The logic appears to be that since the first historical testimony does not go back beyond the fifth century, then any claim that it makes is false.
'Twas my point.
Let's just say we don't read it the same way. I see it that there are no authentic "letters/testimony" which predates the fifth century. Those which claim to be "older" are fraudulent.
BTW, I pinged Uncle Chip because it wan an exchange between the two of you which began this silly argument.
There is no further need of discussion. I have spoken! :-)
I understand where you're coming from, but that's just not my point. My point is elsewhere, although I do understand that it's rude to point.
So, one blunt to you.