[Koblenz]

Notice, it is at best 2nd century. Historians normally give more weight to eye-witness accounts than those written long after the events. But, not so in the case of liberal Christian revisionists.

Much of the Roman history is from sources that came several centuries later. Plutarch, Suetonius, etc. Polybius also to some extent.

[GMMAC]

Still, the central issue here is that the msm - for it's own opportunistic secular humanist reasons - is attempting to paint as a newly discovered revelation a tired old heresy that the Church reviewed & condemned in its entirety almost two thousand years ago.

It's akin to followers of Hitler or Stalin coming up with some long lost portrait of their hero & then excitedly contending it's discovery somehow compels a fresh review of their monster of choice's well-established track record.