Note I don’t say no one is embellishing nor do I assume any embellishments are true either side. Obviously magic doesn’t exist and Thoth did not save the legions.

Rather, one account (once de-mythologized) far more plausibly fits all the evidence and context, while the other does not, as explained in the article.

The obsolete 19th century method of “rationalization,” inventing a whole new theory no one ever advocated to “save all the phenomena” and then assuming it is therefore probable, is fallacious to the core, and exactly the opposite of sound historical reasoning. That method gets us dumb ideas like “Jesus conspired to escape in disguise and fake his resurrection” when obviously the far simpler and better evidenced explanation is: they made it all up.

By analogy, there is no “core truth” to Scientology. Trying to rationalize it is irrational. Hubbard just made it all up. And that’s that. There is no other credible explanation.

So, here, we have the government prominently boasting of a miracle linked to a wizard proven to exist and traveling with those legions, then a decade later Christians rewriting that story to eliminate the actual promulgated story and replace it with a bogus tale of their own, complete with non-existent Christian legions and Jesus defeating Thoth. It’s obvious that when you de-mythologize all this, all you have left is a sorcerer known to be traveling with the legions claimed credit and the state went with that. Then Christians lied about it to publish another lie promoting their religion. There is no reason or evidence to support adding any more epicycles than that. Hubbard was a liar. Chrisrtians were liars. And all the actual data points elsewhere. There is no other credible explanation.

In addition, why do you assume the most embellished narratives when analyzing the truth of these claims. The entire accounts do not have to be true. For instance, Tertullian assumes that the Christians were soldiers, or there was an entire legion dedicated to them. Again with Judas, the kiss of Judas is obvious embellishment, but just because that is embellished does not mean Judas is entirely fictional. I just read your Judas article, because I am doubtful of a historical Judas. I like the idea that the entire gospel narratives are constructed allegorically. The purposes of Judas, to represent internal betrayal in a similar way to Peter and reminiscent of 1 Clement, is intriguing.

That’s not an intelligible comment. But as best I can tell, you seem confused about the chronology.

Christianity was not persecuted but actually ran the entire Western world (including both halves of the Roman Empire) from the early 4th century onward, precisely when they took control of all libraries and decided what to preserve and what not. All extant texts (what survives and in what condition) are the result of Late Antique and Medieval Christian decisions. Hence my statement (which you seem to be quoting out of context): “And so, Christian chronicles a century later, and throughout the Middle Ages, celebrated the miracle of the Christian Legion. The Christians won the propaganda war.” This happened when they ruled the world. Not when they were persecuted.

The nearness of a source does not correspond with accuracy (see No, Mr. Christian, A.N. Sherwin-White Didn’t Say That. And Even What He Did Say Was Wrong.).

Professional history is constructed by an analysis of the reliability of what a source does and says (such as congruence with background facts, external corroboration, biases and methodology, and plausibility).

For example, the first Alexander Romances were written by contemporaries of Alexander the Great; while Arrian wrote five centuries later. Yet historians can prove Arrian vastly more reliable than the Romances, using such data as that.

I even survey some of that kind of evidence here in the article you are commenting on, yet you just completely ignored all of that. It sounds like you are the victim of motivated reasoning here. Whereas I am employing a reliable critical method.

I highly recommend you do the same.

Neither thing you claim is happening in that sculpture is there. There is no cross, no cross shape, no Christian symbols at all. I think you are seeing things.

Archaeologists who have studied the sculpture since even before it was worn down by acid rain have consistently reported the two soldiers are enacting what we find in Dio’s description of capturing the falling water to drink in their shields and in chance pots and skins. This is depicting a narrative event, not religious symbolism of any kind. And be that as it may, there are certainly no Christian symbols here.