Sunday, April 15, 2018

Henriette Walter a tort sur un détail


Je la cite, depuis son livre L'aventure des langues en Occident, page 241.

"Mais déjà en 813, le Concile de Tours avait préconisé l'emploi des langues vulgaires (romane et germanique) pour les prêches et les homélies, signe qu'à l'église en début du IXe siècle, le bon peuple ne comprenait plus le latin. Et cela n'était arrivé du jour au lendemain."


Je dirais plutôt, c'était arrivé du jour au lendemain, et l'auteure nous raconte même (avec une interprétation un peu maladroite, peut-être) les circonstances, juste après:

"Déjà, à la fin du VIIIe siècle, Charlemagne, empereur de langue germanique mais féru de latin, avait pris conscience du fait que la langue parlée en France n'était plus le latin des livres et il avait fait venir d'Angleterre le savant Alcuin pour lui redonner la vie : dans l'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Tours ..."


Hmmm, l'obligation de langue vulgaire vient d'un concile de Tours, là précisément où Alcuin arrive un peu plus tôt?

Significatif? À mon avis, selon la théorie que je fais la mienne (et dont j'ai encore une énième fois oublié l'auteur, mais il y en a un avant moi!) c'est très significatif.

"... Alcuin avait alors dispensé un enseignement sérieux du latin aux moines français qui n'arrivaient plus à comprendre le texte de la Vulgate..."


Le texte de la Vulgate prononcé comment? Je dirais, selon la prononciation plus archaïque d'Alcuin.

Ostendite mihi numisma census. At illi obtulerunt ei denarium. (de St. Matthieu 22)

Comment on a probablement prononcé ces mots avant Alcuin:

Ostenditz-méï numismeu tsence. At li optulèreunt éï deunièr.

Comment Alcuin les a prononcés:

Ostendité mi-c'hi noumisma tsençouss. At illi optoulérounte éï dé-na-ri-oume.

Et voici comment on les a probablement traduits dans la prêche après cet évangile à partir de 813:

Monstratz-méï uneu monnayeu li tsence! Mèïs li donnèreunt lui deunièr.

Ce qu'on n'arrivait pas en France, c'était prononcer le latin comme avant - un peu comme en Angleterre de nos jours on est souvent désemparé si on entend quelqu'un dire:

C'houane zat Aprileu ouiz c'hice choureus sôteu

plutôt que

Ouène zèt April* ouiz c'hiz chaoueurz soute

pour le début de Canterbury Tales.

Ceci peut être un peu étonnant pour ceux qui sont accoutumés à connaître la prononciation latine en deux versions, traditionnelle (alcuinienne, plus ou moins modifiée) et reconstituée (par Érasme).

Car la prononciation que je reconstitue comme celle d'avant Alcuin (suivant en ceci un autre auteur, peu cité, dont je devrais populariser le nom, et dont je popularise la théorie), diffère des deux systèmes de prononciation latine par le fait d'avoir un grand écart entre lettres et prononciation.

Mais pour un linguiste qui réfléchit un peu, ce genre de grand écart est ce qu'on doit attendre après une tradition écrite pluriséculaire.

Mon "maître de penser" en cette question a donc reconstitué quelques phases assez précises et peu longues de la transition dont je parle:

A, avant Alcuin
Une langue écrite, une langue parlée. Latin et français identiques en Île de France.

B, entre Alcuin et les Serments
Une langue écrite, deux prononciations, dont une docte, introduite par Alcuin.

C, à partir des Serment et un peu
deux prononciations et aussi deux écritures, en trois rapports : écriture traditionnelle avec prononciation alcuinienne, écriture traditionnelle en prononciation traditionnelle (romane), écriture nouvelle pour la prononciation traditionnelle.

D, un peu après les Serments
disparaison du rapport écriture traditionnelle avec prononciation traditionnelle, qui est le rapport le plus compliqué et qui est aussi superflu vu les autres, donc coupure des deux autres rapports en deux langues distinctes. Latin et français deux langues à part en Île de France et partout.


Le même théoriste nous dit que ce genre de coupure vient environ 200 ans plus tard à l'espagnol ou à l'italien, avec là aussi une réforme de la prononciation liturgique.

Ça dit, je ne peux pas exclure qu'il n'y ait pas des passages de la Vulgate avec constructions désusitées dans la langue parlée que les moines voulaient avoir expliqués par Alcuin à partir d'une liste complète des cas (en français, comme on sait, les cas dans la langue parlée étaient réduits à cas droit et cas régime, les différences entre les deux se sont improvisées chez des latinistes comme Grégoire de Tours ... de, oui, précisément ... Tours.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II dim. après Pâcques
15.IV.2018

* Éïpril, voulais-je dire, bien-sûr!

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Fourth Empire?


I was just reading Mackey again.

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Herod ‘the Great’
Part Two:‘The King’ of Daniel 11
https://www.academia.edu/36262347/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Herod_the_Great._Part_Two_The_King_of_Daniel_11


He there cites at length an account by Philip Mauro and then inserts a few comments on his own.

From Philip Mauro's account:
According to one view (that presented by Smith's Bible Dictionary and other reputable authorities such as Taylor) this portion of the prophecy (Dan 11:36 to end) has still to do with Antiochus Epiphanes, and that tyrant is "the king" of verse 36. That view of the passage is necessitated by the general scheme of interpretation adopted in the work referred to, which makes the first coming of Christ and the Kingdom He then established, to be the "stone," which strikes the great image of Gentile dominion upon its feet (Dan 2:34,35). Now, inasmuch as it is a matter of Bible fact, as well as of familiar history, that Christ did not come into destructive collision with the Roman empire, but rather strengthened it, this scheme of interpretation is compelled to ignore the Roman empire, and to make up the four world-powers by counting Media as one and Persia as another. This makes Greece the fourth, instead of the third, and compels the idea that the entire 11th chapter has to do with the Greek era.

Mackey’s comment:
Which might actually be the correct scenario after all.


Now, my own view is, Fourth Beast is actually Rome, but as a Republic (republics being different, if not from Carthage or Athens or Corinth, at least from the other empires, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece / Macedon / Hellenism).

Why so? Antiochus Epiphanes was acting under restraints imposable by Roman Senate.

But, on the other hand,

it is a matter of Bible fact, as well as of familiar history, that Christ did not come into destructive collision with the Roman empire, but rather strengthened it,


and I won't disagree. However, this was after Rome was already what is now called an Empire. It was after an Empire directed politically by the Senate had become an Empire directed by the commander in chief of its Imperium or military command.

This tended to sanitise Rome somewhat. We still have Nero and Domitian, but we also have nearly loveable people like Augustus* or Nerva.

Historically, parliaments have in recent centuries often committed heavy errors of judgement, absent from kings of previous ones. I think the personal power of the Emperor was a restraining force, keeping the mystery of iniquity at bay.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John of Damascus
27.III.2018

* Before you call Augustus loveable full scale use of the word, consider he forced his stepson Tiberius to a divorce and remarriage.

Monday, March 26, 2018

Bon, M. Reeves, je sais que vous parlez le français ...


Et en l'écrivant l'année dernière, vous avez fait une bêtise sur l'histoire des sciences, comme pas mal d'autres scientifiques.

Sciences et Avenir, Spécial Anniversaire, p. ... ça pourrait être d'un livre de Douglas Adams ... 42.

Voici la phrase incriminée:

Pendant des millénaires, l'Univers était en effet considéré comme infini et immuable, tel que le philosophe grec Aristote l'avait décrit au IVe siècle avant Jésus-Christ.


Aristote, en effet, a bel et bien décrit l'Univers comme immuable, puisqu'il dépend en simultané de Dieu, et Aristote n'arrivait pas à comprendre pourquoi Dieu infiniment bienheureux prendrait une quelle-conque décision, donc, l'univers serait un effet secondaire du Dieu éternel, donc, lui-même aussi éternel et immuable.

Sur cette erreur théologique, il a été corrigé en avance par Platon et après les faits par St Thomas d'Aquin.

Par contre, il n'a nullement décrit l'univers comme infini, c'est de Bruno, Newton et de Kant que ça remonte.

D'abord, l'univers dépend de Dieu en simultané comment, exactement? Il bouge autour de la terre un cercle les 24 heures ou presque autant (pour le Soleil, c'est 24 h par définition, mais il est en retard par rapport aux étoiles fixes).

Or, un univers infini aurait donc pour conséquence une vitesse infinie des choses qui bougent autour de la Terre, mais une vitesse infinie est invisible (surtout en cercle!) et donc, l'Univers a une limite extérieure à ce mouvement.

Ensuite, comment est-ce que Bruno, Newton et Kant ont bouleversé l'idée pour que pendant quelques siècles l'univers soit considéré par certains comme infini?

Bruno, il se posait la question, "si on peut marcher et marcher et toujours trouvers des nouveux horizons infiniment, alors pourquoi l'univers ne serait-il pas infini aussi?" Le problème, sur un globe ce n'est pas le cas. On marche (et navigue) suffisamment longtemps, on se retrouve avec le même horizon, comme Philéas Fogg et Passepartout à Londres. Son analogie n'était pas une, à moins d'imaginer la Terre comme plate (et les soleils comme une série).

Newton, avec la gravitation qui pousse les choses lointains vers l'ensemble, pour que les étoiles ne se rencontrent pas dans un "big crunch" il est nécessaire que en dehors de chaque étoiles de celles qui tirent le soleil entre elles, il y ait encore et encore et encore d'étailes qui les tirent vers l'extérieur aussi, en toute direction (ou, au moins dans un cylindre assez plat, avec une finitude dans une des dimensions possible). Je ne suis pas sûr qu'il en ait tiré cette conséquence lui-même, il était au moins créationniste jeune terre, mais en revanche, des newtoniens en ont tiré cette conséquence.

Kant n'était pas capable d'imaginer qu'un quelconque objet soit entouré de même un seul côté du néant, donc, pour lui c'était chose sûre : l'univers était rationellement parlé infini. Notons, il a considéré aussi impossible d'imaginer un univers infini, donc, il a mis cette observation parmi les "apories", là où la raison n'arrive pas à se faire un chemin. Il semble qu'au moins certains des kantiens auraient penché vers un univers infini.

Mais Bruno, Newton et Kant sont tous du dernier demi-millénaire. Bruno fut brûlé (car il défigurait la théologie, pas juste la cosmologie) en 1600. Les autres deux sont encore postérieurs à lui. Donc, ce n'est pas pendant des millénaires, ni d'Aristote, que vient l'idée d'un univers infini.

Si vous doutez que j'ai raison dessus, pourquoi pas consulter Michaël Fœssel, votre co-équipier pour ce numéro spécial?

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Castule et
Lundi de la Semaine Sainte
26.III.2018

Friday, March 23, 2018

Heliocentrism and Sci-Fi


Here is how Damien Mackey introduces a quote from Dr. Gavin Ardley:

Dr. Gavin Ardley tells of it, with Galileo being the cut-off point (Aquinas and Kant, 1950):

Post-Galilean physical science is cut off from the rest of the world and is the creation of man himself. Consequently the science, in itself, has no immediate metaphysical foundations, and no metaphysical implications, in spite of popular beliefs to the contrary. These beliefs arise from the failure to realise the science’s ‘otherness’, that it belongs to the categorial order and not to the real order.

Only that which belongs to the real order is directly linked with metaphysics. The ancient and medieval science of physics belongs to this real order, and is, in principle, an integral part of philosophy in general. It has metaphysical foundations and metaphysical implications. [Footnote: This is not to say that all the particular Aristotelean doctrines of the Earth, the Skies, the Heavens and so on, are essential to Aristotelean metaphysics. They are integrated with metaphysics only in their general intention, and not in particular formulation. They could be modified without necessitating any change in metaphysical principles since the principles of metaphysics are founded on more general grounds. Many of the particular Aristotelean opinions about phenomena were abandoned in the 17th century with the increasingly detailed knowledge of Nature. Galileo’s Dialogues on the Two Great Systems of the World is a classic account of this revision of detailed theories of phenomena. Galileo himself, unlike many of his more extravagant followers, generally pursued this revision with considerable moderation. (See Ch. XVII). He is careful to distinguish what is true an abiding in Aristotle from what is erroneous and non-essential.]….


Here is his comment:

It is not surprising that Immanuel Kant (d. 1804), considered by some to have been the most influential thinker of the Enlightenment era, who was able to identify the artificial nature of the new sciences, whilst however adapting this methodology to his idiosyncratic new philosophy, is considered to have buried metaphysics once and for all.


Academia : Stephen Hawking - a ‘Lord of Creation’?
Part Three: Creating new universes
https://www.academia.edu/36223512/Stephen_Hawking_-_a_Lord_of_Creation_Part_Three_Creating_new_universes


And here is mine: Heliocentrism would on my view be a point belonging to change of general intention, rather than of particular formulation. One confirmation of this is, the great promoters of Heliocentrism involve Euler and Kant, both of whom were willing to consider the point of view of Hypothetic Extraterrestrials on other planets in the Solar System and on Hypothetic Exoplanets all over Cosmos, perhaps and ideally even an infinite one, who clinched popular acceptance of Heliocentrism (popular relatively speaking, meaning outside the restricted area of astronomers).

A theme very dear to the sci-fi that Damien Mackey shall explore in the following, namely extraterrestrials, is at the core of the Heliocentric revolution in general culture.

When Kant and Euler said in effect "if you consider your senses as proving that Earth is the centre of the universe, consider that someone living on Jupiter or a planet going around Sirius could say the exact same thing," they were busy building the outlines of Isaac Asimov's Foundation, Christin and Mézières' Valerian and Laureline, George Lucas' Star Wars, and, of course, Star Trek.

They were also busy setting up a weird alternative for theology:

  • a) several mankinds never fallen and only ours fallen;
  • b) Christ dying on planet after planet, in world after world.


And the response "perhaps original sin is bogus, perhaps redemption is bogus" was preparing the decision of Roddenberry not to include a chaplain on the starship Enterprise.

It may be mentioned that Fr Joseph Pohle, who considered that Modern Cosmology (which he embraced) involved no challenge to Christian eschatology, was from Prussia, a land with great benevolence, but also heir of Kant and Euler and in Pohle's time swallowing an amateur theology in the later writings of Karl May which prefigure the prayer meetings of Assisi.

More on Pohle in the dialogue between me and Introibo blogger, back here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Introibo Blogger Misrepresents Galileo Case Inter Alia
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/03/introibo-blogger-misrepresents-galileo.html


Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Victorian and Companions
Martyrs
23.III.2018

In Africa sanctorum Martyrum Victoriani, Proconsulis Carthaginis, et duorum germanorum, Aquisregensium; item Frumentii et alterius Frumentii, mercatorum. Hi omnes, in persecutione Wandalica (ut scribit Victor, Africanus Episcopus), sub Ariano Rege Hunnerico, pro constantia catholicae confessionis, immanissimis suppliciis cruciati, egregie coronati sunt.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Earliest trace of Balkanic Fusion of Dative and Genitive?


Today Greek is a Balkan language. Latin in the form of Romanian is also a Balkan language. Greek, Romanian and, in Bulgarian, the pronouns fuse Dative and Genitive.

My idea of how this originated is through Latin having double function Dative/Genitive forms like "puellae" or "diei".

"Do librum puellae" - I give the girl a book.
"Liber puellae impressus est, non manu scriptus" - The girl's book is printed, not a manuscript / not handwritten.

"Inceptio diei mane appellatur" - The day's beginning is called morning.
"Diei dominicae maxima debetur reverentia, tota hebdomade" - The greatest reverence is owed to Sunday, in all the week.

Greek and Bulgarian caught on to this and Latin going to Romanian then generalised this fusion of the two cases, by bilingualism.

Now, today the bilingualism between "Latin" (as in Romanian) and Greek is very restricted even on the Balkan and restricted to the Balkan.

However, this was not always so. In Palestine, during the British mandate, Megiddo prison was built over a Christian house. I just learnt this from Jonathan Sarfati today.*

I totally agree with the theological implications of this very ancient Christian house, Jesus Christ is called God, this is in a mosaic which has so far been dated to AD 230 - well near a century before the Council of Nicea.

However, I will also concentrate a bit on the grammatical side.

Quorting Sarfati's article:*

Notice at the end of the second-last line, there are words with a line over them. These are an ancient space-saving convention called nomina sacra (singular nomen sacrum), ‘sacred names’.8 That is, names for God would be abbreviated to the first and last letter, and a line drawn over them to indicate the shortening. These are found in many early papyri of the New Testament, and in a number of icons. In this mosaic the nomina sacra are clear. They are ΘΩ, ΙΥ, and ΧΩ. They are, respectively, the first and last letters of ΘΕΩ/Θεῷ (Theō, dative of Theos, God), ἸΗΣΟΥ/Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou, genitive of Iēsous, Jesus), and ΧΡΙΣΤΩ/Χριστῷ (Christō, dative of Christos, Christ).


So, genitive and dative are mixed here, about same referent?

Wait a little minute ... in Greek, if I recall it correctly, Ἰησοῦς has a rather special declinsion.

Ἰησοῦς, Ἰησοῦ, Ἰησοῦ, Ἰησοῦν, Ἰησοῦ.

Genitive, Dative and Vocative coincide. Nominative sticks out by having an s and Accusative by having an n.

So, in the inscription, we could actually instead of dealing with an early case of Genitive and Dative fusion, simply be dealing with one of the Greek confluents to this fusion. In the feminine, I think Dido has a similar reduced scale of cases, as Greek was previously also enjoying or suffering in the Dual number.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Passion of St Longinus
15.III.2018

Caesareae, in Cappadocia, passio sancti Longini militis, qui Domini latus lancea perforasse perhibetur.

PS, it seems my Greek was rusty ... I was right about Jesus' Holy Name, I suppose, but wrong about Dido. Διδω, Διδους is at least the most common Greek declinsion of that name./HGL

* CMI : Early mosaic calls Jesus ‘God’
by Jonathan Sarfati, Published: 15 March 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/early-mosaic-calls-jesus-god

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Réflexions sur la svastikophobie, diagnose inexistante ...


L’hexakosioihexekontahexaphobie (littéralement, « peur du nombre 666 » : en grec ancien, « six cent soixante six » s'écrit « ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ », soit « hexakosioï hexekonta hex ») est une peur qui tire son origine du verset 13:18 de l'Apocalypse, l'un des livres de la Bible. Ce verset indique que le nombre 666 est le nombre de la Bête, bête associée à Satan ou à l'Antéchrist1. En dehors de la foi chrétienne, cette peur a été popularisée, le nombre 666 étant utilisé comme un symbole dans de nombreux films d'épouvante.

Les hexakosioihexekontahexaphobes évitent au maximum toute chose reliée au nombre 666. Certains évitent même les références indirectes à ce nombre. À titre d'exemple, la fraction 2/3 a un développement décimal illimité qui répète le chiffre 6, et qu'on peut lire comme 0, 666 666 666 666. Certains hexakosioihexekontahexaphobes éviteront d'avoir à utiliser des fractions incluant cette répétition de décimales.


https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobie

http://www.phobie.wikibis.com/hexakosioihexekontahexaphobie.php

Le deuxième lien a un peu le même texte, est un peu source du premier, mais a aussi une liste en guise de menu de gauche:

  • Trouble anxieux
  • Nombre entier
  • Superstition

    • Hexakosioihexe- kontahexaphobie
    • Vendredi treize / Paraskevidékatriaphobie
    • Triskaidékaphobie


  • Phobies
  • Psychothérapie cognitivo-comportementale


Il y a une liste des phobies.

Sidérodromophobie - Peur de voyager en train.
Taijin kyofusho - Peur d'offenser autrui par l'odeur ou le regard (terme japonais).


Hmmm ... il me semble que le terme suasticophobie devrait se trouver entre ces deux, alphabétiquement.

Je cherche sur la wikipédie ...



Il n'y a aucun résultat correspondant à la requête.

Bon, pourquoi ne suis-je pas surpris?

On peut dire, on peut prédire qui serait svastikophobe. Juifs, et en Amérique du Nord au moins les Noirs pourraient être à la fois svastikophobes et "KKK-phobes".

Mais on ne parle pas de phobie dans ce cas.

Même si d'autres partis que les National-Socialistes ont porté la svastika, tout en ne pas ciblant les Juifs d'une manière NS, je pense notamment au Parti fasciste russe (en Mandchourie, exilés après la victoire des rouges en Russie), même si ça paraît que l'antisémitisme d'un "Konstantin Wladimirowitsch Rodsajewski" (je cite la wikipédie allemande, celle de la francophonie manque son article) était modéré et consistait surtout (si je me souviens bien) de vouloir remettre les Juifs dans les pays où ils vont bien (il cite notamment Danemark, donc aussi la Suède, qui est moins commode l'un comme l'autre pour un Catholique d'origine juive), il y a des Juifs qui n'aiment pas la svastika russe plus que celle d'Allemagne.

Peut-on le comprendre? Oui. Serait-ce donc une phobie à gentiment guérir par la psychothérapie cognitivo-comportementale? Non. C'est une aversion à respecter, on a très raison d'interdire les svastikas tant que les interdits restent sur la svastika.

Mais vu l'histoire future, révélé par Dieu à St. Jean, n'aurait-on pas quelque chose de pareil à dire sur la "phobie" contre le nombre six-cent-soixante-six?

Par contre, on ne respecte pas cette aversion. On semble vouloir remettre les "phobiques" dans les situations ridicules et pénibles.

Les codes barres ont des zones de garde normales (aux extrémités) et centrale (au milieu) qui ressemblent à des six.

Leur inventeur prétend que ceci serait un hasard - comme c'est un hasar qu'il porte lui-même trois noms à six lettres. George Joseph Laurer disait à propos:

Answer- Yes, they do RESEMBLE the code for a six. An even parity 6 is:

1 module wide black bar 1 module wide white space 1 module wide black bar 4 module wide white space

There is nothing sinister about this nor does it have anything to do with the Bible's "mark of the beast" (The New Testament, The Revelation, Chapter 13, paragraph 18). It is simply a coincidence like the fact that my first, middle, and last name all have 6 letters. There is no connection with an international money code either.


Réponse : oui, ils RESSEMBLENT au code pour une six. La six à parité paire est: barre noire large d'une module, espace blanche large d'une module, barre noire large d'une module, espace blanche large de quatre modules. Il n'y a dedans rien de sinistre, ni aucune pertinence pour la "marque de la bête" biblique (Nouveau Testament, Apocalypse, chapitre 13, verset 18). C'est simplement une coïncidence, comme le fait que mon prénom, mon deuxième prénom et mon nom de famille tous ont six lettres. Il n'y a pas de connection avec un quelconque code monétaire international non plus.

Sérieusement, on est censés de se faire prendre pour une truffe? Son père savait qu'il avait un nom à six lettres, il a ensuite choisi deux prénoms avec, chacun, six lettres, il est sûr et certains qu'il n'avait jamais pensé au fait de les prendre avec justement six lettres? Et ensuite, le fils invente une code barre où une ressemblance de la six est annoncée trois fois.

Même à supposer qu'il ait entendu de ses parents que c'était pure coïncidence, son choix de prénoms, même si c'était vrai, ensuite inventer le code UPC d'une manière qui ressemble à trois six, ne serait-ce pas un peu comme de mettre un peu partout une svastika, mais bien-sûr sur jaune, comme celle du Parti fasciste russe? Ce n'est pas ce que Rodzaëvski aurait voulu pour les Juifs dans un pays comme le Danemark.

Posons qu'on aurait fait ça ... ne serait-ce pas une tentative on ne peut plus évidente de mettre à mal des Juifs, à qui on aurait pu dire "oui, ça ressemble à la svastika NS, mais c'est une pure coïncidence"? Bien-sûr.

Mais pour les codes UPC ou EAN, qui réagit?

On peut prédire qui serait svastikophobe. Un Juif un peu partout (sauf pour éventuels membres du Parti fasciste russe). Un Noir en Amérique du Nord, surtout en combinaison avec trois K.

On peut également prédire qui serait normalement hexakosioihexakontahexaphobe : un Chrétien, ou de culture grosso modo chrétienn (comme c'est le cas pour la culture populaire). Donc, pourquoi davantage de soucis pour ne pas mettre des Juifs au mal que pour les Chrétiens? Parce que le "Calvaire" (selon certain théologiens un vrai rencontre avec le vrai) des Juifs est dans le passé, et celui des Chrétiens dans le futur?

La mise à mal des hexakos-etc-phobes semble aussi s'intensifier, comme de quoi la puce éléctronique RFID pour usage humain, a comme marque déposée NTAG216 - et 216 ressemble à 666, en ceci que: 666 = 6*100+6*10+6 ET 216 = 6*6*6.

En plus, certains cartes Sims et certains nombre téléphoniques de portables, qui contiennent les trois six d'affilée depuis encore quelque temps.

La diagnose phobie sert à décrédibiliser certaines positions comme "irrationnelles". On fait ça avec des positions chrétiennes, mais pour des raisons pas trop obscures à deviner, on ne fait pas ça avec des positions juives assez parallèles.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Chaîre de St. Pierre à Antioche
22.II.2018

Friday, February 9, 2018

Is Catholic Material Being Suppressed?



Update:

The Catholic or Vatican II Hierarchy seem to be innocent, insofar as Haydock comment is still available on another site.

e-Catholic 2000 : HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/title.shtml


Short link: http://ppt.li/3xt

It is less handy, insofar that I need another page for the Bible text, and the sigla are not dissolved into the full names, as was the case on the seemingly now defunct site./HGL


I was going to check, as usual, the Haydock comment on Zacharia 12:3.

Does the comment indicate it is about earthly Jerusalem? Or does the comment indicate it is about the earthly representative of Heavenly Jerusalem, that is, about the Catholic Church?

Here is the normal url of Haydock comment:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
haydock1859.tripod.com/


Here is what I see when trying to click:



There is a link to 1 Corinthians as well:

1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 15
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id176.html


And I find this:



I find another link with added letters "id2" - I take that could be "identity 2"?

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id2.html

What I found looked like previous.

Of course, I would say, tripod is a paid site. I have never seen ads, that can be had for 5.95 or 11.95 $ a month, butr not for free, and one difference between the two prices is 1 GB vs 5 GB. A whole Bible commentary, could that be 5 GB or at least past 1? Possible.

It is possible that whoever was keeping the Haydock comment online was fed up with paying the bills.

But as it is arguable that the one formerly paying the bills is a Catholic institution, that would mean some such entity has decided to no longer keep Haydock comment available.

Could this be a sign of apostasy in it? It could. Good comments are no longer available, which formerly were so.

What would Estius have said? What would Calmet have said? What would Haydock himself have said? What did Cornelius a Lapide say (that can be checked elsewhere, since there is one complete by him, alas one which was meddled with in 19th C, online)?

Or Tirinus. Or Menochius.

Here is a little list of who was behind Haydock comment, apart from its compiler Haydock and including him too:

Whose Work - Humanly Speaking - is the Haydock Commentary?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/12/whose-work-humanly-speaking-is-haydock.html


There is another possibility than the Catholic institution being tired of paying the bills. It is, someone on tripod wanted to refuse them the use of their platform - or someone higher up pushed tripod to it. A Masonic or generally Anti-Catholic person in charge on tripod - or a Masonic or generally Anti-Catholic person in charge who could put pressure on tripod.

Who is Tripod?

Tripod is a global team of based in Boston, Massachusetts and Hyderabad, India composed of a truly diverse group of engineers and designers who all love web publishing.


Hmmm ... in the case of tripod, the pressure could come as much from Hyderabad as from Boston ... unless it is just a Catholic Institution which is tired of paying the bills, for some reason.

For the moment, there is an alternative. Here:

BIBLIA CLERUS
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerus/index_eng.html


It involves, for English, another translation : "Zechariah - Revised Standard Version (1966)." Haydock was, obviously, for Douay Rheims, the Challoner revision.

When you search in it, the book and chapter are not shown in the adress bar, so you cannot link to the thing, as I used to link to Haydock comment, to appropriate pages.

On the good side, I can search Church Fathers in it. On the bad side with that, I get the whole context, not just the comment or use of the passage, meaning that it is more appropriate for a clergyman preparing the sermon for Sunday than for a lay apologist preparing an online essay, which often takes about one hour.

Haydock has often been cited by me. It is very invaluable as a Catholic resource for Biblical Apologetics - and exegesis.

Atheists, perhaps also Jews and others hating Christianity (and some might do that in Hyderabad, just wondering?) have through some years been irritated as I got throw one pinch after another by simply citing Haydock.*

I hope it gets back up, but if not, this could be one sign of a beast which can be described as "and his mouth as the mouth of a lion" - since it seems capable of roaring down any one trying to voice any opposition to it.

I linked to another site also having Douay Rheims, but it only has the notes by Challoner, which are fewer than all the Haydock comment which also included some of Challoner and also Witham. Both of these men were holy people who served the Catholics of England, and this in times of persecution. Bishops, whose consecration went back to the Twelve Apostles.

You know, being a Catholic Bible reader is not a contest of originality. Rather, it is a merit to agree with those who went before us.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Cyril of Alexandria**
9.II.2018

Update, 13.II:



* Come to think of it, even some Protestants may have felt some disgust with Haydock comment, since it doesn't support their agenda. ** So far, the Roman Martyrology remains online, thank God!

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

The Romulan Year


Some people like imagining "December 25" has for a whole millennium or more before Christ been birthday of some Pagan god. The brief answer is : there was no such thing as "December 25" around the Mediterranean up to when Rome became a superpower some 200 BC, and then, up to Caesar calendar remained Luni-Solar, so "December 25" was not fixed astronomically, some years having an extra month, Mercedonius, and there were no known feasts tied to the calendar date of December 25 until AD times.

In this context I mentioned that the original Roman year of Romulus was "ten months + winter". Here is how that worked out:

In a Romulan year
Ten months we have here
When winter is past, next moon signals March
The April, May, June, when the Sun starts to parch
Then Quintil and Sextil, September, October,
November, December, and then it is over.
And winter is here
until the next year.


Not sure I have never read sth similar, but I did some effort to make the verse, so coincidence with other verses of mnemonic nature are coincidental.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy, Astrolabe
St Romuald, Abbot
7.II.2018

PS, sorry for first seconds, have to fix the url, so the verses come properly./HGL

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Some Lessons on Imprimatur


A few considerations:

  • 1) From 16th C. to at least Antipope Montini, there was a Church law on any book touching theology, it had to have either imprimatur or imprimi potest, at least a nihil obstat, before it could be in good conscience printed.

  • 2) The nihil obstat was a preliminary. It was usually made not by the bishop himself but by a censor deputatus, usually a Dominican.

  • 3) After the nihil obstat, the bishop could give an imprimi potest or an imprimatur. These are not synonymous.

    Say a learned Jesuit was in 1830 stationed into the diocese of Cork (or clostest corresponding thing, not sure when Cork became a diocese after abolition of Penal Laws in 1830).

    He had been working on a thesis, that the Hebrew which Moses wrote and spoke was not identical to that of the Hebrew Bibles we have (for how vowels are written, this is obvious, since this has changed, the modern system was not around in the time of Moses but he goes further : phonemes, verbal endings and a few more have been continuously updated by the Cohanim scribes, so the language of Hebrew Bible is post-Mosaic, while the texts are not). In 1830, Cork, the bishop does not find this as being of vital interest, but the Jesuit wants to send it to an academy of Oriental languages in Rome. He gets an imprimi potest and prints on his own cost 15 examples, which he then sends to Rome, Paris, Louvain and Salamanca and one or two to some study friends left behind on the Continent.

    If he gets a response, he is of course free to pay for a reprint.

    He then procedes to make a work which is of vital interest to the Church in Ireland and England : a special edition of the Penny Catechism, with a defense against each Protestant charge in more detail. The bishop is interested, he gives an imprimatur. This means, if the Jesuit can't pay for the printing, the bishop will. Why? Because "imprimatur" means "let it be printed" - the bishop is in fact by this note ordering the book to be printed. Obviously, he makes sure the examples are more numerous than 15, and when the stock is sold out, he renews it.

  • 4) The difference between an "imprimi potest" and an "imprimatur" can be paralleled with town councils and architecture. You buy an adjacent property on which the previous building has been torn down, you have a plan for making the ground valuable, you want to build - what you get from the town council is a building permit. However, the town has a need, you have a plan for how the new library should look, your architectural plan is not giving you a building permit, it becomes, if approved, an order by the town to build that library on your plan.

  • 5) It is obviously not just simonistic, but nonsensical to ask a fee for the work of an imprimatur. It is as if the town were asking you to pay a fee for your plan for the new library - your plan for the new library is a service to the town, not to your private interest. You are more likely to get a contractual or prize type reward for proposing your plan. In the same manner, a book of apologetics is a service to the Church - and when a bishop orders it printed, he is more likely to reward the author - if it is not someone who is obliged to live poor and therefore is likely to waver monetary rewards.

  • 6) For an imprimi potest, I don't think that fees would have been charged, as a pre-condition sine qua non, since giving an imprimi potest is an act of jurisdiction, which of the Church should be available also to the poor. Imprimi potests have been given to works by Capuchins and Minims, meaning sometimes obviously to people having no money.

    If a customary fee was usually expected - I don't pretend to know the details - it would be wavered for the poor.

    Precisely as the fees for services of the stola which have sometimes been expected (a parish priest getting a fee for a marriage and so on) would also be often wavered for the poor.

    I think Pope Michael should have at least this in mind before asking me to provide money before he can begin the work involved in an imprimatur.

  • 7) One more.

    Necessitas non habet legem.

    The virtue of Epikeia.

    If at present the one bishop of the Church who has a right to issue imprimatur (as Pope Michael claims to be, and I am so far accepting him as, since ditching Bergoglio and very briefly considering the Feeneyite Argentinian Antipope Alexander, back in 2014), if he can't do so unless pre-paid, and if this clogs both a perhaps valuable work of apologetics and my personal affairs, I am not obliged to wait for a never coming imprimatur.

    It is one thing to say "look here, in that essay you pretended God consists of material atoms, you won't get an imprimatur on that one!" Ever, presumably. If I dispensed myself from obligation of imprimatur for such a thing, it would be rebellion against the Church.

    But it is quite another to say "look here, I can't afford the work for giving you an imprimatur, unless you pay me" - if so, I think I am quite entitled to consider the material difficulties of Pope Michael dispense me from waiting for an imprimatur.

    But this has a consequence : in foreseeable future, Pope Michael won't be able to make the work for an imprimatur procedure. Therefore it is unreasonable for the Church to require one before things get printed.

    Not just for me, but for a lot of other good Catholic writers*. Pope Michael, if indeed the true Pope, cannot afford the luxury to exclude writers because they are poor in money, if they have something to say.

    This means, along with fact that Antipope Montini issued his ruling at a time when very many Catholics certainly really such took him to be the real Pope** and therefore felt free to follow the order as given, one may presume God wanted this freedom to be established for these confused times so that no wasteful waiting should make them even more confused, to be at least probably established.

  • 8) Sorry, was tired and forgot one.

    If people have in general been able to see my blogs for years, and no one has issued any condemnation of what I write in them, I think this amounts to an imprimatur as much as a certain serial non-stoning amounted to God's "neither do I condemn you".

    This I find a reason to waver imprimatur requirement on texts that have been available as blogs for long and where comments have been open to commenters, as is the case on my blogs. But either way, it stands there in my favour.


Do you know how Chesterton defended the Catholic interference with liberty of writing and publishing? By the invention of printing, the act of effectively publishing a book had come into the hands which could affor the invenestment of a printer. This means, the Church was not shutting down a really democratic debate, but one which had taken quite a few notches to becoming an oligarchic one. Note, the advent of internet has changed the situation. The old rule, post-publishing approval or reproval by notified superiors is good enough. As it was for Bishop Tempier.***

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Fabian, Pope and Martyr
or 20.I.2018

PS, I forgot to mention another thing I had intended to, also due to fatigue. Some guys seem bent on giving me chances to reconsider myself what I wrote on some occasions. They spam posts, and some of them several times over. Or, one of them does. So, I have published two lists on essays I could have reconsidered and didn't find objectionable, they are called Spammers' Choice! / Choix des spammeurs and Spammers' Choice. While there is exactly one blogger profile, I think the action is a type of plot to "give me a chance" to reconsider - what I still think I considered very correctly./HGL

* Yeah, I just said I am a good Catholic writer. So, a penance for vainglory might be OK, but making it years and years of waiting to get published is not a penance, it is useless waste.

** I speak of the guy often named "Pope Paul VI".

*** Some may know I have published on internet a Latin text and own footnotes on the condemned sentences by Bishop Tempier. It is an "English" copy of the work in which the condemned sentences are ordered by theme, as they were not in the original in Paris. Now, the first group of themes is "errores de deo", but this is chapter VI - which leaves the question what the first five chapters were. In the case of Tempier's original there were however a few known prequels, namely sentencing named authors after their publication - Boethius de Dacia for a work of Averroist tendency or Andrew the Chaplain for a work on love lore (relationship advice or seduction advice). Here is however the text of the syllabus: Index in stephani tempier condempnationes.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

How Are Russians Reading my English by Google, if so? And What About Tower of Babel?


When I used google translate to translate a passage of the Coran - one I happen not to find objectionable, unlike much else in it - the French result of Arabic input was more or less gibberish.

I think this could explain why someone using Google Translate for Arabic output could also find the resulting Arabic gibberish. But I also said, this could happen with Russian or Ukrainean too. So, let's test it.

First, I verify, is Russian or Ukrainean really relevant, do I have readers there? Yes : 10 Jan 2018 10:00 – 17 Jan 2018 09:00 : Italy 144 United States 98 Ukraine 47 France 41 Russia 21 China 10 United Kingdom 9 Indonesia 8 Algeria 7 South Korea 7. (This blog).

Next, let's chose a text which will not blaspheme if translated very badly (even if a machine translation translating badly can't blaspheme the Bible, just show the limits of the machine):

Genesis 11:1-9
Douay Rheims
And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.
And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.
And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar.
And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.
And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.
Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.
And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.
And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Russian Synodal Version
На всей земле был один язык и одно наречие.
Двинувшись с востока, они нашли в земле Сеннаар равнину и поселились там.
И сказали друг другу: наделаем кирпичей и обожжем огнем. И стали у них кирпичи вместо камней, а земляная смола вместо извести.
И сказали они: построим себе город и башню, высотою до небес, и сделаем себе имя, прежде нежели рассеемся по лицу всей земли.
И сошел Господь посмотреть город и башню, которые строили сыны человеческие.
И сказал Господь: вот, один народ, и один у всех язык; и вот что начали они делать, и не отстанут они от того, что задумали делать;
сойдем же и смешаем там язык их, так чтобы один не понимал речи другого.
И рассеял их Господь оттуда по всей земле; и они перестали строить город.
Посему дано ему имя: Вавилон, ибо там смешал Господь язык всей земли, и оттуда рассеял их Господь по всей земле.

Google Translate
English from Russian
All over the earth there was one language and one dialect.
Moving from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.
And they said one to another, Let us make bricks and burn them with fire. And they began to have bricks instead of stones, and earth resin instead of lime.
And they said, Let us build ourselves a city and a tower, which is high up to the heavens, and make ourselves a name, before we are scattered about the face of the whole earth.
And the LORD went down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men built.
And the LORD said, Behold, one people, and one tongue all; and that's what they began to do, and they will not leave behind what they planned to do;
Let us go down and mix their language there, so that one does not understand the speech of the other.
And the Lord scattered them from thence throughout all the earth; and they stopped building the city.
Therefore the name is given to him: Babylon, for there the Lord confused the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them throughout all the earth.


Note well, the Russian synodal version mistranslates verse 4. The google translate to English was not a mistranslation by machine.

The LXX, which would seem to be the original for Synodal version, does not make the same fault, it has καὶ πύργον οὗ ἡ κεφαλὴ ἔσται ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ - and a tower, of which the top is into the heaven. This is consistent with the tower being a rocket and the top being step 3. The Russian Synodal translation does not translate these words literally, and its choice of interpretation is basically a "skyscraper" or possibly a skyline - which connects to two patristic interpretations of what the object was, but disconnects from the at least Augustinian (as well as Hebrew) interpretation of what it was for.

As to verse 9, I don't think Babylon need be considered a mistranslation.

Nimrod can have named Göbekli Tepe Bab-Ilu - gate of gods - just as successors of his named a city further south so. If Nimrod meant Babel as a quest to get to heaven by local motion in our mortal bodies, I think rockets make more sense than skyscrapers, even back then. And Bab-Ilu would have been a fitting name.

The point is, he would have succeeded with a rocket as badly as Leonardo if he had tried his own prototype airplanes. But Uranium as rocket fuel is not such a joke as one man falling from a tall house in a heavy box of wood with useless wings.

God preserved him from even trying, by making him incapable of communicating with his workforce. Imagine Putin at Sotchi and him asking a question and getting an answer like "yo no comprendo" because the other guy has by divine fiat started speaking Spanish instead of Russian. That is what happened to Nimrod, happily enough.

Why does the Bible translate so much better on google translate than the Coran? It is very simple syntax, very unrhetorical.

Not laden with figures of speech that don't correspond when translated (that said, where the Bible has a figure of speech, it is probably part of the culture of English or French already, unlike those in the Coran).

I might hope my prose translates better than the Coran, but I think it probably translates worse than the Bible. It is more rhetoric and more complex, therefore more sensitive to bungling translations.

This is one reason why I think Russians have been thinking my English is bad (even here, while it is understandable, the English is clumsier than Douay Rheims, like a foreigner retelling parts in children's language - especially "mix their language", though probably or at least possibly one method God could have used : mixing the Hebrew already there with a "sound change applier" or sth, and also mixing word meanings. But probably not the only one, though that could explain the existance of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic language family.

By the way, let's see if Ukrainean translates verse 4 better?

І сказали вони: Тож місто збудуймо собі, та башту, а вершина її аж до неба. І вчинімо для себе ймення, щоб ми не розпорошилися по поверхні всієї землі.

And they said: "Let us build a city for us, and a tower, and its summit up to heaven." And we shall make a name for ourselves, that we may not be scattered on the surface of all the earth.

Ah, yes, it does. "and its summit up to heaven". Step 3 is the summit of a three step rocket.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Anthony the Great
17.I.2018

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Did Popes Claim to Be God? No.


A just possibly correct Latin text, to the left, a false English translation to the right:



Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam-conditorem dictae decratelis, et istius, sinc non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

Quoted in John Treat, The Catholic Faith, or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome contrary to Scripture (1888) : 536.

His translation is:

"but to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree as he did decree, should be accounted heretical."

A better translation (if the reference is genuine) is:

But to believe that our Lord God could not so constitute the Pope - author of said decretal and the other one - as he did constitute him, would be accounted heretical.

I am a Latinist.

I can tell you that the translator simply fucked up which accusative should be the subject one in accusative and infinitive clause and which one was only object in the clause and would have been in accusative whatever kind of clause it was.

This is one of the cases where Latin has some ambiguity, and some people are either incompetent at Latin or jumping to the reading which would damn papacy as papolatry./HGL

PS. See also:

Beati mundo corde : The truth about the anti-Catholic charge of “Lord God the Pope”
https://klaravonassisi.wordpress.com/tag/lord-god-the-pope/


I found it after publishing above. I copy the conclusions:

  • i) The interpolated (possibly forged?)statement does not appear in the original, but only in copies dated many years (in the case of the Paris edition, over 350 years (1325 till 1685) after the original was written.
  • ii) As glosses of their very nature deal with commentaries on canon law, they are unrelated to doctrine or doctrinal pronouncements and are not issued by the pope. Hence this inserted text could not be used (even if present in the original) as proof the pope was teaching falsehood.
  • iii) The insertion of a forger of these words at a later date do not in any way affect the truth of the divine institution of the papacy, any more than insertion of words into a copy of the Bible changes the Bible’s authenticity.
  • iv) The statement of one Father A. Pereira (see below) is invalid for the same reason mentioned in iii)


In other words, possibly even the quote by John Treat is a fake, possibly the Paris edition inserted sth meaning sth else, like what I translated. If it is a fake, 1685 is a year in which Protestants, Gallicans and Jansenists were already around and eager to smudge the Papal supremacy in the Church for diverse reasons (heresy in Protestants, patriotism of exaggerated and misplaced type in Gallicans, heretic opinion verging on and leading later to schism in Jansenists). So, there is nothing totally improbable in it being a fake./HGL

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Which one is from Codex Vaticanus?


I found the first one on a video about 666 trying to link it to Muslims.

I found the second one on a wikipedian article on Codex Vaticanus.



It is very possible that Codex Vaticanus is a very early one, and is from 350 AD, it is according to wikipedian article from 4th C.

It is NOT very probable that Chi - Xi - Stigma look as above version in it, since the type of letters only came around much later, Codex Vaticanus being an Uncial Codex and the above version being a minuscule lettering and the succession of Greek writings being, as for Latin, Majuscule, Uncial and Minuscule.

How exactly do Chi and Xi look in Uncial?

Found in Antiquity : How to write Greek Uncial
Posted on March 31, 2014 by Carla Schodde
https://foundinantiquity.com/2014/03/31/how-to-write-greek-uncial/


In the video, there are no ligatures, just the alphabet. Stigma is lacking.

However, since Omicron is directly after Xi and Omega after Chi and Psi, here are the Greek letters for 60 and for 600:



Especially the Uncial Xi is not very like the Minuscule which can be turned around for relooking like Arabic letters, is it?

And the Minuscule is not from Late Antiquity, but from Middle Ages./HGL

PS, found Uncial version of Stigma on French wiki: