I have been citing the Church Fathers the entire course of our disagreement vis-a-vis your proliferation of misinformation concerning Christianity on this forum. I have been citing primary documents, not the interpretations of oftentimes questionable historians who want to sell books and thus peddle in controversy. To the best of my immediate recollection I have not cited a single historian's work to you. I go you wikipedia when someone is so absurd it is easily disproven. Look at the citations on the wiki pages I send you. It is you who have been citing contemporary historians, who often disprove the allegations you claim they support.davidbrainerd wrote:Ironically, if I were an ancient writer your former self would be defending me against your present self and attacking your present self for trying to apply "materialist-historical" presuppositions to a writer who didn't follow the "materialist-historical" mode of writing.Coëmgenu wrote:Without these documents we have no access to history at all. You didn't invent the search for bias in history. Is this an appeal for authority based on your relatively advanced age or something? I read this as an admission of your tendency toward unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, which lead to the dissemination of misinformation from you.davidbrainerd wrote:When I was 24, like you, I thought history was what offical texts say. But in my late 20s I realized that the official texts are written by government officials, and are in reality cover-up documents. But if you know how to read between the lines, with a combination of the misinformation they spew, the nuggests of truth hidden in the misinfo, and intuition, you can arrive at a general outline of the truth of what happened. Now at 34, I'm not going to go back to being a naive tween with explicit faith in goverment writers, paid liars.
But I think the disagreement is easier to explain than that. Most of my knowlege of church history comes from a direct reading of the church fathers. When you're reading a wiki or a history book, you don't know the trustworthiness of the original souce. The author may say "According to Tertullian, Marcion taught X." You accept that as fact, exactly as its presented. The person reading Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion has a different perspective. They know how wiley Tertullian is in dealing with opponents, they see firsthand the way in which he twists what someone said here or there, etc. They have a different perspective. They have more information. Naturally this can lead to a difference in opinion about whether a particular "fact" really is a fact just because good ole Tert said so.
Such as your invocation of Christ in Celtic Christianity by Michael W. Herren. A search for every single instance of the word "Gaul" in the text turns up nothing that supports your claims that monasticism predated mainstream Christianity in Gaul. The first record we have of Gaulish Christians is an account of a persecution in Lyon. These wooden structures, are you talking about these? Where in the book to you find this information? Monasticism is not defined solely by the practice of austerities.