Month: August 2010

More problems for UK Christians

Posted on by Roger Pearse

During the 13 years of the Blair government, a considerable number of laws were passed whose effect was to interfere with Christians, their organisations, and their right to express their beliefs verbally, in print, or by preaching in public. 

This was quite intentional. I remember one cabinet minister boasting that the churches had better start hiring lawyers.  To understand the point of that remark, it is necessary to remember that only the rich can go to law in the UK, and that most people would be terrified to be dragged into court.  As Ezra Levant has pointed out, “the process is the punishment”.  Even if found “innocent”, the process of being dragged through the courts for months and years, at huge cost in fees, is a punishment itself.  The threat of it is often enough to cause people to comply with the demands, legal or not.

Since I am a Christian living in the UK, I am naturally somewhat concerned.  I don’t really want the police knocking at my door for what I say here.  I don’t think I am in any great danger, but then I don’t really post on contemporary issues.  But preachers have been accosted by gay activists acting as agent-provocateurs, demanding to know whether they agree that homosexuality is a sin, and then reported to the police when they give the biblical teaching and arrested.  A bishop has been “questioned” for failing to declare clearly enough that he rejects the bible in this area.  And so on.

The change of government has not stopped the process.  Today I learn from the September issue of Evangelicals Now that Premier Radio, the only Christian radio station in the UK, has been taking an interest in the issue of freedom of speech that is resulting from this.  Since 2008 they have been researching the question of Christian marginalisation, prompted by statements by high-profile Christians in the mass media.  The station is very mainstream and inoffensive, but has had consistent difficulties with the authorities. 

It is running a campaign — freedomofthecross.com — asking the public to share how they have seen the Christian faith marginalised.  … Premier Christian Radio was refused permission to broadcast an advert calling on Christians to report any experience of Christian marginalisation in the workplace.

It is ironic that even investigating the subject is apparently not permitted.  The station has applied for a judicial review; but since the judges were also purged by the last government, it may be doubted whether this will achieve much.

Let us pray that this intolerance and bigotry may cease, and peace prevail.

Share

Eusebius book to be delayed

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I had intended to try to get the Eusebius book out in September.  I have just realised that this must be impossible. 

I have quite a list of things which depend on others.  The Greek can’t be proof-read any sooner than 20 September, and it may be later.  I can’t proceed without the approval of the Sources Chretiennes, who are all evidently on holiday.  Coptic corrections will be needed; and then corrections at proof.  There needs to be a book cover, there needs to be a website, and all manner of other things. 

If I have to hunt for jobs in September, as I do, then that will interfere.  And if I start a job, for the first three weeks I won’t be able to do anything else.  Starting a job is very stressful, without having urgent corresp

So … we may as well all relax.  If it comes out in December, so be it. It will take as long as it takes. 

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I seem to have done a bit too much on the Eusebius on Monday and Tuesday.  I feel as if I have the equivalent of a work “hangover” today, and I have been useless for anything.  Stupid of me to go at it that hard, I know.  So don’t expect anything very useful out of me for a day or so!  I’m going to potter for that time, and try to stay away from the computer while doing so! 

Share

Who are the classicists?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An interesting article from Vitruvian Design on  how non-scholars are pushing the boundaries of technology in a way that must revolutionise much of what scholars do.

We heard from the Alpheios project about recent development of their language learning tools. I’m thrilled to be using alpheios this fall both as a teacher of intermediate Latin and a student of first-semester Arabic, but what continues to impress me most about the project is the thoughtfulness of its architecture. The lexica (such as Liddell-Scott-Jones for Greek, and Lewis-Short for Latin) and linguistic information (very comprehensive morphological analyses, and for some sets of texts, syntactic tree banks of the kind David Bamman’s research uses) are cleanly organized as services that are accessible over the internet. …

Also in attendance was Google’s Will Brockman, who was able to comment on the recent public release of scans of over 500 Greek and Latin texts. (Six copies from three different editions of Pomponius Mela! Can you do that in your home library?)

A dynamically constructed lexicon; network services exposing Greek and Latin lexical and linguistic information to the internet ; a corpus of freely available texts — individually, these are major contributions to the study of Classics. Collectively, they really do lay the foundations for a radically altered discipline — and they exist today. If I wasn’t constantly hearing from fellow classicists that our discipline is in crisis, I would think that there has never been a better time to study Greek and Latin. …

I’ve been involved in all three projects, and know some of the back stories. None of the junior members of the original Perseus project were tenured at their original home institutions: all moved to other jobs, or left the field altogether. When an external review committee visited the University of Kentucky in the 1990s, after an extensive presentation about the Stoa prominently including the Suda On Line, a classicist asked the late Ross Scaife, “In what way does any of this constitute scholarship?” (A curious question about the first effort ever to translate into any language the rich and complex text of the Suda.) …

I draw two conclusions: first, that the study of classics is far too important to leave to classicists; and second that the study of Greek and Latin is still exciting enough to attract brilliant contributions from committed scholars who are not shackled with a title like “Professor of Classics.” In 2010, I’m starting to envy my students, and wish I had a few more decades to continue this work.

I agree.  We’re only starting to explore what is possible.

Scholars for a century have been using essentially the same methods to handle sources.  Paper journals and so forth provided the majority of the infrastructure.  This is now changing, and has been changing for some time.  The TLG has made a huge difference.  Google Books must make a huge difference.  JSTOR, although only accessible to the privileged, is making a difference.

The best is yet to come.

Share

How not to evaluate evidence

Posted on by Roger Pearse

With kiddies editing Wikipedia to reflect what they wish was true, and other kiddies believing what they read is authoritative, universities are starting to try to get students to think more critically.  This can only be a good thing.

Unfortunately, in the humanities, critical thinking comes a long way second to herd-instinct.  This process was beautifully documented by Holzberg in his paper Lucian and the Germans, which showed that the academic consensus on Lucian between 1890 and 1945 — that it was second rate literature written by a Jew — was derived from a single important paper — nothing wrong with that — and that this was verbally identical with an article by non-academic Houston Stewart Chamberlain appearing in a popular anti-semitic rag some months earlier.  We could discuss how New Testament Studies always seems to reflect the views of those who control academic appointments in a similar vein.  The problem, then, is with the humanities as a whole, with the nature of the disciplines, rather than any one discipline.

This paper (via here)  is one of the attempts to encourage people to think.  Unfortunately it repeats a bit of atheist polemic without thinking about it, and I think it introduces a pitfall for the unwary.

Finally, the librarian should stress the skeptic’s rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

They do, do they?  And  how do we decide whether a claim is “extraordinary”?  Well, “it’s obvious” isn’t it?  Whatever is not considered “normal” in our society, of course!

Is there any practical difference between this and demanding “extraordinary evidence” for whatever we prefer not to believe?  If not, surely this is merely an engine for introducing prejudice?

Perhaps I am influenced here by seeing how this supposed rule is actually used online.  It is used routinely by atheists online to demand that Christians produce far more evidence for anything the atheist wishes to deny than would be the case in any parallel investigation.  The atheists themselves, when questioned about their own beliefs, invariably duck the examination with stock excuses — evidence for their own claims is not something they wish to produce!  It’s just a way to make things difficult for people you know you disagree with.   This should warn us that the “rule” is ill-formulated, and productive of prejudice rather than information.

Suppose that we are investigating a claim that Barack Obama is a shape-shifting alien.  Surely it is of no relevance to demand that a different standard of evidence should be used to that used for other purposes?  We have no idea whether there are shape-shifting aliens — being in politics seems to make people behave oddly without the need for alien intervention!  But I suggest that to dismiss the allegation on this ground would be improper.  Never mind our prejudgements — let the evidence appear; or not.  Let Occam’s Razor prune the unnecessary hypothesis, in favour of the simplest possible explanation of whatever facts there are.  We need no “extraordinary evidence” — we simply need evidence, of a kind that we would consider adequate for any proposition.  Or are we really saying that we don’t believe we have enough evidence for most of our propositions…?

So I would suggest that the correct basis for investigation is to demand to see all the evidence, without prejudging it.  Once we have all the data, we can see whether or not the claim naturally arises from it, or is a wild story imposed upon it.  But not before.  Surely we need rules that promote balanced thinking, that descope our own prejudices, not reinforce and institutionalise them.

UPDATE 19/2/11: A typo fixed, and an explanatory parenthesis to Holzberg added.
UPDATE 30/11/11: Another typo fixed, and an couple of explanatory words added to the parenthesis in response to comment.

Share

Notes on Eusebius of Emesa

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Ever since I found a sermon by Eusebius of Emesa and placed it online, I have been somewhat interested in this obscure figure.  He was a pupil of Eusebius of Caesarea, and has been called a semi-Arian, although he had no political interests and lived in the times of Constantius when such views were perhaps normal in some areas.  The sermon I found was translated by Solomon Caesar Malan, a Swiss prodigy who knew many languages, took a degree at Oxford, and could converse in the bazaars of the east in the 1830’s with anyone who met in any language.  He is mentioned in Tuckwell’s Reminiscences of Oxford.

The sermon was very interesting, and this leads me to wonder what else now remains of his work.  I could find no evidence of any translations into English.

In the Patrologia Graeca 86, there are two “orationes” (cols. 510-535), plus a slew of fragments from catenas (columns 535-562).  But I learn from Quasten that there is rather more under the name of Eusebius of Caesarea, in PG 24. 1047-1208, 14 sermons originally printed by Sirmond in 1643.  The CD I have lists the following titles (which don’t make 14!):

  • De fide adversus Sabellium (On the faith, against Sabellius, 2 books)
  • De resurrectione (on the resurrection, 2 books)
  • De incorporali et invisibili deo (on the incorporeal and invisible God)
  • De incorporali (on the incorporeal, 2 books)
  • De spiritali cogitatu hominis (on the spiritual thoughts of men)
  • De eo quod deus pater incorporalis est (on he who is the incorporeal God the Father) (?)
  • Another sermon of the same name
  • De eo quod ait Dominus (on he who is called Lord)
  • De operibus bonis et malis (on good and evil deeds)
  • De operibus bonis (on good deeds)

I don’t think any of that exactly thrills.  Theological noodling is not my bag, and the lack of work on these texts suggests that my instinctive reaction is not unusual.

There is also another 17 homilies, discovered in Latin in Ms. Troyes 523 and published by Buytaert in the 1950’s.  He appended Sirmond’s collection to the end of his publication.  There are also a bunch of these things in Armenian.

None of this exactly calls out for translation, tho, does it?

Share

Eusebius once more

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m supposed to be on holiday — indeed I must spend a few days NOT working on projects!  Perhaps later this week.

I’ve just emailed Les editions du Cerf about getting their approval for the manuscript of the Eusebius book.  This was a condition of them allowing me (on very generous terms) to use the Greek text of the Abridged Selection printed by Zamagni.

I’ve processed all the revisions to the Greek text of the fragments into  the PDF — which was truly horrible to do.  I would have got the editor to do it differently, had I realised what he was doing.  Oh well, that’s experience.

Now I have to go through the other issues in my file of corrections and deal with those.

I’ve also heard back from Carol Downer, the leader of the UCL Coptic Reading Group, who did the Coptic translation.  Apparently there will be some more corrections from there, although they sound minor to me and we might do them at the proof stage.

The next stage, after these corrections, is to explore printing physical copies and getting the translators to check them (and doing so myself).  You can only do so much on-screen.  I need to talk to Lightning Source, who are the print-on-demand people I was recommended to use. 

I also need to enter the book in the British Library “cataloguing in progress” system.  And … no small point … get a cover designed.  Wonder how to do that!

UPDATE: All the corrections I know about are now added as stickies to the PDF file.  There are quite a few, but it will probably take the typesetter less time to pop them in than it took me to add them to the file.  I am very impressed, tho, by Acrobat’s co-working facilities.  They are ideal for this.  Adam McCollum, who did the Syriac, has replied very quickly on some formatting issues; and I’ve checked a query about the Arabic text back with the original edition. 

I’ve now emailed the PDF of the whole book back across to Bob Buller, who will probably deal with it at the weekend.  It’s another definite step forward!

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Today is the day I go through all the corrections on the Greek fragments and process them into the PDF to send to Bob the typesetter.  It’s rather boring, frankly.  Worse yet, the editor has mingled text in unicode with characters in non-unicode Greek.  Every bit of it has to be converted to unicode, and the mixture makes this very hard.  Few conversion utilities will not throw if they are told the text is one thing and it is another.  The editor sometimes also indicates that he wants a footnote on the facing English text, but does not indicate where it should go.  It’s hard, being an editor…!

Fortunately it won’t be nearly so awkward for Bob, as I’m doing all those corrections. 

Share

Letters of Isidore of Pelusium

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A translation of the first 14 letters of Isidore of Pelusium came in this morning.  It’s generally looking good, although the people I use to verify this are on holiday!  But I’ve paid the sum agreed anyway — the chap has certainly worked on it seriously — and commissioned letters 15-25 for the same treatment.

The letters of Isidore do need some kind of running commentary on them, to tie the book into a readable whole.  How this might be done I don’t yet know.

I need to find some more translators and commission some more books for publication.  I wonder how IVP found their translators?  I’ll wander around at the patristics conference next week and see if I can make contact that way.

Share

British patristic conference, 1st-3rd September 2010

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Just a quick note to say that bookings for the conference, to be held in Durham at St. Johns College, are still possible.  Accomodation and meals have to be booked by Monday, but of course there is plenty of hotel accomodation in the city, within walking distance of the college.  It might even be more comfortable!

If you’re not sure whether you can make it or not, do not despair: registrations are still open.  The organisers tell me:

Yes,people may still register, though Monday is, of course, the deadline for lodging and meals.  But we’ll gladly accept registrations at the door.  Come one, come all!

Glad you like the program, we’re excited about it, too.

Registration for the conference begins at St John’s College, Durham at 1330 hrs on Wednesday 1st Sept 2010, and the conference will conclude at 1300 hrs on Friday 3rd September. 

The schedule and papers to be given are listed here.   And the city of Durham itself is well worth a look, so you won’t be at a loss for alternatives for things to do.

You can register online here, although payments have to be sent in by cheque.  The conference fee is £70 (70 GBP); 35 GBP for impoverished post-grads!

Share