Thursday, April 30, 2015

War of 14 a Rehearsal for Harmageddon?

Apocalypse 19:14
[14] And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

1914 AD
World War I starts, cavalry is till being used (indeed for a few years more

Apocalypse 19:15
[15] And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty.

1915 AD
Battles and Trench Warfare in World War I make it a much bitterer year of war than the previous one.

Apocalypse 19:16
[16] And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh written: KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

1916 AD
This year one of the sovereigns and kings acceeded, who did acknowledge the Lordship of Christ:

Charles I of Austria and IV of Hungary reigned from 1916 to 1918. How is he acknowledging the sovereignty of Christ? Well, he tried to make a peace - which was confounded by Woodrow Wilson's total support of all then regional nationalisms, while he was offering only autonomy to some degree. In Austria, he was nicknamed Charles the Last (perhaps in Hungary too, but it is for Austria where he was Charles I that the title is funny). And in that demoted sense he is also the "first" (since officially "Charles I") and "the last" (since unofficially "Charles the Last"), which makes his name an allusion of A and Ω, which is a title of Christ.

Another title of Christ is The Bridegroom. A man who has meant lots to millions of readers was bridegroom this year. 1916 is when Tolkien married. And next year, he rode into WW-I, perhaps on a white horse. Unless its colours were more like those of Shadowfaxe. Charles I pretty certainly had a white horse. Somewhat spotted. Of Lipiza race, which is very much in use for ceremonies in Vienna.

Apocalypse 19:17
[17] And I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that did fly through the midst of heaven: Come, gather yourselves together to the great supper of God:

1917 AD
"May 13–October 13 (at monthly intervals) – 10-year-old Lúcia Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto report experiencing a series of Marian apparitions near Fátima, Portugal, which becomes known as Our Lady of Fátima."

Solar miracle October 13 suggests that Sun is being moved by an angel. Verse mentions "an angel standing in the sun".

Tolkien was later going to, perhaps without noticing, but rather more probably because noticing, include angelic movers, if not of all stars, at least of sun and moon into Silmarillion.

Apocalypse 19:18
[18] That you may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of tribunes, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all freemen and bondmen, and of little and of great.

1918 AD
Several Monarchs overturned in Axis. Both the Two Kaisers and Kings like those of Saxony and Bavaria and some more. And it was also in the year 1918 that the Czar and his family were killed.

Apocalypse 19:19
[19] And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war with him that sat upon the horse, and with his army.

1919
Béla Kun in power in Budapest. Up to August 1, when Romanians step in.

Apocalypse 19:20, 21
[20] And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet, who wrought signs before him, wherewith he seduced them who received the character of the beast, and who adored his image. These two were cast alive into the pool of fire, burning with brimstone. [21] And the rest were slain by the sword of him that sitteth upon the horse, which proceedeth out of his mouth; and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

1920, 1921
White Terror of Hungary in answer to Red Terror.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Chesterton et Un Droitiste de Nos Temps

Quelle différence intellectuelle y a-t-il quand on regarde ce qui vient avant la Révolution Française, entre Gilbert Keith Chesterton et un Un Droitiste de Nos Temps, dont je tais le nom?

Dans le mail qu'il m'envoie, et j'espère qu'il ne le considère point comme une "lettre confidentielle", il commence à expliquer Lafayette dans une phrase comme ceci:

Bien qu'aristocrate et allié, par mariage, à la puissante famille des Noailles, La Fayette a eu un parcours intellectuel, philosophique et moral très profondément marqué par l'ère des lumières. En dépit de sa jeunesse, il s'est trouvé très tôt impliqué dans le formidable bouillonnement d'idées qui marque l'époque des encyclopédistes, des philosophes et des penseurs du XVIII° siècle. Un tel courant d'idées se trouvant, à son époque, tout particulièrement représenté au sein de la naissante Franc-Maçonnerie spéculative, ordre initiatique traditionnel, il était logique que La Fayette en devînt l'un des plus enthousiastes représentants.


Comment est-ce que Chesterton aurait donné les mêmes faits sur Lafayette?

Je corrige le paragraphe selon ce que je pense aurait été la pensée de Gilbert Keith Chesterton:

Puisqu'il est aristocrate et allié, par mariage, à la puissante famille des Noailles, La Fayette a eu un parcours intellectuel, philosophique et moral très profondément marqué par l'ère des lumières, qui était la grande mode et les aristocrats sont toujours à la mode. Faisant partie d'une jeunesse dorée, il s'est logiquement trouvé très tôt impliqué dans le formidable bouillonnement d'idées qui marque l'époque des encyclopédistes, des philosophes et des penseurs du XVIII° siècle. Un tel courant d'idées se trouvant, à son époque, tout particulièrement représenté au sein de la naissante Franc-Maçonnerie spéculative, ordre initiatique désormais devenu traditionnel, à son époque encore un nouveau défi, il était logique que La Fayette en devînt l'un des plus enthousiastes représentants. Ou plutôt, puisqu'il était logiquement Franc-Maçon, il était logique qu'il devînt un représentant de ce courant d'idées.

Ici, je fais abstraction du fait que pour Chesterton, la cause de l'égalité n'était point l'apanage exclusif, ni des Lumières, ni des Franc-Maçons, qu'elle est plutôt un apanage éternel de la Chrétienté, et qu'elle se trouvait à cette époque accidentellement coupé de ses racines chrétiennes par la Renaissance payenne qui était intervenue entretemps. Je fais abstraction que pour Chesterton, le soutien des colons aux États-Unis naissants, le soutien au parti qui se soulevait dans les Treize Colonies dépasse de beaucoup une mode philosophique et une loge initiatique quelleconque.

Je fais abstraction de ceci, mais juste pour pouvoir donner le paragraphe en corrigé. Pourquoi ceci?

Parce qu'il est parfois à la mode en France de nos jours, de trancher les choses un peu trop rigidement, comme si Chrétienté et "hiérarchie aristocratique" étaient un ensemble naturel et comme si égalité et "révolution antichrétienne" l'étaient. Pour lui, au contraire, une aristocratie peut être une blague ou essayer de se valoriser sur des principes en dernière analyse assez égalitaires. L'une chose s'appelle en Angleterre gentry, l'autre chose s'appelle chevalerie ici comme en Angleterre.

Et les dichotomies qui ont canalisé les aspirations égalitaires dans une révolution en Amérique achrétienne et en France une autre révolution antichrétienne, sont des sophismes que précisément l'aristocratie s'est plu à mettre à la mode.

Dans un chant contre la Révolution Française* on fait cause d'un homme, d'un général révolutionnaire, qui a mis des hommes dans un four, vivants, pour semer la Terreur. La révolution était donc terroriste et génocidaire et criminelle? Oui. Mais ce général Amey était aussi avant d'être un révolutionnaire, comme Napoléon, officier et donc aristocrate. Car comme un rélicte des temps de la chevalerie, on n'était pas officier en simple bourgeois. Son père était en plus médecin, comme Guillotin. Et sa ville de naissance, Sélestat, à l'époque encore Schlettstadt ou Schlestatt, l'est aussi pour Martin Bucer, le réformateur qui voulait faire l'unité entre Luther et Zwingle, en bradant la Présence Réelle, que Luther croyait paradoxalement encore, et qui inspirait les autres réformes non-luthériennes de Calvin en Genève et de l'Anglicanisme sous Henri VIII et surtout sous Édouard VI, elle est encore ville de naissance ou des études pour Paul Phrygio, autre réformateur protestant.

Autre malfrat selon le chant de Pierre d'Angles : Turreau.

Le père de Louis-Marie Turreau était procureur fiscal des eaux et forêts du comté d'Évreux, puis est devenu par la suite maire d’Évreux. Cette situation fait jouir les Turreau de certains privilèges, noble, leur nom est inscrit dans les grandes armoiries de France. Louis Marie Turreau est cependant un fervent révolutionnaire dès 1789. Il en profite d’ailleurs, comme beaucoup de bourgeois de l’époque : il se fait élire maire d’Aviron, achète quelques biens du clergé (dont l’abbaye de Conches).


Copié-collé de l'aristocratie anglaise anticatholique à l'époque de la Réforme, alors?

En d'autres mots, soit qu'avait tort Belloc, qu'avait à sa suite tort Chesterton, en vantant la révolution française, en excusant la Guerre contre la Vendée, mais leur analyse sur l'aristocratie prérévolutionnaire tient.

Et Lafayette était probablement meilleur que ces Amey, Turreau ou ... Foulon.

Bien-sûr, qu'un aristocrate est fervent révolutionnaire** n'a rien de très surprenant, à moins qu'il ait eu des grandes privilèges avant la révolution - ou une dévotion catholique. Qu'il était franc-maçon la wikipédie anglaise tient d'un Unger, dont la publication en 2002 n'était pas accessible a Chesterton qui mourait en 1936. Je ne sais pas si une autre publication avant l'avait noté ou pas. D'ailleurs, en respectueux envers Louis XVI, Lafayette et Georges Washington, Chesterton note toutefois que l'abolitionniste était l'autre Georges, Georges III d'Angleterre.

L'homme qui m'a envoyé le courriel dit aussi que le maître à penser de Lafayette était l'abbé Raynal, et ajoute : "illustre Franc-Maçon de la célèbre Loge 'Les Neuf Soeurs'" - sans nous dire d'où il sait ça.

C'est probablement vrai que Raynal ait enseveli des Protestants qu'il faisait passer pour des Catholiques***, et certain qu'il a collaboré à l'Encyclopédie de Diderot, œuvre globalement sur index, quoique j'espère pas pour chaque article pris séparément (l'article de Rousseau sur la Musique devait être anodin) ... mais ni sur la biographie, ni sur les articles wikipédiens (consultés: français, anglais, allemand, polonais) je ne trouve qu'il ait été frère de loge avec Voltaire et Franklin et Guillotin (qui y étaient effectivement).

Lacune que se revérifie pour Rousseau. Quoique c'est certain que Rousseau fréquentait Diderot qui fréquentait Rue d'Auteuil où cette loge recevait - aussi des non-membres. Je ne sais pas exactement de quelle source le bon abbé Houghton avait l'information que Rousseau fût maçon, ou plutôt il évite de poser ces mots, il l'appelle "habitué des loges", donc, il n'était pas forcément membre de telle loge lui-même. Je ne l'ai pas lu quand, jeune, je lisais ses Confessions non plus, de ma mémoire.

Que Rousseau ou Raynal aient été "frères des Neufs Sœurs" est possible - mais ils n'étaient pas illustres comme tels, selon les sources que je peux pour l'instant accesser (une rédaction wikipédienne peut facilement ajouter ou reprendre un nom sur une liste), mais ils pouvaient aussi ne pas l'être. Soit d'une autre loge, moins connue, soit pas strictement frère du tout.

Le Droitiste m'a envoyé avec le texte cité plus haut aussi un image du tablier maçonnique de G. Washington. Mais pas de celui de Raynal ou même de Lafayette.

Par contre, Raynal semble avoir réagi contre la Révolution, celle de France, bien-sûr, sinon dans ses principes, au moins dans ses applications:

1790
Dote la Société d'Agriculture de Paris d’un prix littéraire et d'une rente annuelle de 25 000 livres destinée à l'achat d'instruments de culture modèles, pour envoyer dans les départements. Le sculpteur Jean-Joseph Espercieux exécute le buste de Raynal lors de son séjour à Marseille. Le 15 août, l’Assemblée Nationale casse le décret l’interdisant de séjourner à Paris. Le 31 août, Brissot annonce à Raynal sa nomination à la Société de Philadelphie « pour l'abolition de la traite et de l'esclavage ».

1791
Début mai, il est de retour à Paris et réside chez son ami l’imprimeur Stoupe. Le 31 mai, lecture par l'Assemblée de son Adresse à l’Assemblée nationale dans laquelle il dénonce les excès du nouveau pouvoir. A cette lecture, Robespierre trouve à celui "qui a cependant publié des vérités utiles à la liberté" pour "excuse suffisante, son grand âge".

Les caricatures et pamphlets de Raynal se multiplient. En novembre, il s’installe à Chaillot, chez son ami le négociant Pierre-Etienne Corsange.°


Alors, est-il un franc-maçon? Est-il leur "idiot utile"? Ou est-il un homme civilisé et intelligent, peut-être en certaines choses en erreur qu'ils traitent en idiot? Et les monarchistes voudraient faire la même chose? Ou encore l'accuser d'être du côté des gens qui l'abusent?

Là, il y a quelque chose qui tourne mal. Je suis monarchiste, et, quoique pour Chesterton et Belloc en général, y compris leur jugement sur une partie importante des aristocrates prérévolutionnaires, pour la Vendée.

Je ne suis par contre pas pour que des gens héroïsés post mortem qui ont souffert pendant la vie soient mises à une forme informelle de l'index par biais des rumeurs non substantiées sur leur appartenance maçonnique. Pas juste pour le plaisir d'être en désaccord avec tout le monde. D'où d'ailleurs ma divergence de méthode avec pas mal d'autres sédisvacantistes lato sensu°° : pour Roncalli, je ne pose pas les problèmes sur rumeurs qu'il était franc-maçon, je n'ai pas encore lu "Nikita Roncalli" et ne peux pas dire quelle était exactement l'évidence ou non pour son appartenance, plutôt sur ses actes connus - comme paragraphe 6 de Mater et Magistra. Comme Montini se montre aussi répréhensible en soutenant l'obligation scolaire, comme Jules Ferry, Lénine, Hitler.

Par un hazard, pour ainsi dire, le droitiste qui m'envoie ce mail sur une liste de diffusion a choisi ce jour pour mettre tous les autres que lui-même sur Cci:

Afin de préserver votre vie privée, ce courriel vous est transmis en copie conforme invisible (Cci).

N'oubliez pas d' effacer mes coordonnées avant de faire suivre ce message en «Cci» à vos correspondants !

Ceci empêchera la copie automatique de nos adresses de messagerie, bon moyen d'éviter la propagation des virus et les attaques informatiques qui nous menacent tous !

Merci de coller ce petit message à tous vos envois.


En d'autres mots, si je lui envoie cette réponse je ne pourrais pas toucher qui que ce soit d'autre. À moins de compter sur sa bonté ... il semble d'origine arabe, donc, malgré son christianisme un peu trop discrétionniste pour que je compte dessus. Il est représentatif, il me semble, pour pas mal de Pieds-Noirs aussi, que les Arabes peuvent qualifier de Roumi, mais qui me semblent parfois un peu trop Moustariba (arabisés). D'où sa présomption que la puissante famille des Noailles n'aurait rien à voir avec l'implication avec les Lumières qu'éprouve Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette. D'où sa présomption que les jeunes ne s'impliquent normalement pas dans les bouillonnements des idées, surtout pas tôt.

Notons, quand je le qualifie d'Arabe, je me souviens d'un homme qui appréciait ma sympathie pour les Palestiniens et qui me disait à ce propos que les Juifs et les Arabes sont très semblables. En d'autres mots, pas tellement doués pour comprendre les bouillonnements d'idées, pour le bien ou pour le mal, des esprits et des sociétés occidentales.

Espérons qu'il ne considère pas son courriel comme une "lettre confidentielle" ... car si je traite son identité précise de manière confidentielle, je ne le fais pas avec ses idées.

Mais, les lettres confidentielles, celles qui sont fait pour ne pas être dévoilées, bon, je considère la méthode un peu trop maçonnique.

Mes blogs sont faits pour être publiques, pas confidentiels.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre Paris X
St Marc, martyr à Athènes
28-IV-2015

* Par Pierre d'Angles.

** St Pie X, qui n'était pas aristocrate, disait que les vrais amis du peuple sont les traditionnalistes. Enversement, Chesterton disait que les homme de la mode, de l'avant-garde, sont typiquement des aristocrates.

*** En ceci suivi par Pape Pie XII, qui faisait ou laissait faire ça pour des Juifs vivants pour qu'ils ne soient pas pris pour des Juifs par les Nazis ...

° Sur les pas de l'abbé Raynal : Chronologie sommaire
http://www.abbe-raynal.org/biographie-abbe-raynal.html


°° Si à mon avis la sédisvacance est déjà finie, je ne suis pas sédisvacantiste au sens stricte. J'adhère provisoirement à Pape Michel (Michael). Et je crois que Boniface X a tort, mais qu'il est honnête, en étant Feeneyite. Au moins jusqu'à il y a peu.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Did the Russians Know : Президент = Председатель in Latin?

Президент= praesidentem = Председатель
PresidentChairman


George Washington and Joseph Stalin had the same title, if you translate it to Latin./HGL

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

On Discretion and Hypocrisy

Multis autem turbis circumstantibus, ita ut se invicem conculcarent, coepit dicere ad discipulos suos: Attendite a fermento pharisaeorum, quod est hypocrisis. And when great multitudes stood about him, so that they trod one upon another, he began to say to his disciples: *Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
 
Nihil autem opertum est, quod non reveletur: neque absconditum, quod non sciatur. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: nor hidden, that shall not be known.
 
Quoniam quae in tenebris dixistis, in lumine dicentur: et quod in aurem locuti estis in cubiculis, praedicabitur in tectis. For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness, shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear, in the chambers, shall be preached on the house-tops.
 
Dico autem vobis amicis meis: Ne terreamini ab his qui occidunt corpus, et post haec non habent amplius quid faciant. And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
 
Ostendam autem vobis quem timeatis: timete eum qui, postquam occiderit, habet potestatem mittere in gehennam: ita dico vobis, hunc timete. But I will shew you whom ye shall fear: fear ye him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him.


Latin text from:
Latin Vulgate (Clementine), St. Luke 12
http://drbo.org/x/d?b=lvb&bk=49&ch=12&l=3#x


English text from:
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. St. Luke Chapter 12
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id76.html


This site gives two comments to the verses cited:

Ver. 1. Beware ye of the leaven, &c. Christ calls the hypocrisy of the Pharisees leaven, which changes and corrupts the best intentions of men; for nothing is more destructive than hypocrisy to such as give way to it. (Theophylactus)

Ver. 3. House-tops. Our divine Saviour speaks here according to the custom of his own nation, where it was not uncommon for men to preach from the house-top, when they wished to deliver any thing to the public; for their houses had flat roofs. (Ven. Bede)

Neither of these makes it clearly doubtful what came to my mind, that discretionism, relying on certain words remaining betwen closed doors, is a kind of hypocrisy./HGL

Monday, April 20, 2015

Error of Category

Quoting an answer by the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro:

30 Giorni*
When did your passion for literature arise?

Antonio Spadaro
Like vocations, passions also arise and develop along paths sometimes unusual and barely traceable. The love of literature didn’t come early, to tell the truth. As a kid I didn’t read many books, I preferred comics. But I remember that one day I was fascinated by a science fiction book for children, in which I became completely engrossed. I didn’t become a ‘devourer’ of books as they say, but I did begin to ‘immerse myself’ in those I liked.


A passion for comics is a passion for literature.

To think otherwise is a very modern error.

His reply that his passion for literature "didn't come early" is an error about category./HGL

* Source:
30Days : A Civilization of writers, poets and web surfers
http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_77969_l3.htm

Friday, April 17, 2015

Suppose ONE Single work by GKC had Inspired Lord of the Rings ...?


1) Suppose ONE Single work by GKC had Inspired Lord of the Rings ...?, 2) In Defense of the Tom Bombadil Chapters, 3) Tolkien's Scouring of the Shire (Disagreeing with Plank)

No, I do not mean The Ballad of the White Horse. That one, with its anachronism is closer to the playfulness of Farmer Giles of Ham. Also rich in anachronism, like the Blunderbuss which which he shoots at the Giant.

No, I meant an essay. Here it is:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32337725

No, wrong link, here:

An essay by G. K. Chesterton
Ethandune
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/20282/


If John Ronald read this when he was young and impressionable and remembered it in enriched ways, I would not be surprised. If I get to Heaven, I might ask him, here on earth it would be the sin of necromancy to do so. And I suppose his close family, those still alive, won't answer.

Nevertheless, King Alfred as appearing in both the essay and the poem may have sth to do with Aragorn.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Anicetus
Martyr under Marc Aurelius
17-IV-2015

Monday, April 13, 2015

I was Given Advice …


[1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I was Given Advice …, 2) Assorted retorts: ... on Second Half of the Hovind video]

… Namely to :

  • 1) not copy dialogues from FB (given by a group member in a group I was excluded from),

  • 2) but only to write my own thoughts on my blogs.


One first remark : I did not forbid other participants to also copy the dialogue onto their blogs. I am not trying to take sole credit for a piece of essentially collective writing. I am not obliging the other participants to forego a copying in which they may add their editorial comments – if properly marked as such. But if I was so much more interested in them in copying the dialogue, perhaps it is because not just I but also they thought I had won the then and there portion at least of the debate.

Which is what makes me think I had a scoop, something for which the interest of the general public to know overrides the interest involved in anyone’s copyright. So, to answer very belatedly an implied question in that debate, no, I am not conducting an experiment on them (or was, before I was excluded from group), I am (or was) conducting an investigation about how good they were at arguing their case, and ultimately, adding debate to debate even in single questions (and not just different ones) : how good my opponents case is to argue.

Now, let me deal with the advice as advice and as complaint a bit. The procedure I was advised to avoid, like the one I was advised to do instead (while actually I am doing both) are two different procedures. I do both but on different blogs. And I answered I did so.

I also answered (ultimately, to an anonymous commenter, possibly identical to the one I had debated)that if it was in any way a fault of mine to publish what adversaries said in dialogues with me, then the publishing of Dialogues of Plato would have been a crime against the refuted Sophists. Gorgias and quite a few more would have been right to sue Socrates, if this had happened during the latter’s lifetime, and, as the case was, to sue Plato – who might in his turn reply that he was answering calumniators who by calumny had killed Socrates in what amounted to Judicial Murder. And, again on the copyright issue, Plato would have had a right to sue Xenophon for his unauthorized publishing of things he recalled Socrates had said and done, but which Socrates and, his successor at Academy, Plato, had given him no permission to publish. And so we would have need of chucking out Memorabilia too, on this principle. Our literature would become poorer by the day.

Gorgias and a few others refuted by Socrates were explicitly named. The publishing of the Dialogues was thus also a public shaming of either Gorgias or whoever else of the Sophists had been refuted and was still alive. And a public shaming (perhaps more serious from the then Greek point of view) of those of them who were already dead.

This obvious, even glaring moral fact may be the ultimate hidden reason why my Greek Professor Jerker Blomqvist (who was not my Rhetor and not even totally my Grammateus, since my Greek has rusted a lot, so let him ask of no such piety as a protégé owes or may owe his mentor from me!) considered the Dialogues as works of fiction. I say advisedly “may be” because I do not in fact recall Jerker Blomqvist ever saying in so many words that he felt non-fictitious dialogues below the moral horizon of Plato.

His arguments, or those I recall, were more aloof, namely impossibility, or supposed such, to recall exactly how words fell so long after the event (and he supposes quite a few took very many years before getting published after Apologia). He obviously felt the same about the dialogues between Jesus and the Pharisees, as recorded in the Gospels. He is a sceptic, a Pyrrhonist.

So, let me give a little excursion on how Gospel accounts could have been accurate about words spoken years earlier. Or Dialogues, for that matter. In Byzantium, very much later, you had secretaries who were ordered to take notes in sthenography of what was being said. You even had sthenographers acting as spies, listening behind curtains (like Polonius in Hamlet). Obviously, even in sthenography you have a difficulty in writing as fast as words are spoken. And probably sthenography was no way near invented back in the days of Socrates. Tironian notes had been invented by the time of Cicero, but Gospellers probably did not know them and had no training in them. I don’t know if parts of kabbalistic procedures (which Matthew would have known if genuinely OT rather than post-Christian additions to and corruptions of kabbala) may have functioned as a way of taking notes, like noting only first letter in each word (making writing three times faster, but necessitating you can dissolve the abbreviations afterwards). If so, the Disciples of Jesus may just possibly have had a kind of sthenography. But probably those of Socrates did not yet have it. And the procedure I attribute to them would not have been useless to the disciples either, even if they had sthenographic procedures.

Assume you can recall one phrase (as I can when commenting on videos) verbatim or near verbatim. This does not make you, as one alone person, capable of memorising a whole dialogue, while it is being spoken. But Socrates and Jesus had several disciples. What if they took turns? And while you have left the turn to the next note taker, you repeat the phrase a few times over, until next time it is your turn and you hear attentively, leave the turn again, and repeat again. After some little time of training, you would probably be rather good at it. After the dialogue was finished, back in seclusion with the master, whether he was Socrates or Jesus, Gamaliel or Gorgias (for I do not think Socrates invented the procedure, I think he brought it to a new use and lawyers had already used it for other purposes, like studying the opponent of one’s client), the note taking disciples take turns again, this time speaking up about what they heard. And at same time all trying to memorise whole dialogue. With the very short ones in the Gospels, certainly no problem. With the longer ones in Plato, well, they might have rearranged pieces for greater coherence. I suppose by the way the dialogue Nicodemus had with Jesus was recorded by the trained memory of Nicodemus, so this would imply that by the time the Gospel of Saint John was written, Nicodemus had probably converted. Which would in its turn imply either denial of fact or eradication of memory in Rabbinic records of him. Precisely as these also do not confirm the fact Gamaliel had disciples who Christians honour as Saints Paul and Barnabas and do not record the fact he converted himself before dying.

Back to the subject of public shaming. Only two Pharisees, neither of whom is evil, are named in Gospels, the Nicodemus I mentioned and St Joseph of Arimathea. Gamaliel, Barnabas and Saul will also be named, but later in the sequence of NT Books, in Acts. All the evil Pharisees disappear as to their persons in the group designation “the Pharisees” (synoptics) or the anachronistic designation “the Jews” (as St John called them, Sadducees, crowds, priests, levites and Herodians opposing Jesus, because when he wrote the Gospel they were already unified in the just founded Judaism, the religion essentially founded but not yet unified when Kaiaphas rejected and condemned Christ). Part of the time probably this is because losing their temper (which is charitably not recorded except when they “tried to stone” Him) they repeated each others’ words so they were extremely easy to recall in essense, but hard to attribute to one particular Pharisee, even supposing their identities known. Certainly at least part of the time one of them politely and correctly spoke up on behalf of the group with words like “rabbi, we have heard”, but Christ and His disciples put the blame of what often enough was a trap on the group and not on the polite spokesman of it. Even so, publishing these snippets of dialogue (snippets : Christ made Pharisees shut up faster than Socrates did with Sophists, it seems, and this made memorisation work rather easier) involved a public shaming of the Pharisees as a group. And of positions they in some cases may have wanted to forget (and which have been forgotten by Judaism, may one dare to hope and guess?) and in some cases clung to dearly and wanted to forget the refutation of. Nevertheless, we are all (except perhaps a few Jews, but that is anyway a mob of Pharisees) better off for the Gospels being there. And it is imperative they include not just the answers Christ gave, but also what He answered, whether it came from disciples or adversaries. Some answers might take on very different meanings if one did not know what they were an answer to.

It is odd that the man who gave me the advice I allude to in the title is from some kind of University background, and though South American, I suspect some family connection to a researcher of Science Politiques. He looks a bit like Jean-Yves Camus, and also his hysterics to me recall the latter’s hysterics about Vincent Renouard in the article I read by him.

Now, why is this odd or funny? Because, you see, University is a Medieval Concept which has two pretty obvious roots extending into its Medieval Culture from Antiquity : Christianity and thus the Gospels and Greek Philosophy, this latter specifically hailing to Plato and Aristotle and thus Socrates and the Socratic dialogues and specifically excluding as false Materialism and Pantheism the schools of Epicure and of the Stoics. If CdCC really is a University researcher in Linguistics, he would seem to be hacking at the roots of the tree he is seated in the bracnhes of. So much then for his complaint of “shaming”.

But, if he was at first taking the air not of complaining (either of shaming or of unauthorized used of words) but of giving friendly advice, and that about what kind of writing is worth reading by the general public, whether words addressed originally directly to it or words addressed originally to a specific person, let us take a look at the New Testament.

One book is written both with specific audiences in mind in a part and to the Church in general in other parts. That is the Apocalypse.

Of the remaining, all of St Paul’s Letters – 13 or 14 – are written with a specific audience either of a named man or of a See, and as to Hebrews, which some count not by him but by St Barnabas, the other disciple of Gamaliel who became Christian, this is also not to the Church in general, but to the Hebrew heritage part of it. Obviously at a time (see title!) when they were no longer nearly synonymous with the whole Church. On the other hand, the Epistles of Sts Peter, James, John, Jude are all to the Church in general. And if we go from the Gospel end of NT, three of four are simply for the Church in general, but that of St Luke, like the Acts, the follow up, is written to one Theophilus. It might be a pseudonym, like Philothea for … I thought it was the widow who founded the Visitandines, St Jane Frances de Chantal, but wikipedians have it it was rather his cousin, “Madame Marie de Charmoisy, the wife of an ambassador of the Duke of Savoy.”

Here is what Calmet, cited by Haydock has to say about verse 1 of Acts:

Ver. 1. St. Luke, who was the author of this history, alludes, in this verse, to his gospel, which he calls his first discourse. In that he informs us, not only of the actions, but also the doctrines of our Saviour. These words, to do and to teach, are the abridgment of the whole gospel: here he gives us the Acts of the Apostles, that is, an history of their travels and preaching. In the beginning of this work he speaks of all the apostles, and what they did before their dispersion. As soon as he comes to the mention of St. Paul, he takes notice of no one else, but is entirely taken up with the narrative of his actions. He addresses his book to Theophilus, which signifies a friend of God, or one who loves God, as if he intended to dedicate it to all the faithful, who believed in, and loved God. But it is more probable that this was some distinct person, well known to St. Luke, and illustrious for his birth, because he gave him the title of kratiste, most excellent. [Luke i. 3.] (Calmet)


This means, one books straddles on both sides of the distinction, 16 books are originally addressed to more or less precise individuals or groups and ten are addressed to the Church in general.

So, writing ones thoughts for no one in particular is a valid way of writing, but not the only valid one. If we go to Pagans, same story there : Cicero did not forego writing Epistulae ad Familiares, Seneca wrote ad Lucilium, Horace wrote Odes to Maecenas and to Augustus, Catullus wrote to Lesbia. And while doing so, they were obviously also keeping an eye on the general public, which was, from the start, meant to “overhear” the supposedly “private” communications.

And even in the OT, certain books if they are not letters to specific persons or places with indwellers are at least composed of such, wholly or in part: Hezechiel, Isaiah, Micheas, Ezra … and on the other hand, the diverse parts of Genesis, which are meant for all mankind, are, most of them, (excepting Moses seeing the Six Days in a vision) originally transmitted from father to son, from grandfather to grandson, as intimately as if it were private communications.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Hermenegildis
13-IV-2015

Hispali, in Hispania, sancti Hermenegildi Martyris, qui fuit filius Leovigildi, Regis Visigothorum Ariani; atque ob catholicae fidei confessionem conjectus in carcerem, et, cum in solemnitate Paschali Communionem ab Episcopo Ariano accipere noluisset, perfidi patris jussu securi percussus est, ac regnum caeleste pro terreno Rex et Martyr intravit.

References:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES - Chapter 1
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id116.html


Wiki : Introduction to the Devout Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_Devout_Life


Wiki : St. Francis de Sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_de_Sales


Wiki : St. Jane Frances de Chantal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Frances_de_Chantal

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Date of Gospels, Lita!

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Does Geocentrism Discredit Creationism?, 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Date of Gospels, Lita!

"First*, the accounts in the Gospels are neither the only nor the earliest evidence we have of Christian writing about the Resurrection. That honor goes to 1 Thessalonians; one of the earliest of Paul’s letters, which will be examined below, which was written around AD 50."


According to Catholic Tradition, that is more than a decade after the Gospel of St Matthew.

"But the Gospel accounts, while penned decades after the events they describe (AD c. 30–33)"


Matthew : 34 or 37 or 40 at latest. Perhaps 34 for Aramaic original and another of these years for his own Greek translation.

Late datings of Gospels, like c. 70 for Mark and post-Mark for others, are Bultmannite errors, except for Gospel of St John which really was late (after Patmos and thus after Apocalypse) - but by an eyewitness.

"go back to early oral tradition, which seems remarkably untainted by ‘theologizing’ on the part of the authors."


Theology in NT writings is not a product of merely human theologising on part of hagiographer, but inspired by the Holy Ghost.

"It makes sense that the men who wrote the accounts might recall different details, even seemingly conflicting details, in their retelling of the event. What does not make sense is to say that since the authors include different women in the group that went to the tomb, the Resurrection obviously did not occur, and the same goes with all the other alleged contradictions."


Any woman who is mentioned in any Gospel account as going to the tomb did, of course./HGL

* This and other quotes are from: CMI : The Resurrection and Genesis
by Lita Cosner
First published: 10 April 2009
Re-featured on homepage: 5 April 2015
http://creation.com/the-resurrection-and-genesis