TheBridge 
"[@Anonymous #D018":](/forums/dis/topics/big-bad-politics?post_id=57624#post_57624
)
>Library of Alexandria
[That is actually a lot more complex with a lot of competing":](https://www.thecollector.com/library-of-alexandria/) accounts. The first person to be accused of burning down the library was _*Julius Caesar_*, usually sometimes villianiously and sometimes accidentally (if it happened at all). Then you have the Christians attacking Serapeum temple, which _*may_* have had the library books destroyed during the attack, "[but I have seen this disputed as well from a lack of an accounts of other libraries being destroyed during the anti pagan edicts issued at the time":](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/207/what-happened-to-the-great-library-at-alexandria/)
[bq]
> **No ancient sources mention the destruction of any library at this time**, though 18th century English historian Edward Gibbon mistakenly attributes it to bishop Theophilus.[/
bq]
but I still think it is a fair point, just not as dramtic. And most scholarship disputes Islam destroying it as well now from my understanding, I have seen others running with it though. To further quote the linked article
[bq]
>
> The last suggested perpetrator of the crime is the Caliph Omar. In 640 CE the Arabs under General Amrou ibn el-Ass, captured Alexandria after a long siege. According to the story, the conquering Arabs heard about a magnificent library containing all the knowledge of the world and were anxious to see it. But the Caliph, unmoved by this vast collection of learning, apparently stated 'they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.'
>
> The manuscripts were then gathered together and used as fuel for the 4,000 bathhouses in the city. In fact there were so many scrolls that they kept the bathhouses of Alexandria heated for six months. These incredible facts were written down 300 years after the supposed event by Christian polymath Gregory Bar Hebraeus^1^ (1226-1286 CE). However, while the Arabs may have destroyed a Christian library at Alexandria, it is almost certain that by the mid 7th century CE the Royal Library no longer existed. This is made clear by the fact that no mention is made of such a catastrophic event by contemporary writers such as Christian chronicler John of Nikiou, Byzantine monk and writer John Moschus and Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem.[/bq]
Funny thing, have seen many believe that it was_*internal_* enemies of the who may have initially spread this and not Christians. "[Source, warning long PDF of a book from":](https://repo.iainbatusangkar.ac.id/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/8226/1509096658881_%5BEdited_by_Mostafa_El-Abbadi_and_Omnia_Mounir_Fath%28BookFi.org%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[bq])
> The myth of the Arab destruction of the Library of Alexandria is not supported by even a fabricated document. One may wonder what purpose it served. One answer, often given and certainly in accord with a currently popular school of epistemology would see the story as anti-Islamic propaganda, designed by hostile elements to blacken the good name of Islam by showing the revered Caliph {Umar as a destroyer of libraries. But this explanation is as absurd as the myth itself. The original sources of the story are Muslim, the only exception being the Syrian-Christian Barhebraeus^1^, who copied it from a Muslim author. Not the creation, but the demolition of the myth was the achievement of European orientalist scholarship, which from the eighteenth century to the present day has rejected the story as false and absurd, and thus exonerated the Caliph {Umar and the early Muslims from this libel.[/bq]
Now, I don't want to cast myself as a expert on the issue. I am trying to couple togather stuff that I have heard from moderate level research long ago from the hieght of the atheism vs religion austism on the internet. Bias and framing abound from all sides and this can be sliced in nurmous different ways. Though I find the fixation of the Library of Alexsandria and it's reduction to a be a anti-Christain narritive in itself.
[bq]
> Passions still run high on this matter. When Glen Bowersock first invited me to present this paper, I hesitated because of a traumaticearly experience. I wrote an article on the Alexandrian Library oncommission for a short-lived magazine called The Dial, published for Channel 13. **The editor did not like my caution about the accounts of the destruction of the Library and, without telling me, rewrote the arti-cle to blame everything squarely on the Christians.38 Whether he hated Christianity or just liked a simple story line, I do not know. The matter is, truth to tell, not so clear.39 The subject has been end-lessly debated by modern scholars, but with little result.** There was certainly still some substantial library in Roman Alexandria. This is evidentfrom Suetonius’s life of Domitian (20), where we learn that he replacedbooks lost to fire in Roman libraries in part by sending scribes to Alex-andria to copy manuscripts there.40 And some of the scholarly workthat went on in the Roman period in Alexandria is difficult to imaginewithout a substantial library. As the Museum was certainly still operative in the Roman period, belief in a Caesarian destruction of the Library requires the uneconomical assumption that the Library was destroyed in the fire but the Museum was not.
[/bq]
"Source":](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/162460712.pdf) (again, warning PDF!).
> there is no historical evidence for his existence
Speaking of bias. It sounds like you are drawing your arugemnts from Richard Carrier or Kenneth Humphreys. I am not going to scream unrealiable source or say "fringe!" like even the mainstream secular scholars do at Jesus mythism, which I do dislike as a Christain, for the whole flaw upon our modern memestream society is the memestream pushing upon "crediabiiity" and "trustworthy" sources while tripping up and making thousands of errors. Recyling their arugemnts in totality I would advice strongly against even if you are peek fadora though.
I know NOTHING
>Library of Alexandria
[That is actually a lot more complex with a lot of competing
[bq]
> **No ancient sources mention the destruction of any library at this time**, though 18th century English historian Edward Gibbon mistakenly attributes it to bishop Theophilus.
b
b
[bq]
>
> The last suggested perpetrator of the crime is the Caliph Omar. In 640 CE the Arabs under General Amrou ibn el-Ass, captured Alexandria after a long siege. According to the story, the conquering Arabs heard about a magnificent library containing all the knowledge of the world and were anxious to see it. But the Caliph, unmoved by this vast collection of learning, apparently stated 'they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.'
>
> The manuscripts were then gathered together and used as fuel for the 4,000 bathhouses in the city. In fact there were so many scrolls that they kept the bathhouses of Alexandria heated for six months. These incredible facts were written down 300 years after the supposed event by Christian polymath Gregory Bar Hebraeus^1^ (1226-1286 CE). However, while the Arabs may have destroyed a Christian library at Alexandria, it is almost certain that by the mid 7th century CE the Royal Library no longer existed. This is made clear by the fact that no mention is made of such a catastrophic event by contemporary writers such as Christian chronicler John of Nikiou, Byzantine monk and writer John Moschus and Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Funny thing, have seen many believe that it was
[bq]
> The myth of the Arab destruction of the Library of Alexandria is not supported by even a fabricated document. One may wonder what purpose it served. One answer, often given and certainly in accord with a currently popular school of epistemology would see the story as anti-Islamic propaganda, designed by hostile elements to blacken the good name of Islam by showing the revered Caliph {Umar as a destroyer of libraries. But this explanation is as absurd as the myth itself. The original sources of the story are Muslim, the only exception being the Syrian-Christian Barhebraeus^1^, who copied it from a Muslim author. Not the creation, but the demolition of the myth was the achievement of European orientalist scholarship, which from the eighteenth century to the present day has rejected the story as false and absurd, and thus exonerated the Caliph {Umar and the early Muslims from this libel.
Now, I don't want to cast myself as a expert on the issue. I am trying to couple togather stuff that I have heard from moderate level research long ago from the hieght of the atheism vs religion austism on the internet. Bias and framing abound from all sides and this can be sliced in nurmous different ways. Though I find the fixation of the Library of Alexsandria and it's reduction to a be a anti-Christain narritive in itself.
[bq]
> Passions still run high on this matter. When Glen Bowersock first invited me to present this paper, I hesitated because of a traumaticearly experience. I wrote an article on the Alexandrian Library oncommission for a short-lived magazine called The Dial, published for Channel 13. **The editor did not like my caution about the accounts of the destruction of the Library and, without telling me, rewrote the arti-cle to blame everything squarely on the Christians.38 Whether he hated Christianity or just liked a simple story line, I do not know. The matter is, truth to tell, not so clear.39 The subject has been end-lessly debated by modern scholars, but with little result.** There was certainly still some substantial library in Roman Alexandria. This is evidentfrom Suetonius’s life of Domitian (20), where we learn that he replacedbooks lost to fire in Roman libraries in part by sending scribes to Alex-andria to copy manuscripts there.40 And some of the scholarly workthat went on in the Roman period in Alexandria is difficult to imaginewithout a substantial library. As the Museum was certainly still operative in the Roman period, belief in a Caesarian destruction of the Library requires the uneconomical assumption that the Library was destroyed in the fire but the Museum was not.
[
"
> there is no historical evidence for his existence
Speaking of bias. It sounds like you are drawing your arugemnts from Richard Carrier or Kenneth Humphreys. I am not going to scream unrealiable source or say "fringe!" like even the mainstream secular scholars do at Jesus mythism, which I do dislike as a Christain, for the whole flaw upon our modern memestream society is the memestream pushing upon "crediabiiity" and "trustworthy" sources while tripping up and making thousands of errors. Recyling their arugemnts in totality I would advice strongly against even if you are peek fadora though.