"Well, the good news is, we have secured Margaret Thatcher on the currency as you hoped. Now, there is a trade-off..."
There is an obvious compromise here: furry versions of historical figures.
"raised taxes" is one of the absolute classic checklist items of the Classical Tyrant
...as in, it was *literally* referring to the next generation of Jerusalem Jews, the ones around when the Romans sacked the Temple. So the very Jewish Matthew was trying to explain the catastrophe that befell a single generation, and ended up creating the justification for millennia of anti-Semitism
tangential but while we're doing Biblical discourse, one of my favourite (eminently plausible IMO) theories is that the "May his blood be upon us and our children!" line ascribed to the Jewish crowd at Jesus' execution by Matthew was originally intended in a very limited and *specific* sense...
it's somehow perfect that it sounds very cool and then it's literally just the initial of 'Source' but in German
He's running a war and giving orders based on half-heard nonsense from dubious sources and uninformed impulses, and he's made sure that no one around him is likely to try to penetrate that.
However bad you think it is, there's a very good chance that it's worse.
Do not assume that Trump knows *anything.* Even if people try to brief him, it's quite possible he just interrupts and whines about 2020 or brags about his ballroom until they give up and leave. They may show him pictures or video, but that doesn't mean he pays attention.
Haha yes, your wider point was totally right! Sorry for nitpicking, just a myth that's out there a lot
(Lots of milestones in there like for eg the Vulgate Bible which became the 'definitive' Latin version was produced at the end of the 4th Century so its selection became essentially fixed as the Western Canon)
Basically a long series of debates and canon lists whittled it down until there was only a little disagreement (mostly around Revelation). A letter written by an Egyptian bishop in 367 (so 40 years after Nicaea) is considered the first canon list to match the modern NT, and then this became de facto
You’re probably thinking of Nicaea because this has become a super common idea (thanks to Voltaire among others) but this wasn’t actually settled at a Church Council!
(Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the NT canon though!)
Absolutely the case.
The funny thing is that the methodology by which they became the canonical Gospels is completely wrong (the Church thought all four had apostolic authorship) but they really did end up with pretty much the best / earliest plausible options. You can maybe make a case for Thomas
All the “the Church covered up the TRUE gospels” stuff and it’s like late second century and bananas.
The thing about the early Church is that they did a pretty good job of identifying the most plausible texts.
Paul generally has a ton of super interesting material on the earliest, c.40s Christianity including various creedal statements etc which these people tend to ignore because they’re determined to reverse engineer a needless conclusion of ahistoricity despite the evidence
(Also the earlier attestation is Paul, who in the 50s is writing about going to Jerusalem two decades ago and chatting to Jesus’ family. All the attempts to pretend this doesn’t count this are special pleading nonsense)
wild that anyone wastes time arguing over whether he existed when there are so many new testament arguments that are way more fun
I think it comes in particular from a lack of awareness of how sparse ancient sources are in general. From the perspective of studying the 19th century it's just wild to understand how little you have to work with in ancient history.
Like I get the logic obviously - “the early Christian sources are biased!” but tbh that matters less then the fact that they very clearly reflect different, often irreconcilable traditions. *Independent* sources are far more important than their religious standpoint
“Well when are the earliest non-Christian sources?” is a good example of this type of thinking; it’s *interesting* but not really that important for the basic investigation
Most of the arguments against the historicity of Jesus basically reflect the perspective of someone who knows *something* about how historians approach sources but really not a lot tbh
Alexander is also 100% definitely attested in texts earlier than the ones which survive… as is Jesus
A fun manifestation of Christianity's cultural influence are the atheists who have decided that 'the historic existence of this particular claimed Messiah' is important or fruitful to attack, and not, you know, 'you can't change water into wine like that'.
Ok this is definitely going way too far lol but certainly *some* emperors and more than almost every Roman non-emperor. It’s just not even really controversial or in dispute
I am fascinated that the near universal response to an unfamiliar catcher calling for McLean’s sixth best pitch one time too many in a start where he otherwise looked like Nolan Ryan is that he sucks and is going to regress hard. Maybe value process over results for a three inning spring game?
Once again, the British electorate finds itself woefully out of touch with the Conservative Party and must apologise.
I had no idea the right had a whole “The woke left are CANCELLING anti-feminist Jane Austen” thing going on yet I’m already bored of it
Help, My British right, she very sick
