At 05:31 PM 13-06-1999 +0200, Raimund wrote:
>Graeme Bailey wrote:
>At it's earliest in the 3rd century AD. If the datings given by the
>Irish pseudohistories have any relevance, hundreds of years after the
>death of those kings mentioned!
Look at say four... the first at the time of Christ...
the last say even mid third-century...
why are you so scornful of the Irish as historians?
Why can't they
have an oral history that is substantially accurate for these Kings...?
I don't believe every little detail of every story...
>Oh, definitely they were real people. But not those mentioned in the
So the Irish people who had become Christian,
You think they would keep stories, songs and legends
about only mythical figures who had first become
but forget entirely about the real people
who were the first believers?
Why would they do that?
>> C. As Christianity with its ethics spread though the Island,
>> it would be expected to be reflected in songs, stories and even laws?
>Yes. But not in the way you think.
So you believe that the monks made *everything* up?
What about the pagan stories, did the monks make them up too? :-)
>> >O'Rahilly and many others who study the
>> >Ulster Cycle (and other literature of the time) argue that the monks were
>> >"christianizing" the heroes of their past.
Why wouldn't the essential features be accurate?
ie names and basic events, maybe with some hopeful additions ...
I mean these people were not under any obligation
to be strictly accurate in a biblical sense?
I mean exaggeration or allegory is not considered lying,
but is a real art form in Irish story-telling?
>> so why couldn't the stories about these early Irish becoming Christian
>> just simply be true? Why do they have to be later interpolations?
>Because how could the king of Emain Macha who allegedly died at the same
>time as Christ have been a Christian? How fast would it have spread
>across the Roman world, that it reached Ireland as fast as an email
Since he was a pagan, probably a deer or a raven told him? :-)
Actually the story says he enquired afterwards of his druid
to explain the ominous natural events... and the druid explained
about the 'God-man' who had died on that day
(some short time past?) ...
maybe the druid got the email? :-)
I guess in that moment of passion, anyway,
Conor Mac Nessa believed, then died (so the story goes..)
how long does it take to 'believe'?
>Even more, the Christian faith didn't spread as quickly as you seem to
>think - in fact, it mainly stayed limited to the large urban centres of
>the Roman empire until the late third or early fourth century AD!
I think I read that Tertullian said there were believers
'on the other side of the wall' in his day... 200 AD?
You shouldn't mistake establishment of organised religion
with the spread of the faith...
how long did Paul take to get to Rome... ....10, 20 years?
don't forget he went 14 years to Arabia, then had more than
one missionary journey, and covered Turkey (I know :-)
Greece, Rome, and planned to go to 'Spain'
(the real one, not just 'far way'?)
and he was all the time teaching, preaching, and dodging rocks :-)
>Written traditions can be as inaccurate as oral ones. One can and should
>use every kind of possible evidence to come to conclusions.
Yes, I agree totally :-)