Alcuin and fraud on a monumental scale

Charlemagne and his minister Alcuin.
Alcuin was not a monk, though this is how he was popularly displayed.

This post is for those who may be looking deeper into the role of Alcuin as inventor of Christianity. Earlier, I posted about the possible role of the princely scriptorium at St. Gall, Switzerland, in this immense process:
  1. The Christian Conspiracy
  2. Princely Scriptoria

Here are some references, notes and thoughts on this. We see how monks from the British Isles visited the abbey of St. Gall, where the works of Alcuin were held in high esteem:
The presence of Alcuin’s Disputatio de rhetorica et de virtutibus at St. Gall is similarly well-attested with no fewer than four ninth century manuscripts from its library used in the critical edition. Whereas ideas of faith and baptism offered Alcuin a way to frame the cardinal virtues for the Charlemagne, here the absence of understanding faith and baptism provided Notker with a reason to ridicule all involved in Louis the Pious’ Easter services.
The real dissonance was not between the Franks and the Northmen. It was between the characters in the story and Notker, who felt he understood the truth of the matter - the sacramental underpinnings of an imperium christianum. The juxtaposition of religious, political, and social confusion was not a simple contrast. The episode did not pit the Franks against the Northmen and it did not contrast religious with political and social dimensions of the sacramentum; rather, the monk of St. Gall cleverly lamented that neither the Franks nor the Northmen recognized that properly understood sacraments had simultaneous religious, political, and social import.
Another familiar cue supplied by Notker, helping knowledgeable readers interpret his criticism, was Jesus’ Great Commission from the Gospel of Matthew, which the monk of St. Gall provided with some additional packaging in order to drive home his disappointment with Louis’ practice. 
Title: The Formation of Christian Europe: The Carolingians, Baptism, and the Imperium Christianum
Author: Owen M. Phelan
Publisher: Oxford University Press, 2014
ISBN: 0191027901, 9780191027901

British at the Carolingian St. Gall:
The manuscript, which is mentioned in the oldest catalogue, was written at St Gall in the first half of the ninth century by an Anglo-Saxon. He had lived long enough on the Continent to acquire the Carolingian script. There is no mention of Eadbeorht in any of the St Gall official documents, so that he may have been an inmate of another monastery, who spent a year or so at St Gall. The name occurs in the Alemannic form in a deed dated September 1, 764, as Otpret, but this is scarcely the same person. On the other hand the name occurs no less than three times in the necrologium of Fulda, the deaths of two priests and one monk named Otbraht being recorded under the dates 842, 864 and 869.
If Anglo-Saxon monks at St Gall are a doubtful quantity, there is no doubt that the contribution of Britain to the intellectual life of the monastery was considerable. Anglo-Saxon scholarship was held in high esteem. Notker Balbulus referred to Bede as “the most learned priest, who was indeed the ablest commentator of Holy Writ since St Gregory.” There were several copies of Bede’s works in the abbey library, and a much later tradition, first recorded by Metzler, tells of a visit to St Gall by the historian of the English Church‘. This is proved to be unfounded by Bede’s own statement that he never left the monastery of Jarrow.
We also know from Notker’s anecdotes how popular Alcuin was at St Gall.
Title: The Abbey of St. Gall as a Centre of Literature and Art
Author: J. M. Clark
Edition: reprint
Publisher: Cambridge University Press, 2013
ISBN: 1107626072, 9781107626072

The Greek 'H', which is the Latin 'E" was altered to read 'I' - from Chrest to Christ.

We have seen how the oldest codices of the New Testament were originally and explicitly Chrestian; these were altered at a later, unknown date, to become Christian.

I am identifying Alcuin as the author of this change and thus inventing Christianity as he (and his students) made these textual alterations:
correctory is any of the text-forms of the Latin Vulgate resulting from the critical emendation as practised during the course of the thirteenth century. 
Owing to the carelessness of transcribers, the conjectural corrections of critics, the insertion of glosses and paraphrases, and especially to the preference for readings found in the earlier Latin versions, the text of St. Jerome was corrupted at an early date. Around 550 CE, Cassiodorus made an attempt at restoring the purity of the Latin text.
Charlemagne entrusted the same labour to Alcuin, who presented his royal patron with a corrected copy in 801. Similar attempts were repeated by TheodulphusBishop of Orléans [787(?) – 821], LanfrancArchbishop of Canterbury (1070–1089), Stephen HardingAbbot of Cîteaux (1109–1134), and Deacon Nicolaus Maniacoria (about the beginning of the thirteenth century). At this period, the need of a revised Latin text of the Vulgate became more imperative than ever.
When, towards the end of the twelfth century, the schools of Paris were organized into the Sorbonne university and its various faculties adopted the same reference texts, the faculty of theology, too, adhered to a uniform text of the Latin Bible.
Now to some personal comments.

The artefactal evidences for Chrestianity were published on the web, by me, some years ago. They have since been been copied and discussed extensively (as well as indexed by Google Search). Anyone with an active interest on the subject will have found them; I note that now, various scholars openly admit to knowing how the early texts claimed by and for Christianity actually reference Chrest rather than Christ.

Even so, those who now have the facts are reluctant to admit how:
  1. there was a religion I term Chrestian in the days of the Western Roman Empire; and
  2. there is no good evidence for Christianity in that same period.
We can now point to Alcuin as the person responsible for more than the broad, textual tradition, for we see that this encompassed altering the New Testament to become Christian.

There are national and international, government-backed organisations to study these codices. I have followed with interest how they change their public stance on them in a vain effort to counter my evidence-based history as it advances. The Christian mafia in Wikipedia does the same. We are not dealing here with honest scholars making their best endeavour to enlighten and educate with science and reason, but with paid lackies serving the agenda of a united Church and State.

Why have no early texts been dated reliably? Not a single one. There you have the situation in a nutshell.

This is a fraud on a monumental scale and it extends from Alcuin unto today.

Share this: