- Huius autoris bloggi
- Answering a Muslim who asked "If Jesus was [=is] GOD ..."
- Misunderstanding Begging (Some Cultural History of, Blog Theme Obliging) and This Beggar
- Where Orthodox Canonists disagree with Catholic ones about Soldiers in War Communicating
- What's a Docent in Sweden?
Wednesday, May 31, 2023
I have found one word in Job's own words, which can have been the one he considered a folly.
Early on in chapter 7 verse 20, and following, watch this, this is Job speaking:
I have sinned: what shall I do to thee, O keeper of men? why hast thou set me opposite to thee, and I am become burdensome to myself Why dost thou not remove my sin, and why dost thou not take away my iniquity? Behold now I shall sleep in the dust: and if thou seek me in the morning, I shall not be.
So, not only did God reprove Eliu for having called Job a sinner, in his words to Job, He refused to even answer Eliu, but also, Job reproved himself for having called himself a sinner. Or at least for having called himself a sinner going to perdition.
This is the meaning of the beginning of Job 42:
Then Job answered the Lord, and said: 2 I know that thou canst do all things, and no thought is hid from thee. 3 Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge. 4 Hear, and I will speak: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me. 5 With the hearing of the ear, I have heard thee, but now my eye seeth thee. 6 Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes.
Jesus confirmed that God was able to save Job:
And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Job started out as a rich man, even so God could save him./HGL
Monday, May 29, 2023
Je n'ai pas lu les sourates sur lesquels Nicolas de Cues se prononce. Selon elles et selon la lecture qu'en fait Nicolas de Cues, Abraham aurait été d'abord idolâtre. Et il en aurait blâmé son père Thar pour le mauvais example donné. Ceci dans Le Coran Tamisé, libre III, chapitre XII.
Or, Nicolas de Cues nie cette accusation, et il le nie pour Thar et Nachor aussi. Là, il le base probablement sur une lecture de la seule Genèse, car Josué 24:2 le successeur de Moïse dont le nom s'écrit aussi Jésus, dit aux Israëlites que Thar et Nachor (imprécis si "Nachor" c'était le frère ou le grandpère d'Abraham ou les deux) servaient des "dieux étranges" en Mésopotamie. Mais, Josué ne le dit pas sur Abraham lui-même. Nicolas va trop loin en le niant pour Thar et Nachor.
Bon, pour ce qui est de traçage, de ce qu'il appelle une erreur, au minimum elle peut l'être à propos d'Abraham, Nicolas de Cues dit que Mahomet avait cette mauvaise information d'une explication par un Juif, qui s'était trompé et dont l'avis ne fut pas partagé par, par exemple, Flave Josèphe.
En vérifiant, Josèphe ne nie pas que Thar et Nachor étaient idolâtres au moins à temps partiel, et il n'affirme pas qu'ils servaient toujours le vrai Dieu, la mention est sommaire.
Tout d'abord, est-ce que Sarug était idolâtre? Il y a des gens qui non seulement disent que l'idolâtrie est née dans les jours de Sarug, mais que Sarug y contribuait lui-même en prônant des images des bien-faiteurs de l'humanité (genre comme les images des saints dans les églises ou les images de "grands hommes" dans les rues), ce qui a pu précéder l'idolâtrie sans d'être en tant que tel déjà ce péché. Donc, non.
Ensuite, Abraham, a-t-il connu Sarug? Selon la lecture immédiate de Genèse 11:26 il paraît que Thar avait 70 ans à la naissance d'Abram, le premier nom d'Abraham. Par contre, d'autres disent que 70 est quand Thar commençait d'avoir ses fils, et que le premier n'était pas Abram, qu'il est énuméré en premier par dignité, et non par primogéniture temporelle. Actes 7:4 dit qu'Abraham quitta Charran quand son père était mort, or, Thar est mort en Charran à l'âge de 205 ans. Mais Abraham quitta Charran à l'âge de 75. Or, 205 - 75 = 130. Donc, Abraham était né quand Thar avait 130, non quand il avait 70. Dans ce cas, il n'aurait pas pu connaître Sarug.
Supposons Abraham né quand son père physique avait 70, son arrière-grand-père Sarug avait covécu avec lui jusqu'à ce qu'il avait 50. Mais 130 = 70 + 60, donc, si Abraham était né quand Thar avait 130, il aurait loupé Sarug par 10 ans.
D'abord, ceci n'est pas ce que disent les chronologies de Georges le Syncelle ou de St. Jérôme, qui présume un Abraham né quand Thar avait 70 ans, comme l'affirme au moins en apparence très forte Genèse 11:26.
Mais ensuite, St. Étienne ne dit pas "quand Thar fut mort" mais "quand son père fut mort" en Actes 7:4. Or, si Thar tombait en idolâtrie et Sarug pas, et si Abraham héritait la spiritualité de son arrière-grand-père, mais pas de son père, alors, ce père mort avant qu'Abraham quitta Charran peut bien être Sarug, non ?
Donc, plutôt que de dire qu'Abraham était né quand Thar avait 130, donc qu'il aurait connu un père et un grand-père idolâtres mais pas l'arrière-grand-père non idolâtre, il convient plutôt que supposer qu'il avait connu son arrière-grand-père et que celui-ci avait été son père spirituel. Et son propre âge de 50, à la mort de Sarug, était avant son propre âge de 75, à la vocation par Dieu.
En plus, on ne peut pas affirmer sans ambiguité quelconque si le gran-père d'Abraham était idolâtre, peut-être seulement le frère l'était. Nachor avait selon la Vulgate de Genèse 11:25 49 ans et selon les LXX 55 ans à vivre avec Abraham. Mais si Nachor le grand-père n'était pas idolâtre, alors il a pu être le père spirituel d'Abraham.
Pourquoi ça importe ? Je suis Chrétien, pas Musulman ou Juif, et je n'ai pas à croire qu'Abraham avait commis idolâtrie, non plus que le crut Nicolas de Cues (même s'il était trop généreux avec Thar). Par contre, j'ai rencontré des Catholiques qui prétendaient qu'Abraham était idolâtre. Il aurait grandi comme idolâtre, donc sans de connaître le vrai Dieu.
Je ne suis pas d'accord, bien entendu. Mais encore une fois, qu'importe ? Or, le contexte de la conversation était, j'avais affirmé que Moïse connut la matière historique de Genèse 1 à 11 ou au moins 2 à 11 (chapitre 1 jusqu'à 2:4 semblent être une vision accordée à Moïse au mont Sinaï), par l'intermédiaire d'Abraham, qui l'aurait reçu de manière orale, mais les aurait préservé en écrits gardés chez son tribu de nomades. Car les tribus à partir de Genèse 12 jusqu'à ce que Jacob va en Égypte ont eu suffisamment d'espace de bagage pour garder des écrits pas plus larges que la Genèse ensemble. Ou que la Genèse moins les chapitres écrits en Égypte et moin chapitre 1, réservé à Moïse.
Mais encore, supposons qu'Abraham aurait réellement pas connu avant sa vocation un quelconque fidèle du vrai Dieu, ça prouverait que les traditions ne seraient pas fiables ? Non. Il y a trois autres possibilités.
- les traditions auraient pu être faussées dans leurs théologies jusque dans le texte des chapitres, ensuite corrigés par Moïse - les idolâtres ne sont pas* automatiquement des fausseurs d'histoire;
- elles auraient pu être faussées dans leurs théologies en ajoutant d'autres dieux qui n'en sont pas, mais en dehors de ces textes;
- et les idolâtres auraient pu garder une tradition textuelle dans laquelle ils avaient cessé de faire confiance - Abraham aurait pu devenir un fidèle à partir de la connaissance de ces textes, malgré le scepticisme d'un entourage entièrement idolâtre, si c'était le cas.
Mais, puisque St. Étienne ne dit pas verbatim que Thar était mort quand Abraham allait vers la Terre de Promesse, mais "son père" la question d'un Abraham né dans une famille entièrement païenne ne se pose même pas. L'idée de ce Catholique (prêtre ?) était donc une très mauvaise excuse pour nier que Moïse connût les histoires antérieures à Abraham par intermédiaire de et Abraham les ayant reçues de Sarug.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Lundi de Pentecôte
PS, en plus d'une mauvaise excuse, aussi un flagrant délit de concessions excessives aux Juifs et aux Musulmans./HGL
PPS, autant que la mort physique d'un père spirituel, comme je viens d'argumenter, ça peut aussi avoir été la mort spirituel de son père physique direct, si c'est quand Abraham avait 75 ans, à Charran, que Thar tomba dans l'idolâtrie. Charran se trouve en Mésopotamie, à l'Est de l'Euphrate./HGL
* Comme je viens de dire l'article précédant, en anglais:
In Response to a Long Comment, a Longer Post
Sunday, May 28, 2023
In Response to a Long Comment, a Longer Post · Second Long Comment, Second Longer Post
Under my post Is Romanides accurate?, I found a comment by one greco roman knight. To reply belatedly to his greetings, I tried to post a long comment, longer than his, but alas the blogger comment field found it too long. Hence, I post it instead here as a post, extending it even a bit further,
"These are all just myths and legends, but based on history."
If you admit "based on history" you are a little inconsequential in saying not just "these are myths" but saying "these are all just myths and legends"
As far as I can say "legend" has two main meanings, namely:
a) a hagiography reading or collection of such, like the martyrologies or Legenda Aurea or Prologue from Ohrid, this is the primary but less usual meaning, since "legenda" means "things you ought to read"
b) orally recorded and transmitted ... guess what? ... history.
"To be Greek, Hellenic, or Hellenized implies culture, and not nationhood."
Romanides specifically spoke about language, when it came to Rome.
Also, the Luwian culture is a different one from the Mycenaean Greek one. They merged in the times leading up to Homer. His epic is in Greek, because by his time, all Luwians at least understood Greek there. It is balanced, because it is making compliments to all nobles, whether of Greek or Trojan descent.
"The Romans didn't become Greek "lovers" after the conquest of Greece proper, for why would Roman historians writing history of Rome centuries before the Greek "conquest" be writing in Greek and NOT Latin."
Where do you get this fake news from?
Polybius wrote in Greek because he was from Greece, he came to Rome as a guest or a hostage. He was also not centuries before the conquest of Macedonian / Hellenistic Arcadian League, but in that time, and he was also not centuries before but rather centuries after the conquest of Magna Graecia.
The last pieces of Magna Graecia to be conquered were Sicily, and that was in the First Punic War, Polybius arrived after the Second Punic War was over, if I recall correctly.
But perhaps you refer to Homer as the first Roman historian? Seven cities dispute the honour of being his birthplace, but Rome is not one of them. He mentions several cities that are part of the Roman Empire, like Athens and Corinth and Troy, but Rome isn't one of them.
"Emperor Claudius refers to Greek AND Latin as "our 2 languages", and he was fluent in Etruscan!"
Etruscan did not die in Rome until the death of the last augur. It is obvious why Greek was one of the two languages, namely in his time Romans had long since become bilingual.
In Romulus' time, bilingualism in Etruscan too could be expected, but hardly bilingualism in Greek. Like Helsingfors / Helsinki in the early Modern Ages would have been speaking Swedish, Finnish, to some degree Livonian and Estonian, but hardly English or French.
"The special thing about Greek is that it remained thus even after the full Latinization of Rome and the eradication of the other cultures like Etruscan and Punic, many centuries later."
Etruscan culture was never eradicated, only the language was replaced by Latin. Latin culture is basically a sub-branch of Etruscan culture, just with another language. Like Styrian culture in Austria is a sub-branch of Slovene culture, just speaking Austrian German instead of Slovene.
Rome itself never had Punic culture, as an indigenous feature.
And "Latinisation of Rome" is an oxymoron. The best I can say for Romanides is, Latin may have owed lots of traces of Greek grammar due to a Sprachbund in the Terramare culture c. 1200 BC the genetics show complete dominance by the immigrants. Castione Marchesi is 480 km by modern roads away from Rome, somewhat less as the bird flies.
"The mob were latin speaking, the plebs were latin speaking, but the patricians and ruling class almost ALL spoke Greek, handed down in their homes, parentally, educationally, or learned later out of necessity and station."
No trace of this in any writings prior to the conquest of Magna Graecia.
The first Greek city to be absorbed into the Roman Republic was Neapolis in 327 BC./blockquote>
Before 327 BC you don't find many full length texts from Rome. Inscriptions are in Latin, not Greek. Carmen Saliare is in Latin, not Greek. Twelve Tables?
Parts of the text of the Twelve Tables were preserved in the brief excerpts and quotations from the original laws in other ancient authors. All Roman sources quote the Twelve Tables in a modernised form of Latin. ... Cicero claimed that he learned them by heart as a boy in school but that no one did so any longer.
Crawford, Michael H., 1996,Roman Statutes, vol. 2, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 571.
Cic. Leg. 2.59
If the Patricians in 449 BC spoke Greek, why were the Twelve Tables so obviously in Latin?
Cicero could easily have learned them in Greek, he was from a time already bilingual, why did he learn them in Latin?
"And eventually, after Rome's fall, Constantinope New Rome would continue to be ROMAN,"
What do you mean by "Rome's fall"? Constantinople did not continue to be Roman after 1918, when West Rome lost Charles I to exile, when he left Hofburg, and East Rome lost Nicolas II to czaricide. If you meant after 476 instead of after 1918, that's ridiculous to speak of it as "Rome's fall" even if English historians have long had this bad habit. They are a bit allergic to principalities ruled by clergy, like Iona in Scotland or like Montenegro on the Balkans prior to 1826. Or, as in this case, Papally ruled Medieval Rome.
Or they can state that because they find Collosseum stately and Collosseum in ruins serving as shelter for the poor really too poor style. It was so much better when it served to martyr Catholics and was in well polished marbles, wasn't it? You know, aesthetics over morality or an anti-pauper type of morality. Also, like absence of Emperors and presence of spiritual rulers, definitely NOT an argument to speak of Rome as fallen in 476.
"Evander is a Roman cult hero from Arcadia, the Peloponnese, from where the Palatine hill was founded as a Greek colony, Pallation, BEFORE the arrival of Trojans, which means Greeks had already established colonies in Italy."
Evander would certainly have spoken Greek, in Arcadia. This does not mean he spoke so in Italy. Here is the notice in the Greek mythology section:
Evander of Pallantium, the wisest among the Arcadians, emigrated to Italy where he founded a city Pallantium. He was the son of Hermes and Carmentis, a nymph skilled in the art of divination.
Hermes being also called Mercury, as Paul the Deacon says "Gotan" would not have been there in the time of the Vinniles, since "Gotan" is Mercury, a Greek mage who lived 1000 years earlier. In fact, Hermes, Carmentis and Evander seem to have been a whole family of magicians and sibyls. Here is from a notice dedicated solely to him:
was a culture hero from Arcadia, Greece, who was said to have brought the Greek pantheon, laws, and alphabet to Italy, where he founded the city of Pallantium on the future site of Palatine Hill, Rome, sixty years before the Trojan War.
I have a suspicion, he could be an excuse the Greeks sought for not calling the Roman conquerors Barbarians. How so? Strabo and Dionysius disagree about who were his parents. Hermes and Carmentis being the version in Strabo, and Apollo and Themis are the names in Dionysius. However, there is some hope for the historicity of the person:
Dionysius of Halicarnassus also mentions that some writers, including Polybius of Megalopolis say that Lavinia was the daughter of Evander and had a son with Heracles who was named Pallas
Hercules was indeed a generation before the Trojan war ... however, the oldest mention of Evander in Polybius certainly makes him an inlaw of Aeneas via Lavinia, but even your Romanides (there are reasons not to call an Evolution believer "father"!) says Aeneas met Latinus, a more common version of Lavinia's father. And Latinus would be a descendant of the Cretan god-king Zeus' banished father, Saturn. Minoan Crete or more properly pre-Minoan Crete, had communications with Greece, but a distinct culture, slowly getting more Greek. Saturn would not have transmitted knowledge of Greek to Picus or to Latinus. If anything, knowledge of Plaeo-Cretan.
So, to return belatedly your greetings, I close here, on the Roman Catholic day of Pentecost, in Paris.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Monday, May 22, 2023
Mariées (et mariés) à quel âge, premières noces? · Et encore, pour son mari? · Mariés avant 16, le couple martyr et leurs ancêtres
En général, le nombre total de femmes va inclure Marie Antoinette de son côté mais exclure Louis XVI du sien, et enversement pour le nombre d'hommes.
Plus qu'un homme a été marié plus qu'une fois, ce que j'ai compté. D'où 38 ancêtres et connexes y compris Marie Antoinette du côté féminin.
21 ancêtres (ou connexes) féminines de Marie Antoinette (et elle-même)
dont mariées avant 16
14 * 3 ou 14 * 2 + 15 * 1
17 ancêtres (ou connexes) féminines de Louis XVI
dont mariées avant 16
12 * 1 + 14 * 1 + 15 * 1 ou 12 * 1 + 14 * 2 + 15 * 1
38 ancêtres (ou connexes) féminines
3 + 3 ou 3 + 4 mariées avant 16
6/38 = 15,789 %
7/38 = 18,421 %
une mariée à 12, minimum canonique
1/38 = 2,632 %
15 ancêtres masculins de Marie Antoinette
dont mariés avant 16
14 * 1
16 ancêtres masculins de Louis XVI, y compris lui-même
dont mariés avant 16
15 * 4
31 ancêtres masculins
5 / 31 = 16,129 %
dont un à 14, minimum canonique
1/31 = 3,226 %
Wednesday, May 17, 2023
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: "Martyn Iles presents Living in Babylon" · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Unclarity of the French Language - Or of His Memory?
Sometimes French is unclear.
Not all of the time, but at more than one occasion, where English isn't.
Here is Ezechiel 26:7, in English:
For thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will bring against Tyre Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, the king of kings, from the north, with horses, and chariots, and horsemen, and companies, and much people.
Now look at this French one:
Car ainsi parle le Seigneur, l'Eternel: Voici, j'amène du septentrion contre Tyr Nebucadnetsar, roi de Babylone, le roi des rois, avec des chevaux, des chars, des cavaliers, et une grande multitude de peuples.
Now imagine a truncated memory of this:
j'amène du septentrion contre Tyr Nebucadnetsar, roi de Babylone
j'amène du septentrion contre Tyr le roi Nebucadnetsar, de Babylone
Do you analyse it as God bringing against Tyre from the North someone who is "le roi Nebucadnetsar, de Babylone"?
Or is "le roi Nebucadnetsar" being brought "du septentrion contre Tyr ... de Babylone"?
In English, this confusion is impossible. The second would have been "from Babylon" and the former is, what we also have in the text, "of Babylon" ....
Edward Camps used this, confusing "of" with "from" (makes me wonder if he's French or has been living in France for very long) to prove that "from Babylon" is designated as "from the North" even if Babylon is actually East of Tyre, and somewhat further South. Tyre is 33°16'15" N, and Babylon is 32°32'33" N. However, the city never says that God brings Nebuchadnezzar on this occasion "from Babylon" the only direction given is "from the North" and Babylon is in the genitive of relationship : Nebuchadnezzar is king of Babylon, and Babylon is city and Empire of Nebuchadnezzar.
Edward Camps clearly admitted that when Nebuchadnezzar arrived, he actually approached Tyre precisely from the North. So, "from the North" means "from the North" - and this is relevant for another city with the same name, Nimrod's very pre-Classical Babel. Why? Because it says "they removed from the East" - and I believe "from the East" means precisely "from the East" ... This is what Edward Camps pretended to disprove by citing Ezechiel.
Most places suggested for the landing place, anything West of Nagorno-Karabakh, given this is historically Armenia (whatever the claims of recent Armenian and Turkish population), and that has never been suggested, as far as I know, going to Classical Babylon would be going TO the East, not FROM it. But even from the Westernmost place actually suggested, Mt Judi, just East of the Tigris, going to Göbekli Tepe is going FROM the East, and that is what Genesis 11 actually has.
38°55′21″E for Göbekli Tepe
42°20′39″E for Mount Judi
To Göbekli Tepe from Mount Judi actually is, precisely, from the East.
Now, the actual text in Louis Segond (I took a Protestant text, because I think Edward Camps is a Protestant), it is sufficiently long to get clearly around this unclarity.
Nebucadnetsar, roi de Babylone, le roi des rois, appears as a block, and "de Babylone" inside it, so it must be part of how Nebuchadnezzar is described, an attribute, and can't be part of how the direction is described, can't be an extra spatial adverbial of direction. But the whole verse is also further away from everyday French. This hints, in order to make French clear, making descriptions long and not totally idiomatic for everyday use, is an asset. That's possibly one complaint some have about my French. But I try to be clear, and I spend quite a lot of time reading more colloquial texts, like comic books, JW tracts (I avoid Watchtower, but sometimes enjoy Awake!), free newspapers like "20 minutes" or earlier also "CNEWS Matin" ... so my French doesn't, in my pursuit of clarity, stray too far from what French people understand without reading it twice.
Spanish also has "de" both for spatial adverb of direction meaning origin of a removal, and for prepositional periphrase of the genitive case. But Italian has "da" for "from" and "di" for "of" ... and here is the Italian text:
Perché così dice il Signore Dio: Io mando da settentrione contro Tiro Nabucodònosor, re di Babilonia, il re dei re, con cavalli, carri e cavalieri e una folla, un popolo immenso.
Got it? It's "re di Babilonia," whereas the only direction is "da settentrione" .../HGL
Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Aux contradictions s’ajoutent des impossibilités manifestes. En particulier, la fuite de Mme Rouffanche hors de l’église, en se hissant jusqu’à un vitrail puis en sautant de quatre mètres de haut sur un plan fortement incliné sans s’occasionner la moindre blessure, un exploit impossible pour une femme de 46 ans.
Dans un livre sur la survie en situations critiques, lu quand j'avais entre 7 et 25 ans, et relu, et relu, appelé en suédois "Rädda livet!" la hauteur où la survie reste possible sur terrain plutôt que dans l'eau est 10 mètres, à condition de toucher le sol incliné latéralement et non purement verticalement. Ça aide aussi qu'on se pousse vers le côté. Le sol incliné a donc aidé à sauver la femme. Pas empêché.
Pourvu, bien entendu, que le témoignage soit autrement correct.
Mais Vincent Reynouard ne vient pas d'analyser en premier le témoignage, mais les faits matériels.
Rouler latéralement correctement pour s'épargner demande bien entendu une certaine élasticité. Combien en reste à une femme de 46 est par contre variable.
En plus, je ne sais pas d'où Vincent prend "sans la moindre blessure" ...
C'est possible que les corps déchiquetés et non calcinés parlent pour la version de Vincent, mais ce n'était pas le propos ici.
Pour l'expertise, j'aimerais avoir l'avis d'un expert du sport parkour. Si l'exploit sera faisable ce ne sera peut-être pas la première fois que des révisionnistes commentent une impossibilité qui n'en est pas une. L'autre fois que j'ai commenté est la situation d'Anne Frank. C'est possible de faire de la bruit tout en censant ne pas faire de la bruit, parce qu'on peut à tout moment être trahi, si un village (ou quartier ou semblable) fait bloc de protéger un homme ou une famille cachée. Ceci peut bien entendu changer du jour à l'autre./HGL
PS Bien entendu, j'aimerais que le débat soit plus libre - pour les deux côtés et pour ceux qui se trouvent quelque part dans le milieu./HGL
Tuesday, May 9, 2023
Are there Mistakes in the Geneology of Jesus?
One For Israel
On page 89 of his book, rabbi Daniel Asor claims that he sent a letter to the Vatican, demanding that they solve the contradictions (as he calls them) between the genealogies of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament. Rabbi Asor continued to claim that Pope Benedict himself, since he was unable to provide an answer, resigned from his position as Pope.
We have no relation to the Pope, and not much sympathy for the Vatican either, or for the persecutions of our people by the Catholic Church, but we have even less patience for insanity.
I can absolutely not believe that Antipope Ratzinger was so unfamiliar with Catholic culture as to not know the Catholic answer to this one.
Did you know the nobility counts their genealogies in a number system known as Sosa-Stradonitz? It has a double name, because it was invented twice. First by Sosa, then by Stradonitz.
Stephan Kekulé von Stradonitz, who died in Berlin before the Machtübername, ninety years ago, and a few days, was concerned with helping German and other nobility to keep track of genealogies. His example involved European sovereigns, counted back from present to the "32 ancestors" (father and mother are two, grandparents four ancestors ...)
His work involved interpreting the method of Fray Jerónimo de Sosa, who, certainly also served nobles, but first of all was interested in keeping track of Our Lord's genealogy. This isn't in the wiki I consult today, but I learned of it earlier. He in turn had a predecessor not thought of, when one speaks of Sosa-Stradonitz, namely Michaël Eytzinger.
Now, whether Brother Sosa was in fact involved in the solution Catholics tend to give or not, I can't actually prove right now. I can however copy the solution with the theologians who stand behind it, from the Haydock comment on Matthew chapter 1:
Ver. 11. Josias begot Jechonias, &c. The genealogy of Christ, as it appears by the 17th verse, is divided by the evangelist into thrice fourteen generations, and so it is to contain 42 persons. The first class of fourteen begins with Abraham, and ends with David. The second class begins with Solomon, and ends with Jechonias. The third class is supposed to begin with Salathiel, and to end, says S. Jerom, with our Saviour Christ. But thus we shall only find in the third class thirteen generations, and in all only forty-one, instead of forty-two. Not to mention in these short notes other interpretations, the conjecture of S. Epiphanius seems the most probable, that we are to understand two Jechonias's, the father and the son, who had the same name. So that the true reading should be, Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren, and Jechonias begot Jechonias, and Jechonias begot Salathiel. Thus Jechonias named in the 12th verse is not the same, but the son of him that was named in the 11th verse; and from Jechonias the son, begins the third class, and so Christ himself will be the last or 14th person in that last series or class. There are several difficulties about reconciling this genealogy in S. Matthew with that in S. Luke, c. iii. But without insisting on all the particulars in these short notes, I hope it may suffice to take notice, that no one can reasonably doubt but that both the evangelists copied out the genealogical tables, as they were then extant, and carefully preserved by the Jews, and especially by those families that were of the tribe of Juda, and of the family of David, of which the Messias was to be born. For if the evangelists had either falsified, or made any mistake as to these genealogies, the Jews undoubtedly would have objected this against their gospels, which they never did. Wi.
[Wi = Bishop Witham]
The difficulties here are: 1. Why does S. Matt. give the genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary? 2. How is it inferred that Jesus is descended from David and Solomon, because Joseph is the son of David? 3. How can Joseph have two men for his father, Jacob of the race of Solomon, and Heli of the race of Nathan? To the 1st it is generally answered, that it was not customary with the Jews to draw out the genealogies of women; to the 2nd, that Jesus being the son of Joseph, either by adoption, or simply as the son of Mary his wife, he entered by that circumstance into all the rights of the family of Joseph; moreover, Mary was of the same tribe and family of Joseph, and thus the heir of the branch of Solomon marrying with the heiress of the branch of Nathan, the rights of the two families united in Joseph and Mary, were transmitted through them to Jesus, their son and heir; to the 3rd, that Jacob was the father of Joseph according to nature, and Heli his father according to law; or that Joseph was the son of the latter by adoption, and of the former by nature. A.
[A = Author = Haydock]
In the transmigration, or transportation to Babylon; i.e. about the time the Jews were carried away captives to Babylon. For Josias died before their transportation. See 4 K. xxiv. Wi.
Some think we are to read: Josias begot Joakim and his brethren; and Joakim begot Joachim, or Jechonias. Jechonias was son to Joakim, and grandson to Josias. The brothers of Jechonias are not known, but those of Joakim are known. 1 Par. iii. 15, 16. Besides this reading gives the number 14. A.
S. Jerom says that Jechonias, the son of Josias, is a different person from Jechonias who begot Salathiel, for the latter was son of the former; see Paralip. iii. where it is said that Zorobabel was son of Phadaia; but Phadaia is the same as Salatheil. E.
[E = Estius.]
Mat. Polus affirms that every one the least conversant in Jewish story, must know that several genealogies which appear to contradict each other, do not in reality. Synop. Crit. v. 4, p. 12.
And from the same comment on Luke 3:
Ver. 22. The reason why the Holy Ghost shewed himself in the shape of a dove, was because he could not be seen in the substance of his divinity. But why a dove? To express that simplicity acquired in the sacrament of baptism. Be ye simple as doves; to signify that peace bestowed by baptism, and prefigured by the olive branch which the dove carried back to the ark, a true figure of the Church, and which was the only security from the destructive deluge. S. Amb.
You will object: Christ, though he was God, would not be baptized till the age of 30, and do you order baptism to be received sooner? When you say, though he was God, you solve the difficulty. For, he stood not in need of being purified at all; of course, there could be no danger in deferring his baptism. But you will have much to answer for, if, being born in corruption, you pass out of this world without the garment of incorruption. S. Greg. Nazian. orat. 40.
[St. Gregorius of Nazianzen]
Remarks on the two Genealogies of Jesus Christ.
To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds,
1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in S. Matthew.
2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law.
3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim.
"S. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of a son properly so called, and by way of generation, Abraham begot Isaac, &c. But S. Luke in ascending from Jesus to God himself, speaks of a son properly or improperly so called. On this account he make use of an indeterminate expression, in saying, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. That S. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in S. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in S. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Heli, in S. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Neri, in S. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. By Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. S. Mat. carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; S. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men."
Whatever the difficulties attending the genealogies may be, it is evident that they arise from our imperfect knowledge of the laws, usages, and idiom of the Jews, from our ignorance of the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies, or from some corruptions that in process of time may possibly have crept into the text. The silence of the enemies of the gospel, both heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof, that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged against this part of the evangelical history. If the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messias, nor any right to the Jewish throne. We may confidently then assert, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed at a time when alone it could have been done so successfully; and by those persons who were so deeply interested in falsifying the first Christian authorities.
Now, what was he saying about us Catholics, the writer?
not much sympathy for the Vatican either, or for the persecutions of our people by the Catholic Church,
I'm not edified by that kind of allegations, but thanks for at least preferring us over insanity - or over Rabbi Asor.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Gregory of Nazianzen !
Nazianzi, in Cappadocia, natalis beati Gregorii Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ob singularem divinarum rerum doctrinam cognomento Theologi; qui collapsam Constantinopoli catholicam fidem, ipsius urbis Episcopatum gerens, restituit, haeresesque insurgentes compressit.
PS - can this be taken as a hint Ratzinger was forced to abdicate before he could give Asor an answer? Since he already died, it is not easy to ask him .../HGL
Monday, May 1, 2023
No, I don't mean John the Baptist or John the Beloved. I mean Augustine of Hippo.
I was listening to a podcast on The Church and Evolution. Distractly, but still. It's 89 on The Catholic History Trek.
I am not confident that they are right to say that to Maimonides the days in Genesis 1 could be long periods, but they were certainly wrong to suggest that Christianity came out of Maimonides' type of Judaism and that therefore Christianity from the first would have held that too. Whether or not it's even "too" ...
I then came to John Augustine Zahm (a priest) and how his book Evolution and Dogma was nearly put on the Index, except he withdrew it.
I checked his biography on wiki:
I found also:
J. A. Zahm (1896), Scientific theory and Catholic doctrine, Chicago: D. H. McBride & Co., OL 7187109M (Full Text)
The link in "Full Text" is to the cover of the book. Here is a specific page:
Click to enlarge to read, I lifted up the lower part of page 126 to the top, visibly intruding on the text actually on top, so as to show I am making a shortcut:
On page 127, he speaks of seeds laying dormant for long aeons:
They lay dormant as it were, until long aeons after the creation of matter ...
Here is a quote from On the Trinity, Book III, chapter 8, quoting all of § 13 but leaving out §§14 and 15:
13. Yet it is not on this account to be thought that the matter of visible things is subservient to the bidding of those wicked angels; but rather to that of God, by whom this power is given, just so far as He, who is unchangeable, determines in His lofty and spiritual abode to give it. For water and fire and earth are subservient even to wicked men, who are condemned to the mines, in order that they may do therewith what they will, but only so far as is permitted. Nor, in truth, are those evil angels to be called creators, because by their means the magicians, withstanding the servant of God, made frogs and serpents; for it was not they who created them. But, in truth, some hidden seeds of all things that are born corporeally and visibly, are concealed in the corporeal elements of this world. For those seeds that are visible now to our eyes from fruits and living things, are quite distinct from the hidden seeds of those former seeds; from which, at the bidding of the Creator, the water produced the first swimming creatures and fowl, and the earth the first buds after their kind, and the first living creatures after their kind. For neither at that time were those seeds so drawn forth into products of their several kinds, as that the power of production was exhausted in those products; but oftentimes, suitable combinations of circumstances are wanting, whereby they may be enabled to burst forth and complete their species. For, consider, the very least shoot is a seed; for, if fitly consigned to the earth, it produces a tree. But of this shoot there is a yet more subtle seed in some grain of the same species, and this is visible even to us. But of this grain also there is further still a seed, which, although we are unable to see it with our eyes, yet we can conjecture its existence from our reason; because, except there were some such power in those elements, there would not so frequently be produced from the earth things which had not been sown there; nor yet so many animals, without any previous commixture of male and female; whether on the land, or in the water, which yet grow, and by commingling bring forth others, while themselves sprang up without any union of parents. And certainly bees do not conceive the seeds of their young by commixture, but gather them as they lie scattered over the earth with their mouth. For the Creator of these invisible seeds is the Creator of all things Himself; since whatever comes forth to our sight by being born, receives the first beginnings of its course from hidden seeds, and takes the successive increments of its proper size and its distinctive forms from these as it were original rules. As therefore we do not call parents the creators of men, nor farmers the creators of grain — although it is by the outward application of their actions that the power of God operates within for the creating these things — so it is not right to think not only the bad but even the good angels to be creators, if, through the subtlety of their perception and body, they know the seeds of things which to us are more hidden, and scatter them secretly through fit temperings of the elements, and so furnish opportunities of producing things, and of accelerating their increase. But neither do the good angels do these things, except as far as God commands, nor do the evil ones do them wrongfully, except as far as He righteously permits. For the malignity of the wicked one makes his own will wrongful; but the power to do so, he receives rightfully, whether for his own punishment, or, in the case of others, for the punishment of the wicked, or for the praise of the good.
The quote contains most of what John Augustine Zahm actually said in the quoted paragraph. But it does - let's insist on it - not contain the word "aeons" - and also, it is pretty clear that what St. Augustine is saying is God created embryonic beings, and brought embrya miraculously to fruition in fully matured examples, presumably on the creation days.
It's really dishonest to quotemine St. Augustine of Hippo to "prove" he approved of Evolution.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Joseph Workman