could have seen a generation in advance that the Romans and Palestinian Jews were on a collision course, and how that would turn out. What can only come afterwards is the author crowing about how prescient Jesus was - and there's no hint of that in Mark.

You keep forgetting that gMark is a forgery or falsely attributed to Mark. You keep forgetting that gMark is not an eyewitness report.

You keep forgetting that none of the supposed contemporary non-apologetics wrote anything of gMark or claimed Jesus of Nazareth predicted the Fall of the Temple.

Josephus in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 claimed that it was Jesus the son of Ananus a " mad man" who used to shout "Woe to Jerusalem".

There is simple no evidence of gMark or any story that Jesus of Nazareth predicted or correctly predicted the Fall of the Temple.

There is simple no evidence that Jews and people of the Roman Empire had already acknowledged or known of the advent of the Christ in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius up to c 115 CE.

There was supposed to be at least four biographies of Jesus where it is claimed he correctly predicted the Fall of the Temple and the calamities of the Jews yet not one contemporary writer mentioned Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospels.

It is evident that gMark's Jesus story was unknown and no had influence at all on the existing contemporary writers of antiquity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom