I’m saying that Hislop’s citation of these ‘ancient documents’ are by and large a fabrication.
Again, this was proven 150 years ago. It’s fanciful, well-crafted elaborate fairy tales unworthy of further study and speculation.
How can a citation of a document be fabrication?
The volumes do exist, and the quoted passages therein are completely accurate, so where is the fabrication?
Living in denial.
That place is sure full of catholics.