Thursday, August 17, 2017

Mistranslating Easter Exultet

The text actually differs from old and new liturgy, the quote incriminated as Luciferianism by some Protestants is from the new liturgy.

I will give both*, then the mistranslation.** But only the phrase in context, not the whole prayer.

1962, Latin  Oramus ergo te, Domine, ut cereus iste in honorem tui nominis consecratus, ad noctis huius caliginem destruendam, indeficiens perseveret. Et in odorem suavitatis acceptus, supernis luminaribus misceatur. Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat: Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum: Ille qui regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit.
1962, translated  We beseech thee therefore, O Lord, that this candle, consecrated to the honor of thy name, may continue burning to dissipate the darkness this night. And being accepted as a sweet savor, may be united with the celestial lights. Let the morning star find it alight, that star which never sets. Which being returned from hell, shone with brightness on mankind.
1975, Latin  Oramus ergo te, Domine, ut cereus iste in honorem tui nominis consecratus, ad noctis huius caliginem destruendam, indeficiens perseveret. Et in odorem suavitatis acceptus, supernis luminaribus misceatur. Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat: Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum: Christus Filius tuus, qui regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit, et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.
1975, translated  We beseech thee therefore, O Lord, that this candle, consecrated to the honor of thy name, may continue burning to dissipate the darkness this night. And being accepted as a sweet savor, may be united with the celestial lights. Let the morning star find it alight, that star which never sets: Christ Thy Son, who came back from hell, and shone with brightness on mankind, and who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever.
mistranslation  "Oh Lucifer who will never be defeated, CHRIST IS YOUR SON! who came back from hell..." ~Roman Catholic Easter Exsultet

Now, the prayer is over the Easter candle. Here is my own word for word or nearly so aid to translation.

Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:  May the morning star find its flames.
Ille, inquam, lucifer, I am saying that morning star
qui nescit occasum: who knows no setting
Christus Filius tuus, qui regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit, et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum. Christ Thy Son, who, returned from Sheol/Hades/Hell, shone calmly on mankind and who lives and reigns forever, world without end.

There are two Lucifer or Morning Stars in a Catholic Bible. The one which is fallen, and the one which must get lighted in our hearts. The one in Isaiah and the one in II Peter 1:19.

That is the reason why the one praying needs to be precise about which of the morning stars he is talking of, and by the precision "ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum" he is telling everyone who knows the Bible he is NOT referring to the morning star which not only set but actually even fell. So, he is praising the one who St Peter praised in II Peter 1:19.

Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem : cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso donec dies elucescat, et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris :

The next verse might be very good for Protestants to ponder for more than one reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Parmentier
St. Hyacinthus, OP, Confessor

* Source for text of prayer:

Preces Latinae : Exultet

** Source for mistranslation, description to video:

Quran & Bukhari prove Rome created Islam
Grace Bride

On the main topic of video:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Alberto Rivera's Hogwash on Origins of Islam

On a certain "quote from Al Bukhari", I consulted one who knows that work, David Woods. Not yet answered. But he might be waking up in his time zone soon and reading it my Q ...

"New" Biblical Argument for Angelic Movers or Stars Alive

Note, the concepts of non-material angels moving material stars is different from the concept of stars being alive and ensouled, a kind of "lower angels" with spirit united to the matter of the stars which we see as giving light.

This, as some other, Biblical passage for either, is not totally distinguishing between them.

As some may know, "circle of the earth" is by some taken to mean that earth is flat, since circle is a flat surface. Well, circle is also a circumference which fits around a globe as much as around a disc. BUT, this brought up Isaiah 40:22, and now let us look at verses 22 and 26.

Isaias 40

22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: *he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.


26 Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things: who bringeth out their host by number, and calleth them all by their names: by the greatness of his might, and strength, and power, not one of them was missing.

And Haydock comments:

Ver. 22. Locusts, compared with the greatest animals. --- Nothing. Hebrew, "a curtain." Septuagint, Syriac, "vault, (Calmet) or chamber," kamaran.


Ver. 26. Host of heaven, the stars, &c., Genesis ii. 1., and Psalm cxlvi. 4.

Isaias 40

Why would stars be called a "host"? And if heavens are spread out as a tent to dwell in - for whom to dwell in?

If stars both in themselves and in whatever is moving them are just jewels, why "host"? Why "dwell"?

But is stars are either alive or moved and used by living creatures, this makes sense.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Hyacinthus, OP

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Why Creationists should Not Believe IE Single Protolanguage

Very simple. The same arguments which lead to an IE* protolanguage, with that interpretation of facts, will also lead to a proto-language before both Proto-IE and Proto-Uralic, or even Proto-Ural-Altaic.

  Greek  Finnish
I   -(ον)   -en
thou   -εις   -et
he/she   -ει   -ee
we   -ομεν   -eme
ye   -ετε   -ete
they   -ουσι   -evat

For "I", Greek needs another tense. For "they" the endings are different. For "he/she", the match is considered as accidental. For "thou" we have a half-good match, but for "we" and "ye" we have excellent matches.

However, Greek is IE, inside IE language family, thought to descend from Proto-IE, PIE. Finnish is Uralic, outside IE language family, thought NOT to descend from PIE. The kind of motives leading mainstream linguists (but not Trubetskoy, founder of Balkan linguistics) to accept IE group as descending from a single language are the kind of motives leading logically to accept this and Uralic had an even older common Proto-language, explaining why Finnish and Greek have so similar verb endings.

Present day Slavonic languages, as well as Germanic ones, have a verb tense system closer to Finnish than to more typically IE ones, like Greek, Latin, Sanskrit. Old Bulgarian or Church Slavonic is known to be different, but could have picked up some categories from Greek - while living close to it on Balkan.

The other idea explaining commonalities - and which would explain Finnish ones without involving an even older Proto-language - is mutual loans while languages are neighbours in a restricted geographic area. And if the spread out from Babel was gradual, that is also what we can expect.

This would also explain instant sound changes applied to words when switching from a language to another./HGL


Read Today About GT

Modified human crania from Göbekli Tepe provide evidence for a new form of Neolithic skull cult
Julia Gresky, Juliane Haelm and Lee Clare
Science Advances 28 Jun 2017:


Against the background of available archaeological and ethnographic evidence, two interpretations of the carved skulls from Göbekli Tepe are presented. These interpretations are connected to ancestor veneration or the display of dispatched enemies through either active “branding” of individuals or functional modification of the skull for display.

I second the latter interpretation : display of dispatched enemies.

If my own theory of Göbekli Tepe is correct, the thousand carbonic years represent 40 actual years and a rapid rise in carbon 14 content. It is the traditionally 40 years of Babel, described in Genesis 11.

In Genesis 10 you find Nimrod described as a "mighty hunter before the Lord". Tradition adds he was a manhunter, he was heading Babel project, it lasted 40 years of building effort before dispersion of nations through confusion of tongues.

And I guess the enemies were simply shirkers, Nimrod was showing his skill as a "manhunter" or "headhunter"./HGL

PS, if you know about Rosemary Kennedy, you might know what I mean there could have been a recent pre-mortem incision. In terrorem./HGL

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

A Bear called Paddington Just Orphaned

mail dot com : Paddington bear creator Michael Bond dies at 91

I loved the TV programmes with someone reading from the book, while teddy bear was "acting" and also speaking up through an actor.

Michael Bond, thank you! RIP!/HGL

Monday, June 26, 2017

What Has the Church Done About Pederasts in the Past?

While I am accepting Pope Michael, I also like the claimant called Boniface X.

He has a site with plenty of good material, which plenty of people not accepting him as Pope could without qualms spread, despite considering his claims as erroneous.

I found some goodies today.

Scientists Executed by the Catholic Church

Now, his conclusion is:

In none of these cases was a man put to death or imprisoned merely on account of his scientific ideas; in most cases, these people were punished for theological heresies, or for political actions or financial reasons.

He omits Galileo from the list. He was imprisoned for ideas then considered hererical and now considered by many scientific. Imprisoned, but treated well. And thank God, he seems to have converted.

Now, one item which is on the list is on the other hand Cardano.

Cardano always suspected his elder son's execution was pushed by his professional rivals and fled Pavia, not only due to his professional difficulties but due to allegations of sexual impropriety with students. The Inquisition arrested him in 1570 but he was imprisoned only very briefly. He was released upon renouncing his professorship, which seems to have been the aim of his enemies. After his release, he was employed by Gregory XIII and given a lifetime annuity to compensate him for his difficulties.

In those days, men could start university at 15. Women were absent from universities. This would give you an idea of what "allegations of sexual impropriety with students" could mean, and the Church found it good enough when he accepted to have no more students.

Note, in these days any cleric offending in homosexual (including pederastic) ways, even less than full sodomy, was deposed from his office. Seminarians and novices were simply thrown out of where they were entering religion, and probably could marry if they wanted, while those who had made vows of chastity which could not be dispensed with were required to stay chaste in the world.

This contrary to a rumour that the pedophile crisis has been going on for centuries with Church criminally sheltering offenders.

Hope this doesn't disgust you from using Cardano's useful discoveries, as Tolkien said about such things, a man's soul is not perverted in all nooks and crannies just because he is a pervert, he can still do some pure things through corners of his mind remaining pure, sane, serene. And that would at least as much go for Cardano's mathematics as for Oscar Wilde's Ghost of Canterville or Importance of Being Earnest.

If you have a prayer left to pray today, keep Oscar's soul in your prayers!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts John and Paul of Rome
Martyrs under Julian*

* Romae, in monte Caelio, sanctorum Martyrum Joannis et Pauli fratrum, quorum primus erat praepositus domus, secundus primicerius Constantiae Virginis, filiae Constantini Imperatoris, et ambo postea, sub Juliano Apostata, martyrii palmam, caedente gladio, perceperunt.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Comment savons-nous l'histoire primordiale?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Comment savons-nous le Moyen Âge? · New blog on the kid : Refaire le péché d'Adam n'est pas une brillante idée · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Comment savons-nous l'histoire primordiale?

Si quelqu'un vient de lire "Refaire le péché d'Adam n'est pas une brillante idée", il pourra avoir l'idée que j'imagine que l'histoire est l'apanage de Dieu seul à révéler, que donc il est quelque part une répétition du péché d'Adam de vouloir avoir de la sûreté rationnelle sur ces faits.

Que nenni!

Au contraire, utiliser les méthodes telles quelles comme elles donnent une chronologie anti-biblique est le péché d'Adam parce que ce n'est pas un procédé rationnel pour le savoir. Comme de manger dans le fruit interdit aussi était un procédé irrationnel. La faculté morale était déjà là, sur pas mal de choses Adam savait déjà ce qui était bien et au moins pour une chose ce qui est mal, la solitude (quelques heures en "compagnie" d'animaux, rien que pour leur fournir de noms, un peu potache de la part de Dieu avant qu'il eût Ève!).

Pour des choses qu'Adam ne connaissait pas, il pouvait demander à Dieu.

Manger dans le fruit interdit était un raccourci, à peu près comme l'astrologie ou la chiromancie (si la numérologie entre ici, je suis divisé, au moins pas toute numérologie, voir Mathieu 1:17 et Apocalypse 13:18).

Si je donc considère comme un procédé irrationnel de vouloir savoir l'âge du monde par potassium argone ou en supposant que le taux de carbone 14 était le même à l'époque des douze à El Sidrón que de nos jours, qu'ils vivaient donc il y a par exemple 48 400 ou 40 840 ou 49 200 ou 37 300 ans, on se pose la question sur quel procédé je prendrais une quelle-conque position sur leur âge réel.

Bon, je viens déjà de dire là-dessus quand au Moyen Âge : l'histoire.

C'est vrai, nous avons pas mal davantage de documentation sur le Moyen Âge que sur les premiers hommes.

Mais le peu de documentation que nous avons, il y en a.

La Genèse est la Parole de Dieu, mais même en ne pas étant telle, le récit de la Genèse est assez central entre les autres récits ancestrales sur les premiers hommes et assez unique dans la transition détaillée entre les premiers et l'histoire déjà en train de se dérouler au continu.

L'histoire des Hébreux n'a pas de points obscurs sur toute la ligne entre Abraham et les temps de Hérode - quand naît Notre Seigneur. Donc, Abraham est pour les Hébreux à peu près ce que Romulus est pour les Romains. Je ne me range absolument pas avec des négationnistes récents qui refusent de croire l'existence historique de Romulus et Remus, l'histoire romaine commence avec eux, les explications surnaturels à propos eux peuvent être démoniaques ou des rationalisations de l'époque, donc, Rome a eu sept rois avant la République.

Et Tite-Live nous livre un tableaux tout aussi ininterrompu entre Romulus et les temps récents (avec la différence que chez lui il y a des livres qui manquent) que les textes hébreux pour les temps entre Abraham et Notre Seigneur.

Juste, Romulus est quelques générations après la Guerre de Troie, qui a lieu quand Éli est Souverain Prêtre et Juge, ce qui est déjà des siècles après Abraham (430 entre la promesse quand il a 75 ans et l'Exode, encore des siècles entre l'Exode et Éli. Mais ce qui est remarquable pour une figure tellement primordiale dans une histoire nationale, c'est que les antécédents d'Abraham ne remontent pas juste quelques siècles à une autre histoire nationale (la Guerre de Troie faisant partie de celle de la Grèce antique), mais en arrière en avant les nations et aux premiers hommes. Romulus remonte à Anchise, dont l'histoire amoureuse avec une déesse est à prendre au figuré, selon nous les Chrétiens (n'en déplaise pas aux Païens). Mais Anchise n'est pas Deucalion. Il ne remonte même pas à Deucalion, la preuve, il remonte à Dardane ... qui aurait survécu au Déluge parallèlement à Deucalion. En nageant.

Il est davantage vraisemblable que les Grecs ont perdu pas mal de générations entre le vrai Déluge et la Guerre de Troie. Notamment, ils omettent les Hittites, qui pourtant ont existé, on sait par les lettres de Tell Amarna que Paris, fils de Priame, était contemporains de quelques Hittites, il en était le vassal. Mais la légende grecque n'en dit rien.

De permettre à Dardane de survivre au Déluge en nageant, en plus d'être un démi-dieu, me paraît une rationalisation du pourquoi les ancêtres d'Anchise ne remontent pas à Deucalion (sur la ligne patrilinéaire, au moins). Au moins, c'est honnête de la part des Grecs de ne pas avoir faire remonter des particuliers à Deucalion dont la lignée était déjà offusquée. Les fils de Deucalion seront des nationalités grècques - un peu comme les petit-fils de Noé seront des nationalités, mais alors non-hébreux (les Hébreux remontant un peu plus récemment, Héber étant arrière-arrière-petit-fils se Sem, à en croire la LXX, ou un arrière de moins selon la Vulgate qui omet Caïnan entre Arphaxad et Séla).

La Genèse mène davantage en arrière et donne davantage de détail géographique dans son 10e chapitre que les mythes grecques ou que la descente de Romulus d'Énée.

De l'autre côté, les mythes d'Égypte ou de Babylone donnent l'impression que pas juste la Grèce mais aussi les Hébreux ont une chronologie trop courte - jusqu'à ce qu'on se rende compte que les longueurs de leurs histoires avec les 40 000 ans pour Égypte (comme Cro-Magnon en Europe selon la datation carbone 14 sans révision créationniste) ou comme des centaines de milliers pour Babylone (comme l'humanité selon les datations potassium-argone tout court) sont principalement des listes de noms. Et des règnes. Quasi sans contenu. Et avec une longévité qui est au moins dix fois plus grande que celle des patriarches de la Bible d'avant le Déluge, donc moins crédibles.

Un Païen éclairé et cosmopolite qui se demandait quel paganisme lui pourrait fournir les meilleurs moyens de savoir le passé du genre humain devrait être quelque part étonné de voir que c'est probablement (même pour lui qui n'y prête pas l'inspiration du seul vrai Dieu) la religion des Hébreux.

Il y a des problèmes pour calibrer la montée de carbone 14 de manière à concorder avec la Bible, et je ne crois pas y arriver très bien sans la LXX ou la version Samaritaine pour les patriarches entre Déluge et Abraham. Mais je crois y être déjà à peu près arrivé.

Quand à Abraham lui-même, ses temps devaient prouver qu'il y a eu une montée de carbone 14. Il vivait à partir de 2015 avant Jésus-Christ, il assistait en env. 1935 avant Jésus-Christ à la guerre décrite en Genèse 14. Dedans il y a des indices qui pointent vers une datation carbonique de 3400 ou 3200 avant Jésus-Christ. Les Élamites sont encore et déjà une nation indépendante - par exemple l'époque proto-élamite, datée approximativement de 3100 à 2900. Les Amorrhéens vivent en un endroit qui est ... "Genèse 14:7 Puis, s'en retournant, ils arrivèrent à la fontaine du Jugement, qui est Cadès, et ils battirent tout le pays des Amalécites, ainsi que les Amorrhéens qui habitaient à Asason-Thamar." ... "II Chroniques 20:2 Des messagers vinrent en informer Josaphat en disant : ' Une multitude nombreuse marche contre toi d'au delà de la mer Morte, de la Syrie, et voici qu'ils sont à Asason-Thamar, qui est Engaddi '." ... qui est donc Engaddi (merci à Osgood pour le rapprochement!). Et là, on a à faire du chalcolithique. Mais l'âge de bronze commence en Proche-Orient en "3300 avant Jésus-Christ" (date carbonique). Donc, au plus tard dans l'archéologie, Abraham devait avoir vu l'année dite "3300 avant Notre Ère" par les archéologues. Ceci donne 1400 ans de trop, et si un os d'Amorrhéen en Engaddi aurait été daté à son décès déjà à vieux de 1400 ans, ça veut dire que le taux de carbone 14 était à 84,421 % du taux actuel, comme les objets organiques qui nous proviennent du 7e Siècle Anno Domini.

De l'autre manière, les 12 d'El Sidron, je les considère comme antédiluviens, et les Néanderthals comme une population adamique et humaine d'avant le Déluge, disparue par celle-ci. Et puisque 40 000 ans moins 4974 ans font 35 026 ans, le taux au Déluge devait être de 1,45 % du taux actuel. Et le temps entre Déluge 2957 avant Jésus-Christ et Abraham contemporain aux Amorrhéens à Engaddi en 1935 avant Jésus-Christ étant de mille ans, le taux a entre temps pu monter de 58 fois le taux initial ou de 83 unités des pour cent de notre taux. Ce qui est drastique, très différent des conditions de nos jours, mais ce qui est physiquement possible sans un désastre nucléaire majeur.

Donc, la Genèse a davantage de détail aride généalogique que les Grecs, davantage de détail intéressant et humain et probablement génuine que les Babyloniens et Égyptiens et il ne contredit pas une récalibration des datations carboniques que je trouve possible. Si je n'étais pas déjà Chrétien, je le considérerais comme une option, déjà à cause de ça.

Oh, encore une chose. Le miraculeux existe. On ne nie pas une histoire juste parce que contenant un miracle. Si un miracle est attribué à une divinité païenne, alors le miracle est mal attribué ou il provient des ruses du diable. Numa Pompilius a dû recevoir les mancies de la ruse du diable, en croyant qu'Égérie était une nymphe, une déesse. Rome ou Grèce protégée en telle ou telle bataille par des faux dieux a été Rome et Grèce protégées par la Providence du vrai Dieu. Un païen serait bien-sûr capable d'inverser l'opération mentale, mais il aura du mal à expliquer pourquoi la Genèse colle si bien et les histoires païennes si mal.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre
Pape St Silvère

Monday, June 19, 2017

Comment savons-nous le Moyen Âge?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Comment savons-nous le Moyen Âge? · New blog on the kid : Refaire le péché d'Adam n'est pas une brillante idée · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Comment savons-nous l'histoire primordiale?

Nous n'avons pas des témoins vivants, comme pour la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale ou récemment pour la Première aussi:

Libération : Lazare Ponticelli, le témoignage du dernier poilu
Par Marc QUATTROCIOCCHI et Johana SABROUX — 5 août 2014 à 12:00

Comment, alors?

Prenons par exemple les actes de guerre. Supposons que nous étudions un texte sur la Battaille de Normandie, en "D-Day". Est-ce qu'on aurait pu écrire un faux texte avec des chevaux et des épées ou arcs et flèches? Non. Tout le monde sait que ces modes de bataille étaient démodées en ce temps là, la dernière bataille en Europe à se dérouler avec cavalarie étant quelques ans juste avant la cavalerie polonaise qui perd contre les tanks allemands en 1939.

Et pouvons nous croire que le texte ne soit pas vrai, qu'on l'ai faussé? Non plus, on a des vivants qui ont encore la mémoire que ces choses se sont passées. Et on a d'autres textes qui disent la même chose, et aucun qui dit le contraire, que les Allemands aient soutenu et qu'ils aient été victorieux, à moins qu'il s'agit des romans de "l'histoire alternative".

Donc, on pourra un jour même sans les témoins encore savoir que les Allemands aient perdu en Normandie 1944.

Le pourra-t-on vraiment? Ne pourra-t-on pas mettre en doute ces textes une fois que les témoins sont morts?

Non, pas vraiment, car on saura que les textes étaient déjà là avant cette situation, que ça aura été assez difficile de les changer après les Lazare Ponticelli de la II Guerre Mondiale.

Et de même pour les fusillades le 26 mars 1962, on ne pourra pas vraiment prétendre que la fusillade n'aura pas eu lieu, même pas après que les derniers témoins soient morts.

Donc, on a ce même genre de sécurité pour le passé aussi.

Certaines choses ont à l'époque qu'ils se passaient été trop bien vérifiées pour avoir été en doute. Et ils ne deviennent pas douteux après non plus, à moins de vérifier un moment donné quand une tradition ait pu naître du néant, de la pure invention : comme le passé des Franc-Maçons entre Hiram Abbiff et la loge d'Anderson en 1717, comme les Américains qui vivent le "Troisième Testament" qu'est le livre de Mormon.

L'un a très bien pu être inventé par la loge d'Anderson, et l'autre de Joseph Smith, comme romancier, un peu comparable avec Tolkien en Silmarillion, sauf que le professeur anglais ne prétend pas qu'il s'agisse de faits.

Pareil pour les choses à croire. Si un homme du futur lira Darwin, Dawkins et Henry M. Morris et Kent Hovind, il pourra savoir que dans le XXe Siècle il a eu un débat entre évolutionnistes et créationnistes, et que pendant au moins la seconde moitié du siècle en Occident les évolutionnistes étaient majoritaires.

Darwin écrit comme proposant une nouveauté, mais il est bien avant les autres. Dawkins écrit comme en défense de cette nouveauté. Morris et Hovind écrivent comme attaqueurs de cette nouveauté. Et attaqueurs qui savent que cette nouveauté est déjà acceptée par le grand public. On peut des écrits d'un homme conclure ce qu'il croyait et aussi comment il savait que ses contemporains se positionnaient vis-à-vis ça.

Donc, pareil pour le Moyen Âge. On peut savoir que l'idée que l'Univers était éternel comme Dieu était connue en 1276, et qu'elle était condamnée par l'évêque Étienne II Tempier de Paris. On peut également savoir que St. Thomas d'Aquin croyait cette idée de fait erronée, mais ceci ne pouvait qu'être cru par la Bible qui dit "au commencement", car Dieu aurait également pu choisir de créer pendant une éternité sans début ni fin. Et on peut savoir que St. Bonaventure n'était pas d'accord, qu'il pensait que la nature même du temps impliquait qu'il avait un début, comme les nombres débutent en 1. Qu'on pouvait donc prouver que le monde n'était pas éternel. On n'a plus les textes minoritaires qui prétendaient que l'univers soit éternel, car ils ont été détruits. Mais les contradictions par Sts Thomas et Bonaventure ("non, car la Bible", "non, car même la raison") et la condamnation par l'évêque de Paris existent encore et peuvent être lus, soit par ceux qui lisent le latin, soit si on a une traduction.

Donc, quand je dis que la bataille de Hastings fut une conquête par les Normands en Angleterre sous Guillaume de la Falaise contre Harold Godwinson, ou que Boèce de Dacie prétendait le monde éternel, il ne s'agit pas de reconstructions (ni même pour cette deuxième chose, car il y a encore contrairement à ce que j'imaginais, le De aeternitate mundi, in Boethii Daci Opera, VI.2, 1976, p. 333-366), il s'agit de faits historiques sachables à peu près comme nous savons le passé récent.

Comparer la connaissance historique de l'histoire à la "connaissance" du passé pratiqué par la reconstruction évolutionniste (par exemple des dizaines de milliers d'années du paléolithique, avec des outils en pierre uniquement, ou bois ou corne, de l'économie incomplète et de l'art assez extraordinaires dans leur conservatisme par rapport à la réalité que nous connaissons de l'histoire) est erronée. La "science" ne peut pas nous donner une certitude sur le passée pareille à l'histoire. À moins qu'il s'agisse de choses qui restent toujours pareils. En 1401, l'Angleterre était fort plus intolérant vis-à-vis les Lollards que de nos jours, mais l'eau a bouilli à 100° C et les midis ont été distants de 24 heures, comme maintenant.

Et les masques en tête d'oiseau des docteurs qui s'occupaient de la peste ont dû fonctionner pas grâce à la théorie alors à la mode, que la peste se transmettait par mauvais odeurs, mais grâce aux mêmes choses qui rendent les masques d'hygiène de nos jours une protection : l'air passe, les bactéries non.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Ste Julienne Falconieri

Thursday, June 15, 2017

On Corpus Christi, a Feast from Middle Ages (link)

Modern Medievalism : Corpus Christi: a medieval feast for modern man

To read any secular historian's account of how the feast of Corpus Christi came into existence, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was all centered around a quaint belief system not seen for hundreds of years. And yet, despite the passage of time, nothing has changed. The Catholic Church, whether in the 13th or the 21st century, has consistently taught that, at the words of a validly ordained priest, mere bread and wine are transformed into the incarnate God: Jesus, not symbolically, but truly present in our midst to be worshiped and consumed.

Bonus : one of the images is from Philadelphia./HGL

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

La chanteuse la plus Moyen Âge en France? Chantal Goya!


Ce matin, un lapin... ( originale )


Since rabbits and hares were signs of cowardice, innocence, helplessness, and passive but willing sexuality (lots of medieval sexual imagery involves wolves jumping on rabbits), the idea of them getting their revenge amused medieval artists as much as it amuses me.

Jon Kaneko-James : Why Are There Violent Rabbits In The Margins Of Medieval Manuscripts?

Friday, May 19, 2017

"Cellar door, if it only meant something more interesting" ... but it does!

Quoting from memory C. S. Lewis' written endorsement of this phrase as highly aesthetic phonetically.

In Letters to children, one to a goddaughter, who wanted to become a writer, I think.

We know that Tolkien in his essay on English and Welsh mentioned same phrase - without the qualification "if it only meant something more interesting".

Perhaps wisely so.

First, we can check pronunciation : the "cellar" seems to be the non-rhotic pronunciation, the "door" at least potentially the rhotic one.

Now, I just said, it does mean sth more interesting than the door of a cellar - depending on which language you go to.

For [selador] in French, it means sth highly interesting (never mind French r's being unaesthetic, one can use the Burgundian version, and not use the Parisian r).

Let's put it in context:

"Adorer, ça signifie de mettre en avant la bonté, sainteté, grandeur de Dieu. Les êtres créés le font volontairement s'ils sont doués de l'esprit, et par leur nature en tout cas, même s'ils ne le sont pas, comme le sel et comme l'eau. Le sel adore Dieu par le fait de purifier et faire guérir les plaies, et ceci avec de la peine, comme c'est le cas pour la pénitence. Et l'eau adore Dieu par le fait d'être limpide, pour le fait d'enlever les souillures et de préparer les gens à vivre un bon moment avec le visage et les vêtements propres. Donc, le sel et l'eau sont utilisés pour l'eau bénite, avec qui on se signe avant d'adorer Dieu."

But you also have Spanish, where it would in Madrid and further South be "watchman" or "watching". Above, in Burgos, that would not be [selador] but [thelador].

In theory, it could instead have been either of two meanings, Latin "celator" - hider - or "zelator" - zealot. Probably the first is the real relative of Spanish celador.

If one made a conlang with roughly Spanish development of Latin words, but with an accent shift like in Sindarin to make it sound more English [sélador = roughly cellar door, rather than seladór], one could say sth about the "cellar door" which makes the subject highly interesting - and which Chesterton would have endorsed:

"The cellar door? Búino, es célador de tésoros y es célador de la líbertadh."*

It is a hider (or watchman!) of treasures and a zealot for liberty - so much indeed of the first, that I suspect Uther Pendragon was more related to the cellar door of king Cole of Colchester than to the dragon of Beowulf, since wine is a healthier treasure than "iumenna gold", especially if also "galdre bewunden."

At least Thorin found it so.

Reminds me of the fact that in Spain, wine cellars in certain parts of the North look very much like hobbit holes (same round doors), so that a wine bottle is technically a "hobbit" - a "holbytla", a "hole dweller". Hence my joke back in 2004 about "drink a hobbit". Nothing to do with any vampyric lusts after Pippin or Merry, simply an observation on where wine bottles in Spain are dwelling.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Celestine V

* Real Spanish : "La trappa de la cava? Bueno, es celadora de tesóros y celosa de la libertad".

Monday, May 15, 2017

Medieval women married when?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Medieval women married when? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere :... on Jailbait Now (Some States), Legal Back Then

I was taking two Nordic examples and to each adding wikiwise knowable relatives, not too far back or on, namely St Bridget of Vadstena (outside Sweden mostly known as St Bridget of Sweden) and Queen Margaret of the Three Kingdoms (or of Kalmar Union).

I started out with Swedish articles, since I believed it would be hard to find some of these in non-Swedish and non-Scandinavian, including English, articles. I am leaving Swedish and Danish text as a bonus for those knowing the languages, while resuming age relevant data in English after each such. If no resumé follows, age is not deducible from Swedish material.

Let's start with St Bridget:

I-1 Birgitta Birgersdotter, även känd som Heliga Birgitta, född omkring 1303 förmodligen i Finsta, Uppland, död 23 juli 1373 i Rom, Kyrkostaten, var en svensk katolsk predikant, författarinna, teolog samt ordens- och klostergrundare av Birgittinorden.

Några år senare, vid omkring tretton års ålder, giftes hon mot sin vilja bort med den artonårige Ulf Gudmarsson. Hon ville säkert hellre leva som jungfru och lyckades också övertala sin make att de första åren leva i avhållsamhet, men därefter födde hon åtta barn. Makarna bodde under dessa år på Ulfåsa vid sjön Boren i Östergötland.

Married 13 (1316), oldest (live?) child at 16 (1319).

II-1 Märta Ulfsdotter, född omkring 1319, död 1371, var en svensk hovdam. Hon var som hovmästarinna ansvarig för drottning Margaretas uppfostran och undervisning.

Her oldest son of first marriage, date of birth not mentioned. But she had two children with her first husband who died 1345 - when she was 26.

Her oldest daughter of second marriage was:

III-1 Ingegerd Knutsdotter, född 1356, död 1412; abbedissa i Vadstena kloster 1388-1403 - and as abbess, she was not married.

Next daughter:

III-2 Katarina Knutsdotter, död cirka 1412, hovmästarinna hos Filippa av England 1412 (Philippa of England being an English princess but Swedish Queen).

No marriage mentioned.

III-3 Ingrid Knutsdotter - neither articles, nor dates.

II-2 Cecilia Ulvsdotter, födelseår okänt, död 12 mars 1399 i Vadstena kloster, var en medlem av det svenska frälset, dotter till heliga Birgitta och en figur i Birgittalegenden. Nun, no date of marriage therefore.

Back before St Bridget?

Her mother was second wife of Birger Perssons, and she is given no birthyear and has no article of her own. However, back to St Bridget's generation, her sister:

I-2 Katarina Birgersdotter. Hennes födelse- och dödsår är okända, men hon omtalas som minderårig 14 mars 1315.

Hon vigdes före 20 september 1316 med Magnus Gudmarsson (Ulvåsaätten).

She had a daughter, Ingeborg:

II-3 Ingeborg Magnusdotter, född ca 1327, och dotter till Magnus Gudmarsson (Ulvåsaätten) och Katarina Birgersdotter (Finstaätten) och systerdotter till heliga Birgitta. Begravdes 1390 28/6 i Vadstena kloster (E). Ägde jord i Norra Vedbo härad (F).

No date of marriage given.

Here, I, II, III mark generations from St Bridget to that of grand daughters. 1, 2 etc mark persons mentioned in each generation. My own way of dealing with this. For next, I will be using a more traditional Sosa-Stradonitz marking. 1 = the peson herself, 2 = her father, 3 = her mother, anyone's father = 2*own number, anyone's mother 2*own number+1. Adding n:n for children, greatgrandchildren etc. and numbering them in each generation either lower case Roman if children of someone marked with Arabic, or in Arabic if children to someone numbered in lower case Roman numerals: and children of the person marked in order of birth.

So, now to Queen Margaret:

1) Queen Margaret (of three Kingdoms).

Margareta Valdemarsdotter föddes våren 1353 på Søborg på norra Själland som dotter till kung Valdemar Atterdag och hans hustru drottning Helvig av Slesvig. Hennes äldre syster Ingeborg Valdermarsdotter var gift med hertig Henrik Bödeln av Mecklenburg och hertiginna av Mecklenburg-Schwerin.

I januari 1359 trolovades Margareta med den norske kungen Håkan Magnusson, som 1362 blev kung i Sverige och samtidigt medregent med sin far Magnus Eriksson. Vigseln ägde rum den 9 april 1363 på Köpenhamns slott. - Betrothed at six, formally married at 10, very obviously not consumed yet, bears her only child in ... I början av december 1370 födde Margareta sitt enda barn, Olof, som i maj 1376 valdes till kung i Danmark efter sin morfar, Valdemar Atterdag som dött i oktober 1375.

So, she was 17 when bearling Olof.

2) King Valdemar Atterdag
3) Helvig av Slesvig - married King Valdemar in 1340, no birthdate given.

Daughter other than Queen Margaret:

3:iii Ingeborg Valdemarsdotter (1347-1370), gift med hertig Henrik Bödeln av Mecklenburg (1337/1338-1383)

Ingeborg Valdemarsdotter, född 1 april 1347, död före 16 juni 1370, hertiginna av Mecklenburg-Schwerin.

Ingeborg fick överta äldre systern Margaretas tilltänkte make hertig Henrik Bödeln av Mecklenburg (1337/1338–1383) efter Margaretas död 1350. Ett bröllopskontrakt mellan Ingeborg och Henrik upprättades i Dornburg 23 oktober 1350. - marital contract in 1350, when she was 3 (!)

Ingeborg och Henrik gifte sig sedan före 3 juni 1362. - Married before this date in 1362, when she was 15 and a few months.

No article about her oldest daughter and her husband, here is about her second daughter:

3:iii:2 Maria av Mecklenburg (1363/1365–1402/1403), gift med hertig Vartislav VII av Pommern (stupad 1394/1395)

Maria av Mecklenburg, född någon gång mellan 1363 och 1367, men troligen senast 1365, död efter 13 maj 1402, var en hertiginna av Pommern. - Birth dates vary between 1363 and 1367, they say probably latest 1365.

Hon gifte sig 1380, före 23 mars, med hertig Vratislav VII av Pommern (stupad 1394 eller 1395) och fick med honom sonen Bogislav (född omkring 1382, död 1459), mer känd som den nordiske unionskungen Erik av Pommern, och dottern Katarina (född omkring 1390, död 1426), gift med pfalzgreve Johan av Pfalz (född omkring 1383, död 1443). Maria var även eventuell arvtagare till sin moster, den nordiska unionsdrottningen Margareta.

- Married early in 1380. Meaning, if she was born even a bit later in 1365, she was (oh, horror to the Nordic feminists!) just 14, and if she was born in 1367, she was 13 or just 12 and some.

She had, besides Erik of Pomerania a daughter too:

3:iii:2:ii dottern Katarina (född omkring 1390, död 1426), gift med pfalzgreve Johan av Pfalz (född omkring 1383, död 1443).

Katarina av Pommern, född omkring 1390, död i Gnadenberg den 12 mars 1426, var en pommersk furstinna, gift grevinna av Pfalz. - Born AROUND 1390.

Katarina gifte sig i Ribe den 15 augusti 1407 med pfalzgreve Johan av Pfalz (omkring 1383-1443). - Married at 17 or AROUND that date.

Paret fick följande barn: Kristofer av Bayern (1416-1448), nordisk unionskung - the one child named after 9 years of marriage.

4) Kristofer II
5) Eufemia av Pommern Eufemia av Pommern, född 1285, död 26 juli 1330, var en dansk drottning, gift 1300, 1306 eller 1307 med kung Kristofer II av Danmark (r. 1320–1326, 1329–1332). - Queen Margaret's paternal grandmother was married any age between 15 and 22.

6) Erik 2. af Sønderjylland (ca. 1288 – 12. marts 1325)
7) Erik 2. giftede sig i 1313 med Adelheid Heinrichsdatter af Holsten-Rendsborg (død januar 1350). - Marital age cannot be determined, since birthdate is not given on article about husband (she has none of her own)

8) Erik Klipping, Erik V Kristoffersson, född 1249, död 22 november 1286, var kung av Danmark 1259-1286. Han var son till sin företrädare kung Kristofer I (död 1259) och Margareta Sambiria av Pommerellen (död 1282).
9) Agnes av Brandenburg, drottning av Danmark och Danmarks regent som sonens förmyndare 1286-93, född 1257/1258, död 29 september 1304, begravd i Ringsted. Dotter till markgreve Johan I av Brandenburg (död 1266/1267) och Jutta av Sachsen (död 1287).

Born 57/58.

Agnes gifte sig första gången den 11 november 1273 i Schleswig med kung Erik V Kristoffersson av Danmark (1249-1286), mer känd som Erik Klipping.

Married 11.XI.1273, at, obviously, 16 or 15. Her husband was 8 years older. Her first son was not Christopher II, but his older brother:

Erik Menved (1274-1319), kung Erik VI Eriksson av Danmark - born 1274, year after marriage, which must therefore have been immediately consummated or within very few months. At 15 or even more 16, unlike 12, there was hardly any need to hesitate.

10) Bogislaw IV (Polish: Bogusław IV; died 19 February 1309 or 24 February 1309), of the Griffins dynasty, was Duke of Pomerania for thirty years.
11) He firstly married Matilda of Brandenburg-Stendal, daughter of John I, Margrave of Brandenburg. He married secondly Margarete of Rügen, daughter of Wizlaw II, Prince of Rügen. His children from his second marriage were:

And no birthdate or marital date for Margarete of Rügen are given. Euphemia was however her oldest daughter and child, born 1285, as said. Her father:

22) Vitslav II (c. 1240 – 1302), variously called Vislav, Vizlav, Wislaw, Wizlaw and Witslaw in English sources (German: Wizlaw II) was a prince of Rügen.

1285-1240 = 45 years for two generations. Actually, his article mentions that Margaret (born around 1270/71 – died 1318), married 1284 Duke Bogislaw IV of Pomerania-Wolgast.

Meaning, Margaret of Rügen was 15 or 14 when her daughter Euphemia was born.

12-15 no results.

16) Kristofer I (danska: Christoffer I), född 1219, död 29 maj 1259, kung av Danmark från 1252. Yngste son till Valdemar Sejr och drottning Berengaria, bror till Erik Plogpenning och Abel. Gift med Margareta Sambiria av Pommerellen. 17) Margareta "Sambiria" av Pommerellen, född 1230/1234, död 1 december 1282, var drottning av Danmark som gift med Kristofer I av Danmark (1219—1259), och Danmarks regent mellan 1259 och 1266 som förmyndare för sin son Erik V Klipping. Som regent fick hon tillnamnet "Spränghäst" och "Svarta Grete" på grund av sin viljestyrka och energi.

Dotter till Mechtild av Mecklenburg och Sambor II av Pommerellen, gift 1248 med Kristofer I av Danmark (1219—1259). - In other words, she was married between 14 and 18. And as her son was born next year (see 8!) marriage was immediately consumed.

18) Johan I av Brandenburg (tyska: Johann I. von Brandenburg), född omkring år 1213, död 4 april 1266, var tillsammans med sin bror Otto III av Brandenburg markgreve av Markgrevskapet Brandenburg i det Tysk-romerska riket från år 1220 till sin död 1266. 19) Jutta av Sachsen, född omkring 1240, död 23 december 1287. Dotter till hertig Albrekt I av Sachsen och Agnes av Thüringen (död före 1247). Jutta blev markgrevinna av Brandenburg i sitt 1255 ingångna äktenskap med markgreve Johan I av Brandenburg (död 1266/1267) och mor till danska drottning Agnes av Brandenburg.

Married AROUND 15. Daughter "9) Agnes av Brandenburg" born two to three years later. No other - or earlier - children mentioned in article. If you don't prefer to call it a stub.

20) Barnim I the Good (c. 1217/1219 – 13 November 1278) from the Griffin dynasty was a Duke of Pomerania (ducis Slauorum et Cassubie) from 1220 until his death. 21) "Between 1253 and 1254, Barnim I married secondly with Margareta (b. aft. 1231 - d. bef. 27 May 1261), probably a daughter of Nicholas I, Lord of Werle and member of the House of Mecklenburg,[4][5] although other sources identified her as a daughter of Otto the Child, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Historian Robert Klempin identified her as the widow of Vitslav I, Prince of Rügen, but this seems very doubtful from a chronological view.[6] They had one son: Bogislaw IV (b. bef. 1258 - d. 19 February 1309), co-ruler from 1276 and sole ruler after his father's death, sharing power with his younger half-brothers."



In other words, the mother of Boleslaw (10) was at most 12, and marriage was fruitful with him within at most 5 years.

22) Vitslav II (c. 1240 – 1302) ... as mentioned
23) Vitslav II married between 1263 and 1269 Agnes of Brunswick-Lüneburg, the daughter of Duke Otto I, the Child of Brunswick and Matilda of Brandenburg. The names of four sons and four daughters are known from the Vitslav's testament dated 27 December 1302: ...

But the age of Agnes of Brunswick-Lüneburg is not given.

So, let's resume:

Not mentioned if married - 2, before I lost count. Inapplicable (since monastic) - 2, before I lost count. Age not mentioned - 5, before I lost count. As is case with following more precise info too:

Married : 10 (formally), 12/16, 13, 15, 15/22, c.17

Oldest child : 14/18, 16, 17
Second daughter between 16 and 20,
Only (?) child around 26, at 35

Here I lost count. One thing is certain, the ancestors we had in the Middle Ages disagreed with today's Swedish feminists about whether it was normal or not to marry in early teens and get pregnant quick. Our ancestors thought so, even if they found it irksome especially bearing children, the feminists of today do not, irksome having become "undesirable" to them.* Our ancestors were Catholics, the feminists of today are Lutheran Modernists or at least as often clearly post-Christian (but not quite related to pre-Christian customs).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Jean-Baptiste de LaSalle

* Note that previous to Reformation, unlike in Muslim countries, "our daughters" also could get around the irksome stuff by either becoming nuns (which might involve the other irksome stuff called celibacy and chastity, of course), or fidgeting about marriage, or sheer luck, and also - but this might be same as with some Muslims - by agreeing to post-pone consummation. Once Reformation said all should marry, goodbye with those solutions to a large part of Europe!

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Nibelungen verse project

1) I'll give you wondrous hearsay · which olden tales us tell
of praising of the heroes · of deeds perfected well
of joy and festive season · of crying and of sorrow
of noble men at fighting · so your eager ears I wish to borrow.

2) There grew in Burgund · a truly noble maid
who in all lands no fairer · than her was truly said.
She was ycleped Kriemhilt · and fair to make one grieve
Wherefore of gallant warriors · so many had their flesh to leave.

3) Most lovable the maiden · deserved the love of all
the brave for her took efforts · none enemy, each thrall
and beauteous without measure · that was her flesh so fair
but virtues of this virgin · are fair for women everywhere.

4) Three kings of her were caring · of nobility and might
Gunther, even Gernot · such warriors were right
and Giselher, the young one · a choice and noble man
the lady was their sister · the princes care as best they can.

= 4) Ir pflâgen drî künege edel unde rîch:
Gunther unde Gêrnôt, die recken lobelîch,
und Gîselher der junge, ein ûz erwelter degen.
diu frouwe was ir swester. die fürsten hetens in ir pflegen.

dead link, previously about Nibelungen:

The project had to be abandoned at least for this link, since after the last stanza I copied from it, I have no online Middle High German text to translate. Too bad!/HGL

Another Medical (Or Chirurgial) Treatise of the Middle Ages

Since part of my readers are presumably medical doctors and personel who think they knew nothing of medicine in the Middle Ages, here is an article on a treatise by John of Arderne, namely hiss Mirror of Phlebotomy & Practice of Surgery, which is located at the Glasgow University Library.

And here is the link to the article, not limited to, but often featuring Arderne:

The Strange and Grotesque Doodles in the Margins of Medieval Books
When the edges take center stage.
by Anika Burgess May 09, 2017

Friday, April 28, 2017

Est-ce que Macron a qualifié la colonisation de l'Algérie de crime?

Laquelle? Celle par les Musulmans venus après Omar, après le deuxième calife, non? Ou celle par les Turks?

Quand a celle par la France, elle a contenu des crimes, elle n'en était pas un.

Il y a eu trois genres de crimes impliqués dedans, sinon quatre erreurs:

  • les enfumades par Bugeaud (quoique la faim comme arme de guerre a été, probablement, reconnu comme parfois licite), et ceci pas encore dès le début en 1829-30, mais 10 ans plus tard, brièvement;
  • la décision d'un gouverneur d'interdire aux prêtres catholiques de faire la mission en Kabylie;
  • la réforme des formes de propriété, refusant de reconnaître autres modalité de propriété que celle par individus;
  • l'acclimatisation à un peuple à administrer qui avait l'habitude de l'être par des pirates esclavagistes.

Quand j'ai quelque chose à écrire contre le psychiatrie, il y a deux genres de Puritain qui ne sont pas d'accord : les Musulmans y compris les Harkis, et les amis de ceux-ci, les Pieds-Noirs. Vous savez, c'est une communauté contre laquelle FN n'est pas en guéguerre, à savoir les:

"c'est nous les Africains qui venons de loin"

Et je soupçonne que ce genre d'attitude parmi eux vient du fait que leur sécurité tenait pendant 130 ans à la loyauté envers une administration qui, celle-ci, devait aussi administrer les gens qui avaient eu l'habitude d'être administrés par pirates.

Mais ce qui se passe en 1830, c'est à l'honneur de la France, et ce qui se passe le 26 mars 1962 à rue d'Isly est à l'honneur éternel de bien de fusillés, de tous qui ne se trouvaient pas en péché mortel pour d'autres raisons.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St. Paul de la Croix

PS, si je pose le titre en question et non en affirmation, c'est qu'il semble y avoir une petite discrépance entre ces deux nouvelles:

1 Le Point : Macron et les harkis : la visite-surprise
Publié le 19/04/2017 à 16:02 | Le

2 Le Point : "Crime contre l'humanité" : Emmanuel Macron a-t-il parlé trop vite ?
Publié le 16/02/2017 à 15:27 | Le

If the Devil's Minion's Hate Latin - Maybe he Does so Himself?

When I was a small boy and read Dracula, I learned that:

"vampires fear three things : a crucifix, garlic and beans in Latin"

I asked what "beans in Latin" meant, beans being obviously sth you put into your mouth, and Latin seemed to be rather something which came out of it.

It seems the word "bönor" in Swedish resembled the word I was reading, "böner", especially as in my native pronunciation - since then somewhat poshed up - I had learned about "bönor" in a way which sounded more like "böner". Now, "bönor" is the plural of "böna" which means bean. While, "böner" is the plural of "bön" which means prayer. In other words, the sentence really meant:

"vampires fear three things : a crucifix, garlic and prayers in Latin"

And that was when I learned the word "prayer" - this first time as "bön", later as "Gebet", "prayer", "bønn", "Gebeed", "prière", and as you may guess, sooner or later "prex" and "oratio".

I also learned to note tiny differences in spelling, like between "böner" and "bönor".

Now, I don't really think the Devil hates all Latin. After all, one of the Greek names which add up to 666 is ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ, and King Latinus, the father in law of Aeneas was son of Picus, son of Saturn - a man, but one who shares the name of the Satanic rebel in Greek myths about origins. Also, Cicero wrote some nonsense, as did Lucretius in that language, and some have also called Codex Iuris Civilis "the Devil's Bible" - at least its study in last few centuries of Middle Ages made things worse for some categories, women becoming more dependent on men, poor beggars becoming less likely to remain free (though the application was not half as bad as the original decree, "in incertum vagantes", where a man begging while able bodied, even if not a runaway slave, would be treated like one and made a slave, that of whoever denounced him - no, Western Late Middle Ages did not get as bad as all that, it was modified to mean he was obliged to take work as a journeyman in whatever trade he knew, and if he didn't know one was obliged to take up one or two trades until he had a living - he was even free to beg rather than take up a third one, if he didn't manage on either of the two), also, perhaps certain expressions about relations between State and Church got into fuelling secularisation, which by now amounts to a secularism which neither the Late Middle Ages nor Justinian could have foreseen, a world in which "secular values" are an idol, and state recognition of a university is its difference to a "diploma mill".

But the Devil does - like Dracula - hate Latin prayers. So, a certain title "The Devil Hates Latin", it possibly might be short for the Devil hating Latin prayers and some other holy things in Latin (lika Summa Theologica and Vulgate Bible and Canon Law too).

Anyway, here is a novel which according to preview and blurb promises to be a bit saner than the Dracula I was reading back then:

The Devil Hates Latin Paperback – December 29, 2016
by Katharine Galgano (Author)

Since the preview is available there, I don't copy the blurb even. Suffice it to say, demons don't always possess dead corpses turning them into vampires, or if that is really suspended animation and there is some real soul left along with the demon, they also have a thing or two about possessing living people, and the exorcists who try to help them are very much into Latin - there is also a love story, I suppose.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Paul of the Cross

Thursday, April 27, 2017

On not trusting automatic translations!

On the status of a friend of a friend on FB, I found this:

Efter uppståndelsen var Jesus kropp förvandlad.Han kunde gå genom reglade dörrar, och han kunde aldrig mer dö. Hans kropp kunde inte åldras eller skadas.

Jesus var osårbar, ändå bar han sår.

In a distracted moment I clicked sth visible under it, and found it was a translation to French (it was on the FB account which I have in French).

Après l'excitation, le corps de Jésus s'est transformé. Il pourrait traverser les portes fermées, et il ne pouvait jamais mourir. Son corps ne peut pas devenir vieux ou endommagé.

Jésus était invulnérable, mais il a été blessé.

Uppståndelse is a Swedish word with two fairly distinct meanings both related to standing up.

It means, in the context here, a standing up of someone who was dead, i e a resurrection.

It also means when a lot of seated people hurry to stand up, which is a social excitation (not a mental solitary one), and is in certain political terms related to insurrection, however, the Swedish word does not get that far, it is a synonym for tumult, where English prefer the term commotion.

The actual Swedish word is a calque midway between resurrection and insurrection. Resurrection literally means "to stand up again", i e after lying down as a corpse. Insurrection literally means "to stand up on something", i e on a barricade (or simply on the floor on occasions where being seated is expected). Uppståndelse literally means "to stand up", and therefore only translates the part "surrectio" in the Latin base word. Hence, it translates both words into Swedish.

Now, instead of translating "efter uppståndelsen" with "after the Resurrection", the autotranslate has translated as "after the commotion".

In a way there is a kind of prophecy there, since the Descent into Hell or into Sheol and the ensuing Resurrection did involve quite a lot of commotion, joy for the souls who had been captive due to original sin, terror for the demons who were clearly "losing the grip" when these souls could no longer be confined in darkness. But for someone who didn't know Swedish, the translation is not immediately informative. If we don't believe the mistranslation (i e : if we don't trust this autotranslate) those of us who don't know Swedish but only French would be somewhat led astray if they didn't know Christian theology at least as much as main outline of Gospel story beforehand.

Le bon mot c'est "la Résurrection", pas "l'excitation".

This is not all.

  • "... var Jesus kropp förvandlad," means "Jesus' body was transformed," (i e already from that moment of Resurrection, and so all the time after it)

    • "... le corps de Jésus s'est transformé" means "Jesus' body transformed itself/changed" (i e after that moment, with some delay and development)

    • better : "était transformé".

  • "Han kunde gå genom reglade dörrar," means "he was" [in fact] "able to walk through locked doors".

    • "Il pourrait traverser les portes fermées," means "he would be able to walk through locked doors" [if and additional condition had been fulfilled.]

    • better : "il pouvait" etc.

  • Skipping minor quibbles on tense useage.

  • "Hans kropp kunde inte åldras eller skadas," means "His body could not age or be hurt."

    • "Son corps ne peut pas devenir vieux ou endommagé," means "His body cannot become old or damaged" - tense change is better theology, less good narrative, but chronologically speaking the Body of Christ is in fact 2017 years old this year, my friend's friend is speaking of the aging process, which stopped, He is anatomically 33, and it is not a piece of furniture where we speak of "damage", it is a living body where, prior to the resurrection, we speak of getting "hurt" or "wounded".

    • better : "Son corps ne pouvait pas vieillir ou être blessé".

  • "Jesus var osårbar, ändå bar han sår," means "Jesus was invulnerable, yet he bore wounds". He was invulnerable from Resurrection on, and bore wounds from before it.

    • "Jésus était invulnérable, mais il a été blessé," means "Jesus was invulnerable, but he has been wounded" - as if it was a question of an invulnerability not quite working.

    • better : "Jésus était invulnérable, mais il portait ses blessures".

If a human translator had come up with this, I would have noted him "peut mieux faire". But a computer can't do any better. It has no understanding of meaning.

The words are translated by algorithms, and the more common use of "uppståndelsen" is "the commotion", so the computer translates, mechanically, the word with "l'excitation" even when "the commotion" was not not what the human writer meant. The computer cannot translate after probable meaning, since it has no idea at all about meaning.

One could program it to make an exception when Jesus is in the same sentence, but suppose a Swede were to say:

"När Jesus talade var uppståndelsen ofta stor bland fariseerna"

He would be, for Swedish, making a pun on the resurrection, but the accurate meaning of the words would be:

"When Jesus spoken the commotion was often great among the Pharisees".

And a computer programmed to translate "uppståndelsen" with "la Résurrection" each time Jesus occurred in the same sentence would now be getting this sentence wrong instead. AI is a myth, a misunderstanding of what computers do. It is not around the corner, it is a metaphysical impossibility.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Peter Canisius, S.J.

Monday, April 24, 2017

Writing Advice, Quora

How can I start writing a book, step-by-step?

C on Q
Hi all,

I’d like to write a book. But I don’t know which point should I start. How can I make an outline to see which step should be done first, which step should be done next, and last? So that the book is not messy and cover all things that link to each other.

Feel free to recommend more tips!


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Writing? I've been doing that for some time.
Written just now
Quoting from Brian Dean:

“I try to know maybe ten events in the story before I write. That is, I know ten stops or locations on the path of the story. This means that when I start at the beginning and get stuck, I jump forward to the next known point and start writing there. Usually it doesn’t take long until I know what should go in that gap between sections.”

While I was more active on writing Chronicle of Susan Pevensie, I started out knowing four events, and wrote four chapters.

I then proceeded, naturally, not to write at the beginning and forward, but systematically filling in between sections.

Only sometimes writing forwards.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

What Exactly did Job Realise?

According to Lita Cosner, God reminded Job of His prerogatives as Creator. And Job accepted this.

According to Peter Kreeft, at the end of the book, Job knew God, and he knew himself.

I will give a somewhat other perspective.

I will not look at the text, I will not look at the Church Fathers, I will just hope I am right. And, that if I am wrong, God will correct me gently enough.

There is a moment at which Job seems to say (as Peter Kreeft cited him), he had spoken as an empty headed man. What exactly had he said that was wrong?

I think it is this : he had not had a heartfelt and complete trust in God. Sure, he had said, when challenged, "of course God can be trusted" (I know my Redeemer liveth, in the text). But that was it. He wasn't brimfull of trust.

Let's get to a few situations in the New Testament. Martha says "if you had come earlier, Lazarus would have lived". Fine? Wonderful trust isn't it? She is admitting there was a time when Jesus could even have been of some assistance, right? As Peter Kreeft reminds us, Our Lord wanted more trust than that./HGL

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

A Work by Mark Twain I Think Tolkien did Read

We know (from Tree and Leaf, I think, On Fairy Stories), that Tolkien loved Fenimore Cooper. And that from a rather early age.

We also know that when writing The Lord of the Rings, he was keeping meticulously track of things especially related to the progress in much of the time wild nature (how many miles men can walk a day, which phase of the moon it was which date, seasons, latitudes changing the impact of the seasons, so that spring and summer is earlier in South Ithilian than in Rohan ...).

Is there a connection?

Perhaps, if we knew Fenimore Cooper had done a similar thing, we could conclude that he was imitating his favourite author (I used an Italy related weather report for 28th Dec 2011 to account for the weather when Susan was in Narni on that date, supposedly 1949, and you can imagine where I got that from).

Now, it seems there is another author who claims that Fenimore Cooper did not do these things. His name is Mark Twain. It seems, then, that Tolkien in fact had read Mark Twain: Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences, which I am just now reading* - one which alerted him to what to avoid in order to not share Fenimore Cooper's mistakes.

However**, Mark Twain has his own inaccuracies.

Chicago is not a simplified spelling of Chingachgook:

The name "Chicago" is derived from a French rendering of the Native American word shikaakwa, known to botanists as Allium tricoccum, from the Miami-Illinois language. The first known reference to the site of the current city of Chicago as "Checagou" was by Robert de LaSalle around 1679 in a memoir.[18] Henri Joutel, in his journal of 1688, noted that the wild garlic, called "chicagoua", grew abundantly in the area.[19] According to his diary of late September 1687:

when we arrived at the said place called Chicagou which, according to what we were able to learn of it, has taken this name because of the quantity of garlic which grows in the forests in this region.[19]

In the mid-18th century, the area was inhabited by a Native American tribe known as the Potawatomi, who had taken the place of the Miami and Sauk and Fox peoples.[20] The first known non-indigenous permanent settler in Chicago was Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. Du Sable was of African and French descent and arrived in the 1780s.[21][22][23] He is commonly known as the "Founder of Chicago".

And while a cannon ball which doesn't burrow itself down into the ground will at first bounce, it is possible the last bounce will set it rolling in such a way as Mark Twain claims Fenimore Cooper was wrong to suppose in one of his romances. Also, Mark Twain is erroneously applying canons of novel writing to the romance genre.***

That said, the general gist of Mark Twain's words on these pages is such that it can have inspired Tolkien to greater caution in what is now often known as "world building".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Wednesday in First Passion Week

* For page 1 of free online version: or

For buying a copy in paper and paid version:

Amazon: 11 results for Books : "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences Mark Twain"

** Someone is bound, sooner or later, to call me Hibbs! See Manalive, a book by Chesterton and a film I would wish for Mark Shea and others to release at least on youtube, if not in paid theatres. Maybe a bit like amateurs did with Born of Hope.

*** When Mark Twain upbraids Fenimore Cooper for being unprecise when using "unsophisticated," for "primitive" he was not noting that this sense of "primitive" was a recent one, depending on Evolutionist assumptions. Next item, "preparation," for "expectancy", he does not note that expectancy is a kind of mental preparedness which may have been as much "preparation" in Cooper's day as "mental preparedness" in ours. And if Cooper did use "fact," for "conjecture", well, very many Evolutionists are doing so to this very day. But generally, don't trust Mark Twain on non-contemporary matters. A man who can complain of "mental imbecility," for "imbecility" without noting that an earlier generation than his own may have called it a corporeal imbecility to have a cold, is a man capable of the gross historic inaccuracies of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, and I don't mean introducing the time traveller, I mean how King Arthur's Court is supposed to have been up to his arrival.

Cuvier's Analogy and Renaissance Humanism

Creation vs. Evolution : Protestant Roots of Old Age / Evolution · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Cuvier's Analogy and Renaissance Humanism

I just learned about Cuvier's Analogy in a CMI Article on this topic. In fact, with this title:

CMI : Cuvier’s analogy and its consequences: forensics vs testimony as historical evidence
John Reed

While it was posted on the site in 2012, it was previously published in Journal of Creation 22(3):115–120, December 2008.

Here is a salient little quote:

That shift did not just happen. It was sold to the public by a perceived necessity to investigate the prehuman world of deep time. Obviously, if no one was present to record those epochs, a forensic approach was the only possible key to the past. If that door was opened only by ‘scientific’ evidence, the Bible was irrelevant. This line of reasoning created a crack in the walls of the biblical worldview that opened a breach to the rampaging secular hordes that captured the Western intellectual tradition in the 19th century and destroyed it in the 20th.

In order to understand this methodological flaw, we must first see the logical link between prehistory and forensic evidence. That point was emphasized by the analogy made by Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) between fossils and human artifacts of antiquity. Cuvier argued that fossils opened the door to prehuman history just as ancient coins and pottery opened the door to older human history. This clever metaphor helped elevate forensic natural history at the expense of the Bible.

Actually, there is a precedent for Cuvier. One Lorenzo Valla started collecting ancient Roman and Greek artefacts to piece together as exact an image of Classic Antiquities as possible.

But the point is, this did not really open the door to older human history. Rather, it shut it.

In the Middle Ages, you had books about the War of Troy. They would include authorities like Dictys of Crete or Dares of Phrygia, poets in Homeric style on the Trojan side, which claim in the text to be contemporary but which are by Higher Criticism considered to be Alexandrian in origin.

In Valla's remold of Antiquity studies, this did not fit in. It was some four centuries between the Catholic priest and Heinrich Schliemann who dug out Troy. Whether or not Valla himself did or did not believe the War of Troy happened, some of his successors did not. Valla had initiated a scepsis which dispensed with witness account if it had been passed through sufficient number of intermediates in favour of material pieces of evidence.

This approach erroneously involved doubting Troy had even existed as early as the Iliad is supposed to speak about. In fact, you have to have a very steep rise in Carbon 14 very late for the ruins of Hissarlik not to include at least some layer which fits the time scale of the traditional War of Troy.

Creation vs. Evolution : What about Ussher and Kent Hovind? Checking with Troy

A seventeen step Fibonacci curve adapted even to Ussher's timeline will allow Troy to have been at least inhabited at the time.

Creation vs. Evolution : Around Five Thousand Years Ago, There was a World Wide Flood?

Adapting it to St Jerome's timeline puts real time timing of War of Troy into Troy V.

Creation vs. Evolution : About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...

And yes, Syncellus placing taking of Troy in 1172 will put it into a carbon rise table adapted to his overall timeline between the carbon dates (Cambridge half life) for 1500 BC and 1227 BC and closer to the first. In 1500 BC, Troy was already inhabited, carbon date wise.

So, we can accept Schliemann discovered the site where the War of Troy took place.

This means we can accept Iliad as a kind of testimony. However, it is not first hand eywitness testimony. It is testimony from tradition - precisely as the Genesis material was to Moses.

Some Protestants are reluctant to accept that Moses relied on Oral tradition, he must have found Written material books from back in the times of Adam or Noah or Abraham, and evidence is he credits the works. And how does he do it? By the "toledoth" type colophons.

However, this is eisegesis. The usual interpretation of the toledoth phrase is that they far from closing a book introduce sth shorter, namely a list of generations. That is why the words ... This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. ... are Genesis 5:1 and not **Genesis 4:27 (non-extant verse). Note, I am not dismissing all eisegesis as bad or unfounded, just noting that this theory is both eisegesis and far newer than the time of Cuvier. And it could be wrong.

So, we can believe it is quite as possible that Adam and Eve redacted the second, third and beginning of fourth chapter of Genesis as oral performances, perhaps if writing was invented using initial letters as training aid, and handed these down to their descendants, and they arrived orally to Moses.

But this puts Moses as final redactor in a position analogous to Homer, whose distance from Trojan War was about as many centuries as Moses at Exodus from promise given to Abraham. In fact, between Adam's fall and Moses, the distance in time was greater (though that in generations was smaller) between Odin's arrival in Uppsala region (some say Uppsala itself was founded by his stepson Frey, so it couldn't have been there when he came if so) and Snorre.

This means that the criterium which was, if not exactly Lorenzo Valla's at least the one he helped to bring about, through the remote disciples of his remote disciples by the time of Cuvier and well a generation or two before him at least, is a criterium which humanly speaking tends to destroy the authority of Moses. In such a position, some will take the position "Genesis is in the Bible, hence it is word of God, hence God's verbal inspiration will have taken care of any errors which would normally certainly have turned up". Some will take the opposite position "Genesis is the word of God because Moses was a man of God, so while we can rely on Moses' intentions as being God's, we can't rely on his information". And that was the position obviously of Cuvier.

Now, who of Protestants and Catholics would normally have been going the furthest along this road by the time of Cuvier? Obviously Protestants.

A Catholic, even if he had tended to side with Wolf in making existence of Homer doubtful, and had tended to deny the War of Troy (unlike St Augustine whose De Civitate basically opens with "look, the Pagan gods were not much use to the Trojans, as we know from the Aeneid"), would at least have agreed on St Augustine that there always was a Church or People of God, from Adam to Moses too, and that its transmission of early material was guaranteed by infallibility of the Church, like the Jewish Church had from Aaron to Kaiaphas, like the Catholic Church has had from Pentecost to the Present. So they could say Genesis 1 to 11, while transmitted in a naturally not too reliable matter, was protected, like the full doctrines of the Mass or of Mary have been protected in the Catholic Church, though not all details are directly attested in the Bible in its literal sense. Something which the transmission between Trojan War and Homer would have lacked.

But Protestants would not be believing in the special protection of that particular tradition or paradosis which belongs to the Church of God, therefore they would also tend to have less confidence in Genesis 1 to 11. Which Cuvier had.

Even more, there is a correlation between the Renaissance Humanism of Valla and Protestantism. When Calvin accused Catholics of worshipping "Venus and Bacchus" (honouring the Blessed Virgin, blessing grapes on day of Transfiguration, August 6th, I presume), he was bypassing factors like narrative what Pagan Romans said about Venus and Bacchus and what Catholics said about honouring the Blessed Virgin and blessing grapes on August 6th. He was looking at, as if all important, the general shape or procedure of statues and of ceremonies. Like he had been taught by successors of Lorenzo Valla.

While Luther had less of that kind of learning (his Humanism was more about accurate Greek and Latin, and even some Church Fathers like Sts Ausgustine and Jerome - Erasmus was using Terence and Jerome as models of Latin, in the sense that I have used C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, King James and Shakespear as models for my English, while learning it), his disciple Philip Melanchthon must have picked up some and his disciples must have picked up even more. By the time of Cuvier, this kind of thing would have been as commonplace among Lutherans of Montbéliard (theretofore Mömpelgard) as it was among Zwinglians in Zurich or Calvinists in Geneva or Edinburgh.

So, it is really not a big problem to reason out why Deep Time and the archaeological error about both history and ultimately even "pre-human earth history" should have come from Modernist Protestants rather than from Catholics.

And that is why, when I was defending a Young Earth Creationist understanding of both Genesis and Earth Sciences was getting more and more away from Protestantism and more and more into Catholicism - which I had never been strongly against anyway. Funny why John Reed never mentions that Cuvier was a Protestant in the article ... did I just miss it?

And for similar reasons of revived Ciceronianism and divorce from the Catholic dogma, Protestants were also more likely to be racist. In Antiquity, Egyptians had been anti-black racialists pretty much of the time (to the point that to one Monastic Father the devil appeared in the shape of a black boy - not meaning that black boys are diabolical, just that to his culture, the black boy was a sufficiently suspicious symbol so he could be detected, like God requires the devil to do when tempting His Saints). Egyptians had also been famous for being wise, profound, knowledgeable. Among the neo-Ciceronians of the 15th and 16th Centuries, this could spill over into accepting the Pagan Egyptians's assessment of black men - and looking for Biblical justifications, however flimsy, as long as the Bible at least was still an authority. And Protestantism took over much more of this Humanism and its divorce from the Christian tradition.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Wednesday in
First Passion Week

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

For Fans of Michael Ende and Old Photography

I was not just a fan of Michael Ende's The Neverending Storeeeeeeeeee (sorry, that is the film), I also saw the film The Neverending Story (well, that would be the book, actually).

So, naturally, on a site dedicated to film paraphernalia, I looked up what the stars from the film look like today.

Here is what I found. Bastian Balthasar Bux, a geek in the book and in the film, was played by a real life geek.

Barret Oliver - Bastian Balthazar Bux

This man wrote a history of the Woodbury type - a process for reproducing photos, invented in the 19th Century.

A History of the Woodburytype 1st Edition
by Barret Oliver (Author), Cathie Leavitt (Editor)

Citing from a review of his book:

In 1864 Walter Bentley Woodbury introduced a process for mechanically reproducing photographs that changed forever the way the world looked at images. Aesthetically beautiful, permanent and infinitely reproducible, the Woodburytype was the first process used extensively to photographically illustrate books, journals, museum catalogs, magazines and even campaign materials. More than a century after its heyday the Woodburytype stands as a pinnacle of photographic achievement. This book traces the history of Woodbury's process from the early technology and experiments to its commercial success and domination of the illustration field, and further to attempts to adapt it to industrialized methods, and finally, to its eventual disuse. Also covered is the story of how Woodbury overcame daunting personal odds to bestow this beautiful photographic process upon the world.


PS, I also learned he has made a film on how this was done:

In the Usual Manner
A short film featuring artist Barret Oliver

PPS, RIP, "Carl Conrad Coreander"! RIP, "Cairon". RIP, "Engywook". RIP, "Urgl". DEDRELELERIP.

What is lectio continua?

50 + 40 + 27 + 36 + 34 + 24 + 21 + 04 + 31 + 24 + 22 + 25 + 29 + 36 + 10 + 13 + 14 + 16 + 16 + 42 + 150 + 31 + 12 + 08 + 19 + 51 + 66 + 52 + 05 + 06 + 48 + 14 + 14 + 03 + 09 + 01 + 04 + 07 + 03 + 03 + 03 + 02 + 14 + 04 + 16 + 15 = 1074

28 + 16 + 24 + 21 + 28 + 16 + 16 + 13 + 06 + 06 + 04 + 04 + 05 + 03 + 06 + 04 + 03 + 01 + 13 + 05 + 05 + 03 + 05 + 01 + 01 + 01 + 22 = 260


1334 in toto - 3 years, after which, if without leap years in these remain 239 chapters, of which 29 are read in February

You start on January 1 one year, you go on for three years, and in the fourth you end up on August 26th./HGL

Monday, April 3, 2017

Link on History of Medicine

AncientBiotics - a medieval remedy for modern day superbugs?
University of Nottingham, 30 Mar 2015

I Failed J P Holding's Test - But Let's Look at his Criteria

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I Failed J P Holding's Test - But Let's Look at his Criteria · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)

The TektonTV Christian Religious Knowledge Test

I am here not commenting on intro, which is fairly basic.

TektonTV / JPHolding made an own test for religious knowledge, here I am taking the quiz.

  • 1) In rhetoric the portion of an argument in which a writer like Paul provides examples of what he wants to prove is called:

    • a) peroratio
    • b) probatio
    • c) refutatio
    • d) exordio

    There is no such thing as is "called an exordio", since "is called" requires nominative and nominative of the word is exordium. a and d are probably the least likely place to see a list of examples, unless very reduced to simple namecalling - or if the speech (or epistle or whatever) is not very example based, it just possibly couldn't be there at all, as normally. Exordium is beginning of a speech or epistle, peroratio is ending. In exordium (in Latin : in exordio!) you usually want to just catch the hearers' or readers' goodwill. And in peroratio (in peroratione in Latin) you mostly want to drive through the main point with some emotional colouring, possibly highstrung. I recall a speech by Lysias and how the Greek Lector raised his voice at the final words, of which I still recall the "dikazete!" - "get on judging". An exordium can be high strung too. "Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? (...?) quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?" - "Hey, what do you think you are up to, punk!" (translated to JPHolding's vocabulary).*

    So, omitting the option which was omitted here, namely narratio - a kind of story telling intro to the main point, as JPHolding did with a narrative, but which can take the form of an inductio (a list of examples), the second most likely place to find lists of examples (or first?) would be either probatio, in which after stating the main point the speaker gives supporting evidence to the point of positively proving it beyond reasonable doubt if possible, or, refutatio, where he is doing the inverse about the inverse point.

    Giving full weight to the words "of what he wants to prove" this would narrow the possibility away from refutatio and down to probatio.

  • 2) The Arian Heresy claims that Jesus:

    • a) had one rather than two natures
    • b) was a white man, not a Jew
    • c) was a created being
    • d) is the same person as the Father.

    Let's discuss each:

    • a) had one rather than two natures - nope : purely human would be ultra-arian, not arian. More Moslem than nearly Christian heresy. Purely divine would be either Docetist or Monophysite. A non-Arian couple of heresies.

    • b) was a white man, not a Jew - nope, you think of Aryan, with an y, an idea espoused by Deutsche Christen. In the form that Jews in His time were more "white" or "Aryan" than now, it is not even necessarily heretical.

    • c) was a created being - this would be the one.

      But misstated - it says He is a created being and therefore a created person. Christianity admits He is since about 2017 years ago a created being also - but remaining an uncreated person.

    • d) is the same person as the Father. Nope. This is an earlier and opposite heresy, called Patripassianism. Modalism. Also known - had to look it up for a reminder, in wiki - Sabellianism.

  • 3) - Wrote a hand book of rhetoric. None of the following if you really meant your spelling.

    Otherwise, Quintilian, one L, is perhaps what 3 b is meant to allude to. De .... oratorica, forgot the noun. De praeparatione oratorica? Hmmm ... could check it in wiki. Institutio Oratoria - honestly did not check before picking the answer.

    Actually, I am not sure of Lucanus and Lysanias, but if they did, their works are clearly inferior in impact to Quintilian's work, which Erasmus was looking back to when he wrote Opus de Conscribendis Epistolis.

  • 4) - I really and truly do not know enough Egyptian mythology to know which of the given gods is considered a hypostasis if any, but if so, it is in another than the Christian sense.

    Ma'at could be considered a personification, since she means a human quality.** I did not know there were people who said hypostasis instead of personification, if that is "who" you meant.

    And perhaps Osiris could be considered an Avatar of Ra, but also did not know avatars were called by some hypostaseis.

    So, beyond all guesswork, I don't know.

  • 5) Which of these is classically associated with the thesis that Peter and Paul represented an early split in Christianity?

    Ruling out a) David Strauss and d) David Hume and narrowing down to either b) Baur (best known for Leben Jesu, a "demythologised" version of the Gospels) or c) Bultmann, illfamed for his participation in Higher Criticism (and duly denounced for that by C. S. Lewis in Fernseed and Elephants).

  • 6)

    I Philo died AD 37 and II Josephus was born that year, while III (or IV?) Tacitus was born later. I don't know when Cassius Dio was born, but I think he was even later than Tacitus.

  • 7) Death penalty reserved to citizens : a&b - beheading by sword.

    Since St Paul was a Roman Citizen, he was beheaded on one June 29, under Nero, same day as St Peter was crucified upside down.

    [That is, St Peter was not a Roman Citizen.]

  • 8) Theodosius made Christianity the State religion, outlawing Paganism and confirming how Judaism got secondary status by Constantine.

    Constantine had not made Christianity the State religion in this sense, but made it legal religion, but also leaving pagan official cults legal. It was Theodosius who erased the Pagan temples and said "if you want to go on praying to Venus and Bachus and Mars and that rabble, do so at home".

  • 9) In my view the leading writers on Christian Pacifism are Chesterton and C. S. Lewis - they rejected Pacifism and rejected its title to being Christian.

    If you want to know who is the leading misleading writer on it, arguing for it, I really can't tell between the four, that is not my Christian culture!

  • 10) I knew beforehand book of Job WAS ANE dialogue literature, so guessed first that The Man Who Was Tired of His Life could be a modern novel. Nope, on wiki it seems it is a dialogue between a man and his ba, Egyptian religious sense, one of the souls.

    I don't know.

  • 11) I really don't know what the difference between orthodox and heterodox preterism is.

    COULD BE authority of Apocalypse (an orthodox preterist admitting its inerrancy despite the difficulties in reading), could be timing of the final resurrection (but that is rather the difference between millennialism and amillennialism), could be nature of the parousia ... could not be the person of Jesus, since even a heterodox preterist would be a Christian and therefore have Christian views on the matter.

  • 12) I don't know who authored the "premier study" on the word "soma", I know Bultmann was early, but not how early the other ones are.

    [Nor do I know if Bultmann made any kind of study on that word.]

  • 13) I presume Biblical codices were used before the codex iuris civilis and contributed to them, unless it was liturgic books that did so.

    A codex is a book you turn pages in, as opposed to a volumen which you scroll down and up while reading, rolling out from around one and in around another pin. (Torah scrolls however roll sideways).

  • 14) Sejanus [Was the benefactor of Pontius Pilate]. He was still in favour with Tiberius in AD 30, when Velleius Paterculus wrote book II of Roman History.

  • 15) I had no idea there were any Greek words in the book of Daniel.

Checking my score:

Test Answers
Tuesday, May 15, 2012, on Tekton Forge

1) b) probatio - got it I
2) c) Jesus was a created being - got it II
3) b) Quintillian, - got it III
4) a) Ma’at - gave it a one of two
5) b) F. C. Baur - gave it a one of two
6) Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio - got it except being unsure of placing of Cassius Dio IV
7) b) beheading - which was by the sword, so got it V
8) d) Theodosius - got it VI
9) b) John Yoder - I had no idea
10) d) The Wise Man, the Artisan, and the Slave - did not know
11) b) the timing of the resurrection - ok, was not sure
12) a) Robert Gundry - I had no idea
13) c) codex - I got it VII
14) d) Sejanus - I got it VIII
15) b) musical instruments - I might have thought of it ....salpinx? kithara?

So, score 8 out of 15.

If generous, 10 of 15, if you add the one out of two.

If severe, 6 out of 15, if you take away the got it when it was twice qualified.

Certainly not 12 out of 15.

My turn.

Classic languages and literary devices would certainly be useful knowledge for assessing what anything in NT refers to, if unclear.

Church history also. Whether difference between diverse heresies or what Emperor made Christianity a state religion.

Dito for simple Classical history and literary history, as with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio.

Knowing Egyptian mythology might be useful if dealing with claims about Christianity borrowing from Egyptian religion (it is arguably easier to see ANE Paganism traced in Odinism than in Christianity, and I am, as most Swedes, knowledgeable on that topic).

But it is clearly less of a core issue.

Knowing exactly what academic high brow came up with exactly what kooky idea about early Church history is an asset, but I think it is sufficient to be able to state why they are wrong. No matter how much they may have contributed to studying a word like "soma".

Knowing what orthodox preterism is might be more interesting if you are very much into preterism. I am more into "through Church history" so that at the time of the final tribulation little is left to be fulfilled ... words of St Caesarius of Arles.

Knowing about Christian pacifism is perhaps more interesting if you are a Christian pacifism - as I said I am not and reject the concept. Avoiding wars if possible is a great thing - but not at any and every cost. Saying those who do war or self defense or executions of legally condemned criminals are sinners is another matter. As the doctrine is one I reject, its authors are less interesting to me.

And presence of Greek words in book of Daniel is supposed to prove exactly what? That book of Daniel was written after Persians had had their first contact with Greeks? Sure, but not sure how that could change anything unless you know from other sources when that was. Even if all other sources are later, which testify Greeks and Persians had contact, book of Daniel would simply be the earliest source testifying to such contact.

Or, perhaps that point is, it proves Daniel had been in Persia and not just Babylon?

Or, is Ma'at being a "hypostasis" relevant to Trinitarian and Christological quarrels of councils?

Let's check, if hypostasis was the Greek word for personificatio, and if council decisions had been only in Greek, perhaps so.

But in reality we have perhaps three meanings with two different words in each language of Latin and Greece.

  • υποςασις (if so?) - personificatio***
  • υποςασις - persona
  • προσωπον - persona

The use of υποςασιςin Greek rules out the meaning of persona=προσωπον and the use of persona in Latin rules out υποςασις=personificatio.

We are not dealing either with Trinitarian persons or Incarnation being allegories for human states of mind, as in personificatio and we are also not dealing with them being masks or roles that a single υποςασις takes on as προσωπα. We are dealing with υποςασις or persona as single instances of a thing which can think and chose, know and love. There are three instances of that thing, but unlike men, where three instances of man are three different men, in God its three instances of the very same God.

Introducing υποςασις as other meaning personificatio (if that was an Ancient Greek meaning) could only be a blunder a very minor side issue to the debates.

So, if we divide my score into what I think relevant or less so or not at all, where I know in advance J. P. Holding disagrees, here is my division of the test:

  • Relevant classical/ancient : 8 out of 9

    • 1) b) probatio - got it I, 1
    • 2) c) Jesus was a created being - got it II, 2
    • 3) b) Quintilian, - got it III, 3
    • 6) Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio - got it except being unsure of placing of Cassius Dio IV, 4
    • 7) b) beheading - which was by the sword, so got it V, 5
    • 8) d) Theodosius - got it VI, 6
    • 10) d) The Wise Man, the Artisan, and the Slave - did not know, 7
    • 13) c) codex - I got it VII, 8
    • 14) d) Sejanus - I got it VIII, 9

  • Less relevant ancient knowledge 1/2 out of 2

    • 4) a) Ma’at - gave it a one of two, 1
    • 15) b) musical instruments - I might have thought of it ....salpinx? kithara?, 2

  • Irrelevant modern knowledge 1/2 out of 4

    • 5) b) F. C. Baur - gave it a one of two, 1
    • 9) b) John Yoder - I had no idea, 2
    • 11) b) the timing of the resurrection - ok, was not sure, 3
    • 12) a) Robert Gundry - I had no idea, 4

You see, doing a real good job in relevant knowledge and doing a particular set of studies to acquire that relevant knowledge are two different things.

If J. P Holding means I have not done the same studies as he, he is right. And he has not done the same studies as I, either.° If from there he wants to conclude I am not qualified to discuss what I am discussing, that is an opinion which is fairly self serving with one who has been critical of him. Note, on very many issues he is even excellent. If I weren't sometimes obliged to recommend tektontv, as a fellow apologist, I would feel no relevance in criticising him either.

But even if he were to consider me as "not qualified", he could not call me an academic fraud°° : by discussing sth on internet you are not automatically claiming to have a certain background. Also, I don't like the general idea of dividing opponents into "incompetent"/"academic frauds" and "worthwhile". Someone who is real stoooopid as a ... well, I'm omitting comparisons ... will be worthwhile responding to if there are others sharing his stupidity.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Monday after
I:st Passion Sunday

* A more literal rendering is "whereunto, O Catilina, wilt thou yet abuse our patience, (...?) to what end will thy unleashed audacity vaunt itself" (not sure if the phrases are consecutive or I left sth out, check for yourselves in Cicero's III Speech against Catilina). ** A quality, which, though human, is not lacking in God! Measure! *** If hypostasis basically means persona, Greek terminology is terse enough for the word to be used for personificatio too - but I don't claim to know it is so used. ° "exordio" in nominative, "Quintillian" with double L = > NOT a Latinist. °° Actually, the test was made for atheists.