Friday, March 19, 2021

In What Situations was Hygiene "Discovered" by Semmelweis and Lister?


I had a conversation on Medieval Hygiene. What exactly did Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis stop or try to stop, and when did it start?

Well, the problem at the hospital where he was, was that docctors in training for obstetrics would first go to autopsies, then without washing hands to act as midwives ...

In the Middle Ages, only midwives did obstetrics, and not only that, but autopsies were strictly forbidden. In the Renaissance, doctors wanting bodies for this illegal practise were body-snatching in graveyards. St. Francis of Sales, in his teens, volunteered to donate his body in case of death so one body-snatching could be avoided. Obviously, in Semmelweis' day, autopsies had been legalised over almost all of Europe. And you got doctors training for obstetrics.

This is in fact not all, here is how wikipedia describes where Semmelweis was working:

Semmelweis was appointed assistant to Professor Johann Klein in the First Obstetrical Clinic of the Vienna General Hospital on July 1, 1846. A comparable position today in a United States hospital would be "chief resident." His duties were to examine patients each morning in preparation for the professor's rounds, supervise difficult deliveries, teach students of obstetrics and be "clerk" of records.

Maternity institutions were set up all over Europe to address problems of infanticide of illegitimate children. They were set up as gratis institutions and offered to care for the infants, which made them attractive to underprivileged women, including prostitutes. In return for the free services, the women would be subjects for the training of doctors and midwives.

Two maternity clinics were at the Viennese hospital. The First Clinic had an average maternal mortality rate of about 10% due to puerperal fever. The Second Clinic's rate was considerably lower, averaging less than 4%.


Why would this have been impossible in the Middle Ages? Not only was infanticide heavily punished in the rare cases, and abortion as well, outside Jewish settlements (yes, Jews had the horrible distinction of pioneering abortion "rights"), namely with death penalty, but the motive for these infanticides would have been lacking, since the chief offenders in making illegitimate children were noblemen and these were fond of either legitimising illegitimate children or spoiling them, giving them comforts without responsibility - they thought of them as a tribute to their own virility.

This was also the case with priests having mistresses - like Alexander VI had had, and we know he took care of Cesare and Lucrezia.

So, in the Middle Ages, women with illegitimate children would not line up at hospitals, they would get taken care of. A midwife would attend very individually to them. And in those cases, I don't think you had even 4 % puerperal fever.

Now we come to Joseph Lister:

Lister promoted the idea of sterile surgery while working at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Lister successfully introduced carbolic acid (now known as phenol) to sterilise surgical instruments and to clean wounds.


Perhaps a bit more?

Before Lister's studies of surgery, many people believed that chemical damage from exposure to "bad air", or miasma, was responsible for infections in wounds. Hospital wards were occasionally aired out at midday as a precaution against the spread of infection via miasma, but facilities for washing hands or a patient's wounds were not available. A surgeon was not required to wash his hands before seeing a patient; in the absence of any theory of bacterial infection, such practices were not considered necessary. Despite the work of Ignaz Semmelweis and Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., hospitals practised surgery under unsanitary conditions.


Hospital wards? In the Middle Ages, hospitals were primarily institutions for the homeless and other poor, who could not afford a physician calling at home and who were also not employed with one who could afford it. Care was given among other people volunteering by homeless of sound body who were paying their stay that way. As this was not the safest lodging from health points of view, beggars had a way of trying to avoid them as long as they stayed healthy. Only Lewis XIV had the bad taste to change that habit and started chasing homeless to stop them from begging freely (and about a century later, you get a Revolution). In this era, a Saint Vincent of Paul was at one point, as I recall from a book in a library in Beauvais, at first refusing to send Lazarist priests to the hospital. He arguably would not have liked Lewis XIV's approach, perhaps understandably for one who had spent two years as a slave to Tunisian Muslims. In the Middle Ages themselves, the Hospital of Paris was more likely to be avoided by healthy homeless and the ones who went there were not in a ward of surgery, the illnesses varied considerably and they were tended by physicians, not surgeons, and in the Middle Ages, this was not the same profession. Surgeons were fairly ill considered and operated most often after battles or accidents, like cutting off legs. Then bandages were obviously changed by somewhat better personnel. So, a hospital would not be the likeliest place to meet a surgeon in the first place. Hygiene was arguably far better than at the war where Joseph Lister was working.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr studied puerperal fever too and this in a place called Boston Medical Dispensary. Boston was arguably more flooded by poor than Medieval Paris and so the dispensaries were diversified ... and a purely medical one was where the conditions Homes found were prevailing in 1837,* when he arrived there.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joseph's Day
19.III.2021

* You might try to multiply centurial number by the number within the century, and you may already know the result.

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

No, Herodotus did not invent fact based history


One meme I have very lately, I think only within last year, met on the internet is, Moses could not have meant Genesis as factual history considering factual history was only invented by Herodotus, later on, and obviously in some cases, at least one, a Jew, Exodus was not factual history either.

Let's step back and consider how historic truth is determined, in general, earlier on, by historians today.

First of all, you may hear of "the historic method" and it sounds like an objective approach, a bit like any correct algorithm for 123 + 456 + 789 will give you 1368. The usual one you have heard of means you put these in a units column for 3, 6, 9, left of that a decades column for 2, 5, 8, left of that a hundreds' column for 1, 4, 7. You also when adding up a column, treating the numerals as "units" and getting "decade(s)" and "units" put the "decade" so to speak "in memory" - that is, you add a small numeral above the highest one on the column just left of it. I would now immediately cross out in the decades column 2 and 8 as they make 10 and put a 1 in memory over hundreds' column. 3 + 6 = 9, + 9 = 18, write down the 8, one in memory above the remaining 5 in decades' column, makes 6, so you have 68, and 1 (in memory) + 1 + 4 + 7 make 13, and when there is no column left of it, you write down the numeral in memory directly, so 13, you have 1368. Similar for Greek numerals, except here you learn that γ + ς + θ = ιη and with λ + ξ + Q instead, you would have ρπ - the numeral "in memory" quasi automatically goes to the right column. "CXXIII + CDLVI + DCCLXXXIX", simplify hundreds by cancelling "on the left" with others, "XXIII + DLVI + DCCLXXXIX", same with units, "XXIII + DLV + DCCLXXXX", add up D+D to M, "M + XXIII + LV + CCLXXXX", add up L+L to C, "MC + XXIII + V + CCXXXX", add on other C's, "MCCC + XXIII + V + XXXX", add X's, "MCCCXXXXXX + III + V", simplify five X to one L, "MCCCLX + III + V" and add on fiver and three units, MCCCLXVIII, which reads one thousand three hundred sixty eight. You get it, whatever algorithm you use, you will get one single uncontrovertible answer. If you get another answer, you made a mistake. And this is the case with any algorithm among several different ones.

Second, earlier on, history was done by checking sources available and going by the ones you thought most reliable.

Third, historians today are largely indebted to one Swedish school of historiography, the Weibull school. It highly values contemporary written evidence above oral tradition over centuries, and non-tendentious sources like tax records over narrations. As no big surprise, it would obviously tend to come to fairly down to earth conclusions about what was routinely going on in a given earlier century over accounts of singular events.

Now, even with any given "algorithm for history" (there isn't one) you don't get one single correct answer. For the earlier method, the reason is obvious. Not only are different persons likely to have different sources available, they are even likely, if having same two sources in contradiction, likely to disagree on which is the more reliable. Also, they are likely to disagree on what events were more decisive. For Waterloo, I think German and English historians generally agree on what Wellington did and what Blücher did, but at least back before 1945 and especially in the 19th C., German historians would credit Blücher over Wellington with beating Napoleon. Not because they disagreed on facts, but because they disagreed on importance of facts in relation to each other.

But part of the Weibull method is, as said, sifting away decorative narratives. This poses a kind of conundrum for history back in millennia for which very little else - no diaries, no newspaper reports, very little diplomacy - survives. Does a narrative from back then constitute a historic source or not? For the earlier method of history, no doubt, yes. Narratives are what historiography deals with, if you can compare two, fine, but if you have only one and you see no insurmountable problem, you go with it. But, to certain people in the last year, not sure if any before, to UsefulCharts, to Drew Gasaway, to some Roman Catholic, as I recall but I forget which one, and all within the last year, fact based historic narrative was invented by Herodotus. Before that, adding to make entertaining fiction was part and parcel of the genre.

Now, not only is there no algorithm for history, but in ideas there is also no such a progression of inventions as in mass produced technology. With telephone, you can pick out Alexander Graham Bell, with combustion motor you can pick out Otto and Daimler, and a few more like that. A claim like "Voltaire was heading from Paris to Ferney in a car, but he ran out of petrol" is fantasy, because the cars that run on petrol use them in the combustion engines that Daimler invented 98 years after Voltaire died. A claim like "Galileo asked the Cardinal Bellarmine, if he might phone Newton" is, apart from language difficulties (they could have communicated in Latin) fantasy because Alexander Graham Bell commercialised the phone from 1885 and Galileo stood before Bellarmine in 1616, 269 years earlier. The claim is "fact based history" is similarily an invention that can be so dated, and the date is Herodotus and therefore after Moses' real or purported life.

Now, fact based history is in fact an idea, not a technology using specifics of electromagnetic or combustive explosions in a very intricate contrivance. Unlike intricate contrivances, ideas have a certain knack of being simple and that being the case, you don't need a single inventor, you get multiple starts and probably lots of simply ongoing tradition.

Drew Gasamore was confronted with an Egyptian exact chronological statement (not saying Egyptian chronology is overall very exact, that is another matter) implying they did have a method for exact chronological statements. His reply referred to incredible events in the Osiris story starting Egyptian chronology and he implied that this discredited everything that went after it in Egyptian chronology ... which it does not. Egyptians may have made concessions to very unreliable facts, this does not equate to lacking a method for establishing reliable ones. Or the Osiris story, while false gods, misplaced in time by multiplication of years, goes back to a true crime story. That would be my take. The role of the fake phallus would have been misunderstood, unless it was a case of artificial insemination badly told. Either way, this does not shed any kind of doubt on an Egyptian document claiming that "in the 29th year and 5th month of pharao so and so" something happened.

Others would have pointed to Homer as evidence that Herodotus invented fact based history. Iliad and Odyssey being mythological, they aren't fact based and therefore fact based history must be - in Greece - after Homer. Now, very little in the Iliad and Odyssey can be narrowed down to deliberate acts by non-human actors, if you except the stories Ulysses told to Nausicaä. It's Apollo giving and withdrawing a plague to and from Greeks, and it is Athena helping Ulysses shift the face he shows. I think St. John would have agreed that Apollo sent and withdrew a plague, especially as one title Homer gives him translates as Beelzebub into Hebrew. For the masquerade of Ulysses, I hesitate between Biao Ling, demons or angels. Accepting Iliad and (by and large) Odyssey as historical is no affront to Christian theology.

But even more, Herodotus himself opens the first book of his Histories, Clio, with Paris kidnapping Helen and thereby setting on the Trojan War. The supposed inventor of fact based history credited an earlier writer and earlier traditions beside that writer with - fact based history. After Troy, Herodotus gets into, among other things, Gyges. However, it seems that the invisibility ring of Gyges is not from Herodotus but from Plato. Here is a discussion on Herodotus' reliability from the article:

Herodotus has been criticized for the fact that his book includes many obvious legends and fanciful accounts. Many authors, starting with the late fifth-century BC historian Thucydides, have accused him of making up stories for entertainment. However, Herodotus states that he is merely reporting what he has seen and been told, on several occasions saying that he does not himself believe the story that he reports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus

It is in other words clear, on the one hand, Herodotus was not of the Weibull school, and on the other hand, he believed some earlier writers (not all of them) to be as reliable as he.

This means that placing a document from times before Herodotus does not make it non-factual.

Even if Herodotus himself had started a trend among Greeks, this does not prove there were no parallel trends for instance with the Hebrews earlier on, like with Moses doing a fact based retelling of what he had been told or gathered from shorter written accounts that is now Genesis. Obviously, UsefulCharts severely bungles even Weibullian historiography by faking the pretence that parting of the Red Sea was an already existing literary meme, which could have been tacked on to the account of Exodus for effect, since no already existing meme that we know of deals with the miraculous parting of any sea. Likewise, someone else claimed the Tower of Babel was going back to earlier Mesopotamian myth, but this is severely inaccurate, since we do not have any earlier Mesopotamian myth that relates such a thing as a project punished by God or the gods (though we have later Greek legends in Hesiod, Ossa and Pelion), or of a mankind with one language getting divided into many languages and peoples. I think this discussion shows very well that even Weibullian method does not give unequivocal single answers to historic questions.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Drotté
10.III.2021

Lutetiae Parisiorum depositio sancti Droctovei Abbatis, qui fuit discipulus beati Germani Episcopi.

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

A Language Points to a Population, Right?


Here is a certain article where the language in question is mentioned.

Lost Languages Discovered in One of the World’s Oldest Continuously Run Libraries
By Brigit Katz, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-lost-languages-found-manuscripts-egyptian-monastery-180964698/


Here is an article she links to:

Review: Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Its Significance to the Western Aramaic Dialect Group
Review by: Christa Müller-Kessler
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1999), pp. 631-636 (6 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/604838?seq=1


And here is what Brigit Katz based on that reading says of that language:

Other hidden texts were written in a defunct dialect known as Christian Palestinian Aramaic, a mix of Syriac and Greek, which was discontinued in the 13th century only to be rediscovered by scholars in the 18th century. “This was an entire community of people who had a literature, art, and spirituality,” Phelps tells Gray. “Almost all of that has been lost, yet their cultural DNA exists in our culture today. These palimpsest texts are giving them a voice again and letting us learn about how they contributed to who we are today.”


Now, I don't agree two languages as different as Syriac and Greek can just "mix". Arguably the grammar was mainly at least Syriac and the vocabulary had lots of Greek additions.

But the language did exist, and therefore the community did exist. And if their literature is gone, it could be because the counter-Crusades after Third Crusade failed, eradicated them. But Gaels are Gaels, even if only one % have Gaelic as native language, and Christian Palestinians remain the group Christian Palestinians, even if they were more or less forced to switch to Arabic. Their language prior to that is what early Christians in the Holy Land spoke.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Saint Frances of Rome
9.III.2021

Friday, March 5, 2021

Sigurd - un héro, deux saints


À quoi servent Les Eddas? · Le Qohelet de Codex regius · Hávamál et Torah · Sigurd - un héro, deux saints · Juste l'une des deux traditions, et encore mainte improbabilité

Il se trouve, partie de Skáldskaparmál et la plupart des poëmes en Codex regius concernent Sigurd, le tueur de Fafnir, et non pas directement (ou pas tellement) des dieux nordiques.

Il se trouve aussi, ce Sigurd est connu comme Sigfried dans un poëme en allemand médiéval-classique (Mittelhochdeutsch) qui s'appelle Nibelungenlied. Là, ça ne concerne pas du tout les dieux nordiques.

Il ne faut pas se méprendre sur ce que Wagner a fait de ces textes, son libretto pour "Ring der Nibelungen" n'est pas fidèle ni à l'une, ni à l'autre des sources. Il faut de Wotan (dieux nordique principal, déjà évoqué comme probablement historique) un forme de père ou providence derrière Sigfried, le héro parfait - et montre une réaction paternelle d'aversion quand le jeunot le dépasse.

Wagner a fait une chose qu'il n'aurait pas pu faire dans la théologie chrétienne, car il aurait été accusé de blasphème (encore punissable en Suède en 1950, Strindberg avait été condamné par blasphème contre l'ordonnance biblique du mariage, et de la suite il s'est réfugié en France, et je ne pense pas que Bavière entre 1848 et 1874 aurait négligé ceci non plus). Donc, il le repousse sur des faux dieux, qu'on ne pouvait pas blasphémer en Bavière catholique. Sa version est donc strictement hors le propos.

Les versions eddiques sont nettement moins concernées avec les dieux, la version allemande pas du tout. Par contre, les deux versions sont concernés de Gondicaire (arrière-grand-père de Sainte Clotilde) dont Sigfried / Sigurd va épouser la sœur, et ni l'une ni l'autre se doutent que les Burgondes étaient des Ariens. C'est possible que le royaume rhénan des Burgondes (où il régnait) ne l'était même pas ...

Comment, sous le principat de Théodose le Jeune, les Burgondes ont embrassé la religion chrétienne.... Depuis ce temps, la nation des Burgondes a professé avec le plus grand zèle la religion chrétienne.


Socrate le Scolastique, Histoire de l'Église, livre VII, chapitre XXX. Cité d'après la wikipédie.

... bien que, par la providence de Dieu, tous étant depuis peu devenus chrétiens dans la foi catholique et ayant accueilli les membres de notre clergé pour se soumettre à eux, ils vivent avec douceur, avec tranquillité et sans faire le mal, regardant les Gaulois non comme des sujets, mais vraiment comme des frères chrétiens


Orose, Histoire, 32 d'après la même source.

L'arianisme serait selon une érudite, Katalin Escher, venu plus tard, dans le royaume rhodanien ... même là on a un saint Sigismond converti au christianisme nicéen ...

Sigurd, version nordique, ignore le Christianisme, Sigfried version allemande le laisse paraître comme plus ou moins Catholique, et selon Katalin Escher ce serait à propos. Quand sa femme (sœur de Gondicaire, comme dit) se querelle avec Brunehaut, femme de Gondicaire, la version allemande pose la querelle après une messe, sur le parvis d'une église à Worms, tandis que la version nordique la pose dans un bain dans la rivière. Les deux endroits ou situations sont compatibles avec une querelle sur la précédence entre deux femmes.

Cette querelle va se solder dans le meurtre de Sigurd ou Sigfried. Brunehaut va demander sa mort, l'obtenir, et ensuite se suicider pour le fait de ne pas le pouvoir avoir comme mari. Pour la version nordique, Sigurd et Brunehaut se réunissent dans l'au-delà, elle redevient Valkyrie, ce qu'elle est juste dans la version nordique, et lui est mort en héros, a le droit à Valhalla. Pour la version allemande, elle est juste une païenne ... son suicide ne conduit à aucun bonheur.

Entretemps, selon les deux versions, la veuve de Sigurd / Sigfried va épouser Attila le Hun (que certains ont considéré comme modèle d'Odin aussi!), qu'elle s'appelle Gudrun dans le Nord ou Kriemhild dans la poëme allemand. Et c'est comme invité de celui-ci que Gondicaire va trouver la mort, avec un homme mystérieux, considéré par les Norrois comme son frère (Högni) et par les Allemands comme son vassal (Hagen, latin Hago). Si son surnom "von Tronje" s'expliquerait comme quoi il ressemblait à une trogne? ou comme quoi il était seigneur de Trognée? Ce deuxième propos serait ahistorique, car le village n'existait que depuis le IXe siècle.

Et chez Attila, ils vont mourir. Imaginons que Hitler aurait eu un poëme comme Les Lusiades, il est beaucoup plus païen que Nibelungenlied, beaucoup plus expansionniste. Il a eu Nibelungenlied, et pour ceux qui savaient (ils étaient beaucoup) ça n'était pas vraiment une inspiration pour l'invasion de l'Est. Les Burgondiens qui dedans vont à l'Est y vont pour mourir, misérablement, piégés dans une pseudohospitalité et en commettant des meurtres de proches (Gernot et Giselher sont oncle et neveu, ils se tuent).

Ce n'est pas du tout ce poëme, ni pour les national-socialistes qui commettaient atrocités, ni pour les néo-païens, qui déterminait leur position. Mais ni même la version nordique est strictement parlée mythologique, elle nous vient juste des mêmes sources eddiques que la mythologie.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Phocas, martyr à Antioch
5.III.2021

PS - les deux saints sont donc Saint Sigfrid de Skenningue, missionaire venu d'Angleterre, présumable auditeur du poëme de Beowulf, et allé chez le peuple de cet autre héro, les Suédois, et Saint Siffrein, j'ai vérifié à Carpentras que l'église Saint Siffrein est en latin dédié à "sancti Sigifredi" ... l'article l'appelle en plus Saint Siffret comme forme alternative. On a théorisé que Brunehaut, femme de Gondicaire et épris de lui, aurait été une simple copie de la reine franque Brunehaut, mais on peut également supposer que celle-ci était appelé d'après le personnage "mythologique" selon certains .../HGL

Contradicting a Modernist


One "NO" on Christian History and Archaeology, same group where I deal with admin Drew Gasaway.

Putting out a list on things we should all able to agree or consider

  • 1. The children of Israel did not build the pyramids. Doesn’t add up and the Bible never says they did, they made bricks
  • 2. The use of Numbers isn’t always meant to be taken literally. It’s called numerology and ancient writers used numbers to commentary for example there will be a wiki in the comment section
  • 3. The Dead Sea scroll are useful for what they can tell us of the time period they were written and biblical transmission but they weren’t Christians and we shouldn’t look to them for theology and the answer to what should be in our Bible.
  • 4. Abraham probably didn’t speak the same language as Moses who probably didn’t speak the same language of the later prophets for the same reason Italians don’t speak Latin and we don’t speak old English
  • 5. all of the New Testament was written in Koine Greek
  • 6. There are no dinosaurs in the Bible though mythical creature are referenced but not as literal animals don’t go digging for leviathan bones
  • 7. There is no need to connect Job to a historical time or place the author(s) probable avoided doing so because it’s parable with nothing connecting it with the historical narratives.
  • 8. It’s very likely that the different Books in the Bible have multiple writers and editors.


My considerations on each of these ...

1. The children of Israel did not build the pyramids. Doesn’t add up and the Bible never says they did, they made bricks

Granted for Exodus. For Joseph in Egypt he arguably was involved in heading buildings or came after last of them. But he certainly did not get pushed about with whips to do so.

2. The use of Numbers isn’t always meant to be taken literally. It’s called numerology and ancient writers used numbers to commentary for example there will be a wiki in the comment section

Numbers that are symbolic tend to be symbolic numbers. However, not even a symbolic number, like 40, must be taken non-literally, since literal events of the Bible often have symbolic meanings. A human author can very well put symbolic meanings into a fiction, God who is infinitely wise and allmighty providence can put them into real events.

Non-symbolic numbers (like nearly all lifespans in Genesis 5 and 11, exceptions being one living 777 years and Henoch living 365 years) must be taken literally, since it doesn't make sense to take them symbolically.

666 is a literal gematria of a person or more than one person alive in the end times. St. John says to calculate and does not say to speculate on symbolism. However, symbols may be there too, we aren't forbidden to speculate on them. But for identifying the Beast, while that gematria is not sufficient, it is a minimum. Napoléon doesn't add up, and if it does not mean Apollyon, which it does not, it cannot be made to add up either (five cases of Apollyon, like five cases of Apollon, that adds up to 4666/2666 in Greek gematria).

3. The Dead Sea scroll are useful for what they can tell us of the time period they were written and biblical transmission but they weren’t Christians and we shouldn’t look to them for theology and the answer to what should be in our Bible.

If they were pre-Christians of a sort Jesus would have considered as faithful, their theology may need updates as all OT, but their inclusion of texts is authoritative and their practises may indicate theological points. As I recall, they were

4. Abraham probably didn’t speak the same language as Moses who probably didn’t speak the same language of the later prophets for the same reason Italians don’t speak Latin and we don’t speak old English

Let's check. Genesis 14 is when Abraham was between 75 years, like 1940 BC and when he would probably have been 80 or 86, like 1935 or 1929 BC. Exodus was in 1510 BC (using dates of Roman martyrology). 1940 - 1510 = 430 years. Now, 430 years ago, 1591, we don't have Cicero, even Boethius, or King Alfred, we have in Italian letters Andrea Cornaro (I checked) and in English letters Shakespeare was around. Italians who don't understand the prose of Cornaro and Englishmen who don't understand most verses in Shakespear are not very educated.

Anything Abraham wrote, and I think Genesis from chapter 12 on was written after Abraham had fixated most of chapters 1 to 11 (but not the account of six days, revealed to Moses) into writing, since the chapters become more prolix and detailed in life events, anything he wrote would have been readable to Moses. Perhaps their pronunciation was not identic, very certainly ours is not that to Shakespear's, but that doesn't mean same letters could not be read.

5. all of the New Testament was written in Koine Greek

Granted, unless you mean "originally" since St. Matthew first wrote in "Hebrew" - could be Hebrew or Aramaic - and then translated to koiné.

Also, while Apocalypse was written overall in koiné, we need not exclude word meanings found in older versions of Greek, since these were in koiné literate circles considered as part of the same Greek as they used. I specifically consider it certain that St. John knew Homer's Iliad. That is where Apollon is first called Apollyon. Meanings from Authenriet are not excluded from exposing the Apocalypse.

6. There are no dinosaurs in the Bible though mythical creature are referenced but not as literal animals don’t go digging for leviathan bones

Totally discarded. I think unicorn bones have been found in what is now named Triceratops horridus, and that young examples of it only had front horn on nose, whole older ones acquired extra horns on what was the crest (though not in the race Centroceratops) first two more in Triceratops, then some more in Styracosaurus. Not sure whether Leviathan was an ancient croc or an ancient T Rex or something else.

7. There is no need to connect Job to a historical time or place the author(s) probable avoided doing so because it’s parable with nothing connecting it with the historical narratives.

16 And Job lived after [his] affliction a hundred and seventy years: and all the years he lived were two hundred and forty: and Job saw his sons and his sons’ sons, the fourth generation. And Job died, an old man and full of days: 17α and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. 17β This man is described in the Syriac book [as] living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; 17γ and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. 17δ And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Baac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. 17ε And [his] friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad son of the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Kinaeans.

Job 42, LXX (Ellopos)
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=25&page=42


Vulgate was translated from a Hebrew original after Jews had rehashed Genesis 11 chronology to allow Shem to be Melchisedec, and since it is said Job offered a sacrifice, this means that Jews would have a similar problem with the historicity of this book. Especially if they don't make the connection to Moses' father in law Jethro.

8. It’s very likely that the different Books in the Bible have multiple writers and editors.

If all you mean by an editor is someone making linguistic updates, I definitely agree. All books of the Old Testament have a different way of noting (if at all) vowels in Leningrad Codex to back 2000 years ago.

If you mean someone adding or deleting passages after hagiographer (or in some cases final hagiographer) wrote it, no. Unless you mean situations like Moses delegating Joshua to write last chapter of Deuteronomy or Joshua delegating someone else to write last chapter of Joshua. Nothing beyond "still to this day"

In cases of books spanning many centuries and therefore many generations, it is obvious that if any event was written or dictated by contemporaries, the contributing writers would involve more than a final author, like Genesis, with Moses as final author, Judges, IV Kings, or the two books of Paralipomena.

Thursday, March 4, 2021

Hávamál et Torah


À quoi servent Les Eddas? · Le Qohelet de Codex regius · Hávamál et Torah · Sigurd - un héro, deux saints

Notons, je ne vais pas dire que Odin était à la hauteur de Moïse, mais, dans les deux cas, des érudits modernes ont trouvé l'attribution d'auteur exclue parce que la forme linguistique considérée comme accessible au présumé et traditionnel auteur était autre que celle de la plus ancienne forme des textes parvenue en écrit à nous.

Prenons "deyr sjalfr it sama," et remontons à la réconstruction par Jackson Crawford, qui est "daujiþ selβaz samō". Un moment donné, on décide que les "au" devant i, j, ji doivent se prononcer dans le texte comme déjà dans la langue courante "öy", et ça se prononce "döyjiþ selβaz samō". Un autre moment, on abrège les voyelles atones, les déjà brèves en les faisant disparaître, les longues en les mettant en brèves, aussi décidé avec un délai après que tout locuteur nordique prononce de la nouvelle manière : "döyþ selβz sama". Pour la fricative voisée et pour β > v, ça vient presque avec les changements, "döyð selvz sama", et une ou deux générations après, on ajoute un article et on rompe une de voyelles, "döyð syalvz hit sama". Finalement, on remplace la désinence de la troisième personne avec celle de la deuxième personne, comme en français celle-ci a envahi plutôt la première (je prend, tu prens, devenu je prens, tu prens, et ensuite le d orthorgaphique restauré par analogie), donc on prononcera "döyz syalvz hit sama" juste avent de muter le z en r (en dialect parisien, les formes "parler, finir" avec r prononcé ont muté inversement en z avant de les amuire, "parlez, finiz", "parlé, fini" ce qui sera renversé par l'orthographe et d'autres dialectes dans le cas de "finir", mais pas dans le Nouveau Monde), on prononce alors "döyr syalvr it sama" et à cette étape, on le pose en écrit dans l'orthographe déjà citée au début.

Ce processus conserve donc rigoureusement le texte, mais il change la forme linguistique du texte.

Pour un texte écrit, une telle mise à jour est encore plus facile, comme les nouvelles éditions de vers ou prose du XIXe siècle subissent les changements d'orthographe des années 1860-70 et de 1906, pour la prose aussi l'abolition de la conjugaison au pluriel, 1950 (c'est comme dans le français, si des politicards avaient décidé d'abolir le passé simple).

Le genre de processus rend comme déjà dit possible que Hávamál soit écrit par Odin, mais aussi, ce qui importe davantage, et comme c'est le fait, que Moïse est l'auteur de la Torah, quelle qu'était la langue plus ou moins hébraïque parlé à son époque. Si la prononciation "wayyar ‘elohim ‘eth-ha’owr" est trop moderne, peut-être que Moïse (à qui les six jours furent donnés comme révélation en vision) les a rédigés en une langue plus ancienne, on a parlé de proto-sinaïtique. Je n'ai pas de Jackson Crawford pour le proto-sinaïtique, je ne vais pas donner une réconstruction, mais si c'était le cas, des cohanim ont changé l'orthographe à fur et mesure que la prononciation de l'hébreu changeait, sauf dans les cas que la vieille orthographe pouvaient s'adapter à la nouvelle prononciation sans changement.

Et entre Adam et Moïse, l'écart est plus long, entre 4004 et 1491 avant Jésus-Christ selon Ussher* (chronologie acceptable pour la Vulgate) et entre 5199 et 1510 selon le martyrologe romain** (pour 25 décembre, qui situe donc la naissance du Sauveur par rapport à divers évenéments), c'est à dire 2513 ou 3689 ans. Là on a un écart encore plus important, et c'est possible que le hébreu original se soit déjà diversifié dans ce temps entre hébreu, gheez et arabe, ce qui permettrait les Éthiopiens et les Latins d'être les deux bien renseignés sur la première langue, sans qu'il y ait de la contradiction. Dans ce cas, on aurait un phénomène analogue à la diversité entre "daujiþ selβaz samō" et "deyr sjalfr it sama" pour les sources successives de Moïse pour les évenéments des premiers onze chapitres de la Genèse.

Ces textes sont plus courts que Hávamál pour chacun, donc, une transmission absolument fidèle est parfaitement possible, compte tenu du changement linguistique, bien entendu.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Casimir de Vilnius
4.III.2021

PS, bêtise par fatigue, hier, en l'écrivant, j'ai reconstruit "daujiþ selβaz samō" en troisième personne, tandis que j'aurais dû reconstruire "daujiz selβaz samō" dans la deuxième, parce que je viens de traduire "[tu] meurs [toi-]même de même". Par contre, daujiþ fehu" au début, là on a la désinence de la troisième personne remplacé, en restant encore troisième personne, par la désinence de la deuxième personne./HGL

* pour Ussher : CMI : Timeline of the Bible (PDF)
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/timeline_of_the_bible.pdf

** pour le martyrologe romain : Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html

Le Qohelet de Codex regius


À quoi servent Les Eddas? · Le Qohelet de Codex regius · Hávamál et Torah · Sigurd - un héro, deux saints

Francis Bergeron ayant prétendu qu'on trouvait plutôt une Odyssée qu'une Bible païenne dans l'Edda, il convient de noter que non seulement Codex regius a dans Voluspá une "Genèse" (mais pas plus loin que chapitre 9) avec une Apocalypse, mais un autre poëme se fait remarquer par sa similitude avec la littérature de sagesse de la Bible. Hávamál est très loin d'Ulysse. Il est en certains aspects très proche aux livres des Proverbes, Ecclesiastes, Syrachide dans la Bible.

Comme il est censé être rédigé par Odin, ceci va avec ce que je viens de dire sur le disciple fourvoyé de Josué Ben Pekharia. Par contre, l'objection classique est, il est en vieux norrois, et cette langue n'existait pas encore à cette époque. Proto-nordique, connu par les cornes de Gallehus, est une autre langue que vieux norrois, connu par exemple de la prose de Snorre ou des poëmes de Codex regius.

Pour prouver le point, en proto-nordique, on peut écrire (et donc dire) "ek hlewagastiz holtingaz horna tawiðo" ce qui serait en vieux norrois "ek Hlégestr höltingr táðði horn[in]". La distance est plus grande qu'entre la fibule de Préneste et la langue de Cicéron. En effet, c'est en parallèle avec le développment entre latin et français, avec des syllabes non accentuées qui disparaissent. Alors, pourrait-on transposer la strophe la plus célèbre de Hávamál en proto-nordique? Je la cite d'abord:

Deyr fé,
deyja frændr,
deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn,
at aldri deyr:
dómr um dauðan hvern.


Traduisons : "meurt la bétaille, meurent les proches, meurs toi-même de même, je sais une [chose] qui jamais ne meurt : le jugement d'un homme mort."

Bien entendu, on peut traduire ceci an proto-nordique probable, mais la question est, peut-on le faire en gardant une quelconque métrique du poëme?

Jackson Crawford est spécialiste de vieux norrois, il fut consulté pour le film Thor (basé sur Marvel Comics) parce qu'on avait besoin (après Game of Thrones, lui-même après le Seigneur des Anneaux par Peter Jackson) d'une autre langue que l'anglais parlée de manière réaliste et sous-titré. Il a fait des vidéos entre autres sur la relation du proto-nordique au vieux norrois, et dans une, il donne la traduction métrique en proto-nordique de cette strophe.

Old Norse vs. Proto-Norse (Elder Futhark Language)
30 sept. 2020 | Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8CdCoUo8kA


Il est païen, et il y a des publicités pour amulettes, ce qui n'empêche pas que son propos est pertinent. N'imitons pas le puritanisme qui évite chaque évocation d'une chose païenne, St. Augustin d'Hippone nous donne un exemple contraire plus qu'une fois en La Cité de Dieu. Après 16:09, il va donner sa transposition en proto-nordique. Et elle sonne métrique.

Donc, ça a pu être rédigé en tant qu'original en proto-nordique et notre version extante est dans ce cas une forme avec des mises à jour linguistiques. Avec une transmission orale, ça ne se faisait pas avec des échanges d'orthographe notées sur papier, mais avec des décisions d'adaptation de la forme apprise à la langue parlée.

Mais, avec des contenus proche d'un livre de la Bible, serait-ce peut-être dû à l'influence chrétienne? Après tout, l'évêque Sæmundr le confie au papier en étant lui-même un Chrétien, non? Islande est convertie l'an 1000 (avec précision!). La première citation de ces deux strophes est par Eyvindr Skáldaspillir en Hákonarmál et ceci autour de 960 - en honneur d'un roi à tendance chrétienne, mais le poëme le pose en Valhalla, donc, le poëte va pas avoir pris ça du Christianisme.

Coïncidence, alors? Les coïncidences s'accumulent, un peu. Si Antoine de Rivarol en prolétaire tendance plouc fustige l'inversion, par rapport à la grammaire du vieux norrois, il y a inversion après inversion au long de la première moitié, comme noté par ma traduction. Par contre, par rapport à l'hébreu (langue maternelle d'Odin s'il est Yéchou, ou proche, si sa langue maternelle était l'aramaïque) c'est l'ordre normal du discours. Genèse 1:4 "wayyar ‘elohim ‘eth-ha’owr" = "vit Dieu la lumière"*. Des langues Celtiques, comme l'Irlandais et le Gallois partagent cet ordre - même verset "do chonnairc Día an solus:"** ou "Gwelodd Duw fod"***. En hébreu, ivorgne et bière-ou-cidre est de la même racine, et en Hávamál strophe 14 on trouve "Ölr ek varð" = "biéreux (ivre) je devins". Le contexte est une confession personnelle d'une occasion ratée où Odin était ivre - peu probable pour une divinité purement spirituelle héritée des loitains ancêtres hypthétiques indo-européens, mais très en charactère avec le disciple de Josué Ben Pékharia. En plus, l'alittération est un rhyme initial consonantique. La même consonne est répété (pour le mot deyr, parce que répété, mais pour dómr et dauðan ou pour sjalfr et sama ce sont des mots différents). Pour les débuts en voyelle ... einn et aldri débutent en voyelles différentes - comme si un début vocalique était un début consonantique avec consonne initiale muette, aleph. Dans le contexte, un début vocalique en presque chaque dialect germanique, nordique, allemand, anglais ou j'en passe, n'a pas de liaison, mais plutôt "h aspiré".

Snorrë en son histoire° norroise (suédoise et norvégienne) pose que le fils d'Yngwë Frey qui était fils adoptif ou beau-fils d'Odin était invité chez Frothon le fils de Hadding. Saxo Grammaticus le confirme. Pour Snorrë, celui était identique à Frothon de la paix, contemporain de César Auguste, pour Saxo Grammaticus, il y avait des siècles entre les deux. Selon la chronologie de Snorrë, donc, Odin vivait un peu avant, genre aux temps de Jules César (ce qui m'occasionnait mon autre piste à propos son identité : druide gaulois). C'est un peu tard pour Yéchou, mais notons qu'entre Daniel et Bar Kokhba, la chronologie juive est raccourcie, donc il y a des choses qui se passaient réellement plus tard qui viennent pour eux plus proches du début.

Autre chose à noter à propos la strophe citée : en syntaxe latine, le génitif apposé à un substantif verbal peut être à la fois objectif et subjectif. "Amor Dei" peut vouloir dire "Dieu aime" ou "NN aime Dieu". "Amor Dei erga mundum non pepercit filium unicum" et "amor Dei et proximi sunt debita hominis". En syntaxe germanique on distingue très nettement les deux, et "jugement de quelqu'un" comme "porté sur quelqu'un" s'exprime avec préposition, "dómr um dauðan hvern". Tolkien a espéré trouver dans le poëte de Beowulf - qui était un Chrétien - un adversaire explicite du Feeneyisme, un exposant de la théorie qu'un païen vertueux peut être sauvé. Or, si Beowulf en mourant espère "soðfæstra dom" ceci n'est pas "le jugement réservé aux justes" mais bien "le jugement par les justes."

Si de coutume moderne la matière de Beowulf est associée à la mythologie nordique, il n'est justement pas mythologique dans le sens d'exposer une mythologie païenne. Le poëte parle certes de païens, mais en précisant d'eux "[qu']ils méconnurent leur Faiseur" et que "l'ennemi des âmes" les séduisit à l'idolatrie. Ce poëme est aussi de la poësie anglo-saxonne qui ne sait rien des mythes nordiques, et les incidents sont complètement ignorés que ce soit de Snorrë, que ce soit de Sæmundr. La structure semble une inversion de l'ordre entre l'Iliade et l'Odyssée, avec un voyage et un retour posés au début et à la fin par contre une bataille menant à la mort et au bucher funèbre (coutûme païenne chez les Grecs comme chez les Nordiques) d'un héro très principal, avec des dialogues avant, comme pour Hector. Soit le clergé anglosaxon était très poussé en Grec avant la Conquête normande, soit un Byzantin est devenu moine ou prêtre et a parmi eux écrit ce texte. Je l'espère pour Photius (qui n'est pas mort en excommunié par un pape, mais par contre en obscurité, comme entré dans un monastère). Il a probablement inspiré un Sigfrid de devenir missionaire parmi les Suédois.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Casimir de Vilnius
4.III.2021

Vilnae, in Lithuania, beati Casimiri Confessoris, e Casimiro Rege progeniti: quem Leo Decimus, Romanus Pontifex, in Sanctorum numerum retulit.

* Word Order [Biblical Hebrew]
https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/word_order.html


** An Chead Leabhar do Mhaoisi Da Ngoirthear Genesis
The First Book of Moses Known as Genesis
http://theirishbible.ie/OT/1-Genesis-Irish-and-KJV.pdf


*** Welsh Genesis
https://etabetapi.com/read/cy/Gen/1


Par contraste - le breton a : "Ha Doué a welaz pénaoz."

° Connue comme Heimskringla.