On a considéré Chesterton comme Antisémite

En fait, Chesterton ne se qualifiait pas comme tel de sa propre bouche, il prenait plutôt une neutralité bienveillante entre Chrétiens philosémites et Chrétiens antisémites. Il était un philosémite modéré, qui pourtant ne démonisait pas les antisémites - quand il s'agit des Chrétiens.

Dans la Belle Époque, dans les années 20', et en dehors d'Allemagne, même les années 30' le mot "antisémite" ne visait pas forcément à chaque utilisation quelqu'un qui prenait chaque Juif ou quasiment comme complice des Protocoles des Sages de Sion*, et encore moins à chaque fois quelqu'un qui serait capable de casser la vitrine d'une boutique parce que le proprio était Juif.

Ça qualifiait quelqu'un simplement qui était capable de trouver que tel ou tel Juif avait tort ou faisait le tort d'une manière conditionnée par le fait d'être Juif. Ce qu'était le cas avec Chesterton : mais alors il était aussi philosémite, bien capable de trouver qu'un Juif faisait le bien ou disait le vrai d'une manière également conditionnée par le fait de psalmodier en hébreu ou de vénérer des rouleaux de la Torah.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton était un écrivain assez assidu des nouvelles, dont une grande collection dédié au Père Brown, SJ. Je viens de lire ou de relire deux nouvelles en dehors de cette collection. L'assassin modéré et L'homme au renard, dans le même volume. Par le même traducteur.

Certes. Il y a dans l'un un Juif qui est malhonnête. Le Dr. Gregory. Son malhonnêteté consiste en partie en une capacité de harcèlement sexuel et en partie en une capacité plus grand d'exciter des soulèvements que de s'y sacrifier lui-même. Il ne viole pas et il ne commet pas de meurtre. Un homme un peu plus honnête le donne un coup de poing.

Le même homme qui le donne ce coup de poing est aussi un homme qui dit ou accorde plutôt à une patriote excédée par ses propos anticoloniaux qu'il est menteur - mais dit la vérité.

"Est c'est une situation dangereuse qui prévaut dans la presse et l'opinion quand seulement les menteurs disent la vérité."

Hume le qualifie de menteur parce que Mademoiselle Barbara Traill venait de le qualifier de tel. Mais il ajoute qu'il dit la vérité.

Qui sont les vrais méchants?

Dans l'assassin modéré, où se trouve Dr. Gregory, le vrai méchant en tant que personne humaine est le vice-gouverneur, qui n'aime pas le compromis proposé par le gouverneur de Polybie**, mais pour une raison opposée à celle de Dr. Gregory, anticolonial en principe farouche. Le vice-gouverneur aurait voulu se débarrasser du gouverneur pour faire une politique de zéro autonomie. Même au prix d'une guerre.

Le méchant en tant que principe, pas non plus le Judaïsme, c'est la superstition psychiatrique.

"On reproche aux vieilles nourrices de faire peur aux enfants avec leurs histoires de croquemitaines, qui pourtant tournent vite à la blague. Que ne devrait-on dire de ces nouvelles nourrices qui laissent les enfants s'effrayer tous seuls avec ces modernes croquemitaines qu'ils sont censés prendre aux sérieux! Ma chère enfant, il n'y a pas plus à craindre pour votre frère que pour vous. ... Supposons tout de même qu'il reste un peu plus enfant que nous autres. Est-ce si terrible d'être un enfant? ... Être un enfant n'est pas une maladie. Même rester un enfant n'est pas une maladie."

Plus, bien entendu, la propensité des extrémistes à la violence, qu'ils soient de gauche ou de droite.

Il y a un faux suspect, un vieux "curé" anglicane qui s'intéresse à l'Apocalypse. Tout évidemment, dirais-je, il ne s'intéresse pas à la déclencher, mais ce n'est pas ce que pensent les adeptes des hystéries psychiatriques (les croquemitaines modernes).

Dans l'autre histoire, un prêcheur est effectivement un coupable : il s'agit d'un progressiste, d'un évangélique social, qui recommande le seigneur du manoir de faire son maximum pour fermer les tavernes et éliminer l'alcool.

Ni Mr. Meade, l'anglicane apocalyptique, ni David East, le prêcheur abstentionniste, ni le vice-gouverneur, n'étaient des Juifs.

Je suis sûr que Chesterton n'aurait pas voulu se faire publier en traduction allemande dans Der Stürmer, mais, supposé qu'il l'avait voulu, je ne crois pas qu'il aurait été considéré comme suffisamment antisémite dans le sens hitlérien. Il avait un certain respect pour Mussolini***, une tendresse pour Dollfuß, mais il vomissait plutôt Hitler, en tant que politicien.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Pompidou
St. Étienne de Lyon
13.II.2020

Antiochiae natalis sancti Agabi Prophetae, de quo beatus Lucas in Actibus Apostolicis scribit. ... Lugduni, in Gallia, sancti Stephani, Episcopi et Confessoris.

PS, évidemment, Chesterton ne considérait pas les TdeJ comme extrémistes politiques./HGL

* Même si c'était le cas d'un père Kolbe, OFM. ** Géographiquement apparenté à Syldavie ou a Ruritania. *** Son attitude à propos du Duce variait. Ses propos les plus généreux envers lui étaient dans le livre The Resurrection of Rome, 1930. Bien avant une quelleconque tournure antisémite ou racialiste de celui-ci.

Do Not Trust "Saint" Theophan the Recluse on Hagiography

Was Peter the Aleut a Martyr? · Do Not Trust "Saint" Theophan the Recluse on Hagiography

He lied about St. Ephrem the Syrian claiming he had pretended to be a disciple of the heretic Apollinaris in order to sabotage the books in which he had put his "dialectic" against "the Orthodox".

The real Apollinaris was bishop of Laodicaea, as I found out by consulting the wikipedia, he was not put to shame by the embarrassment of not being able to open his books, as Theophan lied, or as by the lie THeophan promoted, but by a Council which very much was able to open his books.

And he did not write openly "against the Orthodox", he wrote against Arians, and so was an apparent ally to all the Orthodox, but a bad one.

It is possible that St. Ephrem (who died before the Council at Constantinople in 381) called the bishop of Laodicaea out, but he did not do so by sneaking to get private access to the books of Apollinaris and sabotage them. Apollinaris would not have needed to confide his books to an old woman, since he lived as a bishop, and St. Ephrem would not have calumnied his own Orthodoxy by claiming before the old woman to be a disciple of a de facto heretic.

But even more : clerical duties held them in different cities. St. Ephrem lived in Edessa, in the Syrian part of what is now Turkey, and the city is now called Şanlıurfa. He was a deacon of Edessa. Apollinaris was bishop of Laodicaea, which is now called Latakia (or rather, the ancient city is some small distance away from the modern one, as with Pompei). By car you drive nearly six hours from Latakia to Şanlıurfa.

"5 h 44 min (453.5 km) via Adana-Şanlıurfa Otoyolu/O-52/E90"

And yes, it is precisely this bishop Apollinaris who was a Christological heretic and got condemned on Constantinople I. It was not a layman - a lay theologian smartass - who concocted the heresy. Proposing St. Ephrem could have walked into the home of the heretic while he was absent is ridiculous.

The story told by Theophan the Recluse is probably made to sanctify the methods of the infamous Okhrana. Because Феофа́н Затво́рник or Theophanes the Recluse lived January 10, 1815 – January 6, 1894 in Imperial Russia. From his cradle in Chernavsk to his grave in Kazan, he lived under the Czarist administration, which in 1881 formed the Okhrana. Only 13 years before his death? Yes. Perhaps after he had told this story which is not true about St. Ephrem? Possible. If so he contributed to the dishonesty of the Okhrana and to the fall of the Czars.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Val d'Europe
Apparition of Our Lady in Lourdes
11.II.2020

Reasons Against? Like against year 47 AD

New blog on the kid : Change in Martyrology ... · My Benefactor had Some Points to Make on the Post About the Change in Martyrology · Remaining Questions · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Reasons Against? Like against year 47 AD

I gave Stephan Borgehammar a certain question, or actually two, but he had given another year, later, than I for events of Acts 21 - 23.

I had given 47. And now a few quick looks into wiki seem to ruin my theory completely. With just a glimpse of hope at the end.

Here is the office of Porcius Festus:

The exact time of Festus in office is not known. The earliest proposed date for the start of his term is c. A.D. 55-6, while the latest is A.D. 61. These extremes have not gained much support and most scholars opt for a date between 58 and 60. F. F. Bruce says that, "The date of his [Felix's] recall and replacement by Porcius Festus is disputed, but a change in the provincial coinage of Judaea attested for Nero's fifth year points to A.D. 59" Conybeare and Howson lay out an extended argument for the replacement taking place in A.D. 60.

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

So, he replaced one Felix, and since we do not know the same event under the other form of when Felix' term ceased, here is for start of it:

Marcus Antonius Felix (Felix, in Greek: ὁ Φῆλιξ, born between 5/10-?) was the Roman procurator of Judea Province 52–60, in succession to Ventidius Cumanus.

In fact, Acts 23 would seem to take place while Felix is still in office:

After Paul the Apostle was arrested in Jerusalem and rescued from a plot against his life, the local Roman chiliarch Claudius Lysias transferred him to Caesarea, where he stood trial before Felix. On at least one further occasion Felix and his wife Drusilla heard Paul discourse, and later on frequently sent for Paul and talked with him (Acts 24:24-26). When Felix was succeeded as procurator, having already detained Paul for two years, he left him imprisoned as a favor to the Jews (Acts 24:27).

Then procurator changes before Acts 26 - I had missed that, so while "not mad most noble Festus" is from Acts 26, Acts of Apostles 26:25, after the occasion with High Priest Ananias in Acts 23, in Acts 24 it is before Felix that St. Paul appears:

We accept it always and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thanksgiving.
[Acts of Apostles 24:3]

This gives a gap from 47 to 52 to account for ... one way would be looking into the sources we have for when they succeeded each other.

Fadus is mentioned Joseph. Ant. xix. 9, xx. 5. § 1, Bell. Jud. ii. 11. § 5; Tac. Hist. v. 9 ; Zonar. xii. 11; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 11. Tiberius Julius Alexander is mentioned in Josephus, Antiquities 20.100 as promoted and - key - by Josephus, Antiquities 20.101-103; The Wars of the Jews 2.220.* as replaced by ...

Ventidius Cumanus, on whom: Nothing is known about Cumanus before he was appointed procurator of Iudaea in 48, in succession to Tiberius Julius Alexander. At approximately the same time as the death of Herod of Chalcis;

And footnotes have: see Josephus, War 2.223; Antiquities 20.103-104.

Oh, wait, this ties it up with fine points of grammar about a probably short mention in Josephus in connection with another event.

However, Tacitus states that Felix was already governing Samaria before 52, while Cumanus had authority over Galilee to the north (see map).[3] Tacitus does not mention who controlled other areas of the province.

Footnote 3 says Tacitus, Annals 12.54.

At the end of Acts 23, we are told St. Paul is sent to Caesarea.

However, Caesarea was in Samaria, and in Samaria Felix was already in place before replacing Cumanus in 52.

And in Acts 24, we get another time constraint, verses 25-27:

And as he treated of justice, and chastity, and of the judgment to come, Felix being terrified, answered: For this time, go thy way: but when I have a convenient time, I will send for thee. Hoping also withal, that money should be given him by Paul; for which cause also oftentimes sending for him, he spoke with him. But when two years were ended, Felix had for successor Portius Festus. And Felix being willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.

This would place Acts 24 in 58, if the succession is the well known one when Felix leaves Judaea to Festus. Would rule out my theory very efficiently, at least supposing the shift was in 60, and it was at least under Nero ...

However, what if Felix left Samaria to Festus when he took over Judaea from Cumanus? If so, we must also assume, St Paul was staying in or coming back to Caesarea during this time.

As I have a little cold** I'll take a break before getting back to - well, from wiki to its sources.

Ah, back!*** Now, what sources am I supposed to look at again ...

Josephus Antiquities: xix. 9, 20.100, 20.101-103, 20.103-104, so, 19-20 will give a nice pensum.
Josephus Jewish War: Bell. Jud. ii. 11. § 5, The Wars of the Jews 2.220, War 2.223, so, Jewish war 2.
Tac. Hist. v. 9, so Histories V
Tac. Annals 12.54, so Annals 12

But the main point of my option to repair the idea is, the reference for Felix being in command in Samaria while his predecessor Cumanus was in command in Judaea.

54 1 The like moderation, however, was not shewn by his brother, surnamed Felix;25 who for a while past had held the governorship of Judaea, and considered that with such influences behind him all malefactions would be venial. The Jews, it is true, had given signs of disaffection in the rioting prompted the news of his murder had made complicity needless, the fear remained p395 that some emperor might issue an identical mandate. In the interval, Felix was fostering crime by misconceived remedies, his worst efforts being emulated by Ventidius Comanus, his colleague in the other half of the province — which was so divided that the natives of Galilee were subject to Ventidius, Samaria to Felix. The districts had long been at variance, and their animosities were now under the less restraint, as they could despise their regents. Accordingly, they harried each other, unleashed their troops of bandits, fought an occasional field, and carried their trophies and their thefts to the procurators. At first, the pair rejoiced; then, when the growth of the mischief forced them to interpose the arms of their troops, the troops were beaten, and the province would have been ablaze with war but for the intervention of Quadratus, the governor of Syria. With regard to the Jews, who had gone so far as to shed the blood of regular soldiers, there were no protracted doubts as to the infliction of the death penalty: Cumanus and Felix were answerable for more embarrassment, as Claudius, on learning the motives of the revolt, had authorized Quadratus to deal with the case of the procurators themselves. Quadratus, however, displayed Felix among the judges, his admission to the tribunal being intended to cool the zeal of his accusers: Cumanus was sentenced for the delinquencies of the two, and quietude returned to the province.

A little later, chapter 58, Nero is sixteen and getting married. That would be in AD 53, so the takeover by Felix over Judaea would be 53 or 52, and my chance would be Felix putting Festus in a subordinate command in Samaria, because this seems as if the parts of the province were reunited under Felix.

So, doesn't seem to match "Felix had for successor Portius Festus."

Unless Tacitus is leaving part of the story out. Now, given the character descriptions of Felix by Tacitus and Festus by St. Paul°, see:

"And Paul said: I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of truth and soberness."
[Acts of Apostles 26:25]

In that case Festus can have started with a real but tacit (easily seen through by Jews) overcommand over Felix. And if St. Paul stood before Festus in 52, in Caesarea, he would have been before Felix in 50. Which would have been just the last year of the 70 weeks of Daniel.

I'm sorry, my cold is not the best condition for continuing this enquiry today, I'll leave off, and ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou
Candlemass
2.II.2020

PS, on St. Blaise' day, I thank God internet allows editing after publication, since I was too tired to add source for the Tacitus quote:

LacusCurtius : TACITUS ANNALS : Book XII (end)
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/12B*.html

I cited, as said, 12:54 from it./HGL

Update:

I actually shared this with Borgehammar, starting a debate, here are two posts in Swedish, one for the letter exchange and one more thematically and less chronologically for the debate itself:

Hans Georg Lundahls Correspondence : Med Borgehammar : correspondencen
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2020/02/med-borgehammar-correspondencen.html

Hans Georg Lundahls Correspondence : Med Borgehammar : discussionen
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2020/02/med-borgehammar-discussionen.html

Footnotes:

* See also Schürer, pp. 456-458. ** Reminding me of a time in Berlin when I had a cardboard "Erkältäter Straßensänger" (yes, I was too feverish to leave erkälteter as I first thought of) ... *** And thanks to the generosity of a certain "Beur" and probable Muslim, much better than I had hoped for! ° Except, St. Paul had used "excellent" as a polite adress to Felix as well, even if he wasn't - take that Quakers!