The translation of Methodius crashes and burns

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Sometimes it just doesn’t work.  This morning I started looking through the translation of the German version of Methodius, De lepra, as given by Bonwetsch from the Old Slavonic.  The translation into English — for which I am paying commercially — just didn’t work.  The translator did not have the feel for ecclesiastical works, and so the result was unreadable.  Worse, it was ungrammatical English at points.  It made my head hurt, just looking at it and trying to work out what, if anything, it meant.

I’ve accepted the inevitable and messaged the translator to cancel the project.  I shall have to pay him for what he has done, useless tho it is.  It’s money down the drain, essentially.

Oh well.  I tried.

The first few pages were not too bad, after I commented and suggested etc.  I’ll post these here when I have handed over the money.

Share

Ulansey on the origins of the Mithraic mysteries

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Into town bright and early, in the hope of avoiding the crowds of shoppers, and to the library to pick up David Ulansey’s Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (1989).  Slightly nervous in case there is a later edition.  The library charged me 5.40 GBP (about $8) for the use of it for 3 weeks.

I’ve not read it yet.  But I have leafed through the opening section where he discusses the history of Mithraic studies in quite sensible terms.

I’m going to read his theory, and see what it looks like.  But I can already see one problem with the book; the footnotes have been banished to the end.  What this means is that it is impossible to read the book while verifying the claims against the notes.  How I curse publishers who do this!

Ulansey’s ideas are fringe.  But he is certainly correct to say that Mithras scholars have been taking a serious interest in possible astronomical links — when all you have is depictions on stone, the presence of the zodiac inevitably suggests there may be some!

Share

Vale, the Cyprian Project

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Rod Letchford has written and let me know that he has taken down the Cyprian Project, and allowed its domain name to expire.  This is sad news.  But apparently the number of  visitors was too low for him to carry on.  Various snapshots of the site may be found in the WaybackWhen machine at www.archive.org.

One aspect of Rod’s site has already been missed, at least by me.  With immense labour, he compiled links to the PDF’s of the Patrologia Latina and Patrologia Graeca volumes online.   I linked to these from here, and I have always used them as my first point of reference for these things.  Now those lists are gone.

Rod has kindly allowed me to copy those files, and I have uploaded them to pages on this blog:

If anyone finds additional PDF’s, please add a note in the comment box on each page, and I will add them in.

Thank you, Rod, for the time and effort that you put into this.

I have to admit that I don’t dare look at the logs for the Tertullian Project.  I suspect that most of the material goes unvisited much of the time.  Fortunately the WordPress statistics for this blog provide enough encouragement that I continue to blog.

Share

A manuscript collation of Pappus of Alexandria

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Via Ancient World Online I learn of something marvellous from the University of Newcastle in Australia.

The Treweek Pappus Manuscript

We are proud to provide researchers with an online copy of Emeritus Professor Athanasius (Ath) P. Treweek’s manuscript transcription and restoration of the Collection of Pappus of Alexandria (Vaticanus Graecus 218) A6617 (v) a-e [Original Manuscript] Emeritus Professor Athanasius (Ath) P. Treweek’s manuscript transcription and restoration of Vaticanus Graecus 218. The transcription (with notes) is divided across five notebooks 3r-50b; 51a-75b; 76a-100b; 101a-150b; 151a-203a.

The text was copied in 1946-1947 from a photostat of the original manuscript made in 1938-1939. It was later rechecked against the original manuscript and to Pappus of Alexandria’s original diagrams in 1949 and 1956, and against derived manuscripts to clear up doubtful points.

Professor Treweek argued that Vaticanus Graecus 218 was the basis of all extant Pappus Mss and that, accordingly, the others could be used not only to restore V218 but in so doing, to get as close as possible to Pappus’ original text.  … The notebooks are provided here as large PDFs. So you might wish to right mouse click on the link and select ‘save link as’ to download the file to your computer.

This is precisely what archives should be doing.  Who in the world knew that a handwritten transcription of Vatican manuscript gr. 218 existed, with diagrams and corrections, forming the basis for a possible new edition?  Nevermind had a copy?  Now the world can access it, and Pappus scholarship can move forward using it.  And the release is in PDF format, which is what we can all use, rather than one of these vanity force-scholars-to-use-our-website online readers!  Well done, the University of Newcastle!

Most people will have no idea who Pappus of Alexandria was.  I knew of him only as a commentator on the ancient engineer Hero of Alexandria.  Hero wrote ca. 62 AD, and I gave a bibliography of his works here.  So I thought that I would see what I could find.  More later!

Update: I find that he was a 4th century Greek mathematical writer.  I’m afraid my intention to hunt down his works rather diminished during a busy day — maybe some other time.

Share

Writing your own “Atheist manual and cookbook”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Via the eChurch blog I learn that secularist scholar R. J. Hoffmann is getting a little fed up with some of his atheist co-religionists.  In this post he outlines the tactics the latter employ.

The Sure-Fire Atheist Rapid Response Manual

When I wrote Atheism’s Little Idea I said atheists were small. But (and this is embarrassing to confess) I had no idea how clever.

There’s a species of ant in Papua New Guinea that is so small you need a magnifying glass to see that they’re insects and not swirling grains of sand.  But drop a crumb of cheese on the ground and an army of ten zillion will appear out of nowhere, through the floor cracks where they live invisibly, and devour the cheese before you can retrieve and pop it subtly into your mouth.  …

When the atheists had grown tired of my “endless harangues against atheism” last year they swarmed at me, Jacques Berlinerblau, and Michael Ruse all at once. We said, in different tones, that they were playing too rough, were turning people off (including fellow unbelievers) with their flatfooted tactics, and needed to behave like adults with real arguments and day jobs.

The atheist swarm may actually have eaten the other two because I haven’t heard from them in a long time.

But it was then I learned their strange language and breeding habits:  Like all small things, their safety is in numbers. One atheist alone is hardly a match for his (or her) natural enemies, the Christian Nation, the low-wattage Dims and flabby franks like me who send mixed signals about what they really believe. But one thousand atheists on a single mission can take down a faitheist, an accommodationist and a Associate Reformed Presbyterian pre-Millennialist going through a divorce in about a minute. I’ll tell you this: if Osama bin Laden had ranted about atheists and not “the West” (where is that exactly?) he would have been cheese crumbs in October 2001.

I have come to be a huge admirer of how the atheists organize for their own protection and what they are able to accomplish on a low budget.  I have wondered how this is possible ever since I was almost eaten last spring.

Most of us have been the victims of the group lynching tactic described here.

But Hoffmann goes further.  He has observed that these people behave as if they were following instructions.  And he has devised a “manual” of tactics.

Now  this made me smile indeed!  You see, I have often thought of doing the same!  Once you have observed a few atheist fora, and seen the kinds of arguments made, and the dishonest tactics deployed to beat up opposition, such a manual almost writes itself.

Hoffmann’s work is a first draft, but so often it hits the nail on the head.  A few extracts will give you a flavour of what he says.  And it’s all true! — every last word of it.

(5)  If you don’t understand the Straw Man Defense, resort immediately to one of the following:

(a) Call the enemy arrogant.  Our enemies are all arrogant or they wouldn’t be blogging against us so this is bound to work.  Words like “pompous,” “misguided,”  ”pathetically out of touch,” “incredibly uninformed” and similar expressions will work just as well.  Try to avoid “full of shit” and if you use the word “erroneous”: remember there are two r’s.  (see also spelling tips under accommodation/accomodation/akomodation).

(b)  Call the enemy ignorant. This is basic because anyone who disagrees with atheism is ignorant.  You can also use some of the same words: incredibly ignorant, unbelievably ignorant; I don’t know how you’re able to tie your shoes-ignorant.

The next one brought a wry smile to my face.  Not only atheists try this ploy, as I found out last week when I was on the receiving end of a (futile) attempt to lynch me on my own blog:

(6)  If you find that a website is “moderated” say that it violates the fundamental right of Free Speech guaranteed to atheism in the Constitution. …

How often have I heard that tired old attempt to manipulate me into allowing people to lynch me on my own personal blog?

Dr Hoffmann’s post is sane and civilised.  Indeed it has reminded me that, long ago, I had quite a bit of respect for atheists.  My own ideas about the shape of Roman paganism I owe to an atheist author whom I read from a library shelf long ago.  Likewise I was impressed with the precision thinking that I found in J. S. Mill.

But when I came online, I found something else.  I found atheism that was dishonest, abusive, and hateful.  Almost all the online atheist writing is beneath contempt.

This is not a question of disagreement about religion, but simply about honesty.  An intelligent atheist must find his co-religionists painfully embarassing.

Writing these words recalls an early online experience.  I have never forgotten encountering a post, back in 1998 or so, in some now vanished or decrepit usenet forum, by an atheist named Steven Carr, who seemed to be a student in Edinburgh or something of the kind.  It was about the apocryphal gospels, and he was trying to wear down someone talking about the bible by hitting them with factoids.  In those days I knew much less about Christian history than I do now, but even then I knew enough to see that the post was not honest, even from an atheist point of view.  It was clear to me that he was engaged in deliberate deception of someone that he believed wouldn’t know much about the apocrypha, attempting to bully with pseudo-scholarship.  I remember reading that post, and thinking to myself: “If you know enough about the history of the bible to write that lot, you know enough to know that your argument is neither fair nor an accurate representation of the facts.”

I have seen so much dishonest argument since.

I happened to see a post in a forum the other day, in response to some post of my own.  It was the same Steven Carr.  He was looking rather the worse for the 14 years that he had spent labouring for atheism.  Hate does funny things to those who indulge it.  Any pretence at reason or logic had long departed.  All he could manage was abuse.  He spat a mindless jeer in my direction, utterly irrelevant to my post.  That was all that was left of him.  He had become just a barking, rabid dog.

It is possible to be indifferent to truth, and interested only in convenience, in winning rather than being in the right.  But those who despise the right use of the intellect need not expect to enjoy the use of it for very long.

Hoffmann, it seems, has enough sanity to realise that atheists are destroying themselves.   We may commend him for this brave stand.  A principled atheism is not always a bad thing.  Superstition and priestcraft are not good things, and any student of modern Anglican affairs can find ample examples of the latter.  Christians will remember that Christ was crucified, not by atheists, but by a plot hatched by the religious authorities of the day.

Let us hope that Dr Hoffmann can achieve a revolution in atheism.

UPDATE: I have just deleted the first attempt in the comments to use this blog to attack Dr. Hoffmann for “censorship”.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A reader kindly purchased a CD of my collection of the Fathers in English (available here).  Since this collections is something that I work on continuously, I don’t keep a stock.  So the order meant that I had to produce one.

I spent most of the morning trying to do so, and having baffling difficulties.  This was my own fault entirely.  What I did was to use Windows 7’s built-in facility to burn CDROM’s. When you pop a blank CDR disk into your drive, Windows pops up a menu asking if you want to burn data to CD.  I tried doing this, and it failed with “not enough space”.  Plainly the facility wasn’t familiar with the 700Mb CD-R format.  But …

What I did not realise was that Windows does not clean up after itself.  It leaves the files to be burned sitting in a temporary directory, and it leaves some kind of lock on the drive.

I learned this the hard way.  I realised that Windows wouldn’t serve my purpose, so I fired up the software I usually use to do this.  And the burn failed, mysteriously, wasting a blank disk.  And the next one did the same.  And then I rebooted, and, on reboot, got a message about files waiting to be burned to disk.  I cleaned these out, tried again, and … failed again.

In the end I got a fresh blank disk, and a small Word file, and did a burn using Windows 7 of that.  It worked perfectly, ran to end, and … reset whatever lock was messing up the other software.

That cost me a morning of my life.  The moral is not to use Windows to burn data CD’s.

After lunch, I came back and worked some more on proofing Ibn Abi Usaibia.  I reached page 750.  Only 200 pages remain.  I subdivided the remaining files into 40-page “projects”, as this gives a reasonable sense of achievement on a regular basis.  Anyone who sets out with a single project and 950 pages to proof is likely to give up, out of sheer exhaustion!  But break it up into smaller chunks, and the inner man is much happier.  Know thyself, as the man said.

I’m still reading Grant’s Greek and Roman authors.  It is a book that would be far better in chronological order.  But I’m still getting value out of reading it, cover to cover.  I realise from this how many classical Greek dramatic authors there are.  I learn how little I know about this literature!  But candidly, I acquired a set of the Loeb editions of the plays of the Latin dramatist Plautus, and I really couldn’t get into them at all.  Eventually I disposed of them.  I don’t have a single volume of ancient plays (or any other, come to that) on my shelves.  I just don’t care for drama, I think.

Last night I also read through Hinnells paper on Cautes and Cautopates.  It was very dry, consisting of solid statistical information.  What I did NOT see in it, however, was any reference whatsoever to the two attendants of Mithras carrying shepherd’s crooks.  This particular legend bubbles under on the web.  Vermaseren claims (in Mithras: the secret god) that some relief shows this; but I am very doubtful.  The image he gives looks dubious to me, and there is no indication of provenance.  It is entirely possible for authors to read into reliefs the things that they expect to see!  The Cumontian authors were terrible in just this respect. But I hope to acquire some PDF’s of Vermaseren’s real scholarly opus, the CIMRM, and so perhaps I can see precisely what there is to support his claims.   I suspect it is a phantom.

A bunch of  pages translated from the German of Methodius, “De Lepra”, has arrived.  This is a relief, because I had begun to wonder if that project was dead.  I’ve had no chance to look at these yet.  The translator also sent me a sample of a translation of the first chunk of embedded Greek.  I’ve passed it over to a trusted friend to check it over.  I don’t know whether the Greek is very good, tho.  My suspicions are roused because it doesn’t make that much sense in English.  The translator subcontracted that bit, and I have no idea whether the person responsible is up to the job.  We will see, in due course.

Share

Known colloquially as “Biff” or “Sunny”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In Ibn Abi Usaibia, one Egyptian practitioner is introduced as follows:

Al-Shaikh al-Sadīd ibn Abī ‘l-Bayān. Sadīd al-Dīn Abū ‘l-Fadl Dā`ud ibn Abī ‘l-Bayan Sulaimān ibn Abī ‘l-Faraj Isrā`īl ibn Abī ‘l-Tayyib Sulaimān ibn Mubārak, was a Karaite Israelite.

Cough, yes, well, say no more.

Apparently — judging from a comment a bit further on — he was actually known as “Ibn Bayan”.

Share

Mithras: how scholarship really should be done

Posted on by Roger Pearse

John R. Hinnells begins his paper on Cautes and Cautopates[1] by articulating precisely what he is going to do and how he is going to do it.   It’s a massive step forward from the random theorising of the Cumont era.

Instead of starting with a mess of factoids and assembling them into a theory, Hinnells is determined to start with cold, hard, facts.  He’s not going to waste time on theories about what things might mean — too often presented as facts themselves —  but instead intends to catalogue precisely what is actually known.

Just listen to this!

This study is an attempt to apply to the study of Cautes and Cautopates principles of method in the interpretation of Mithraic iconography for which I have argued previously. I wrote: ‘the proper place to begin a study of Mithraism is with the Roman material, then and only then may one begin to consider which, if any, are the appropriate traditions with which to compare one’s data‘ (1975b: 343). Studies of Mithraism have generally proceeded from the basis of external parallels. In the case of the torchbearers, attention has been given to the search for the Iranian origins of their names. That search is ignored in this article in a deliberate attempt to analyse the Mithraic iconography with as few presuppositions as possible. To that end all previous studies of the iconography are left out of consideration. The article has a clearly defined and limited aim — to collect and analyse the Roman Mithraic iconography of the torchbearers. A subsequent article will attempt to interpret that inconography and will consider the various theories which have been advanced. Here the only subject of discussion is the iconography of the monuments.

Emphasis mine.

I have a feeling that those words could usefully appear on the wall of any scholar tasked with analysing a subject based on scanty and confusing sources.   Any paper assembled on these principles cannot avoid being of permanent value.

Cumont’s work was excellent in its day.  But the analysis of the data was always subjective, and never resolved anything, and never provided a methodology by which anything could be further examined.

By contrast Hinnells shows the way in which scholarship had developed, and had devised methods to ensure objectivity.

Distinguishing between data and deduction, basing oneself conservatively on the data, and ignoring the woolliness of older and less careful scholarship in favour of precise, measurable facts … that is what scholarship means.  Any fool can write an essay that is really merely decorated with facts.

Share
  1. [1]John R. Hinnells, The iconography of Cautes and Cautopates I: the data, Journal of Mithraic Studies 1 (1976), p.36-67 plus plates.↩

The perils of marrying an ignorant woman (however hot)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Ibn Abi Usaibia tells the story of an Egyptian physician and scholar, who evidently married a woman of no education, as some scholars have been led to do, down the centuries.  The consequences of this particular mistake have been pleasantly depicted by no less a hand than Jane Austen, in Pride and Prejudice.[1]  Here is what Ibn Abi Usaibia tells us of Ibn Fātik[2]:

Al-Mubashshir bin Fātik, i.e., the Emir Mahmūd al-Dawlah Abū ‘l Wafā’ al-Mubashshir ibn Fātik al-Amirī, was one of the most eminent emirs and most distinguished scholars of Egypt. He was always busily occupied, loved learning and was fond of meeting scholars, debating with them and putting to use what he imbibed from them. One of those with whom he associated and from whom he learnt a great deal about astronomy and mathematics was Abū `Alī Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haitham. He was also acquainted with Shaikh Abū ‘l-Husayn, known as al-Āmidī under whom he studied many philosophical disciplines. Moreover, he applied himself to medicine, keeping company with the physician Abū ‘l-Hasan Alī ibn Ridwān.

Al-Mubashshir ibn Fātik was the author of excellent works on logic and other philosophical disciplines, which have become renowned among specialists. He also engaged assiduously in copying books; I have seen numerous volumes in his handwriting, containing works by ancient authors. He acquired a huge number of books, many of which are still extant, but the color of their leaves has changed owing to immersion in water.

Shaikh Sadīd al-Dīn al-Mantiq told me in Cairo: “The Emir Ibn Fātik was eager to acquire knowledge and possessed a collection of books. On coming home, he spent most of his time with them, finding no better occupation than reading and writing and convinced that this was the most important pursuit. He had a wife of noble descent like him, of the family of one of the state dignitaries. After his death — may Allāh have mercy upon him — she betook herself with her maids to his library. She bore a grudge against the books, since her husband had devoted himself to them and neglected her. While bewailing him, she, together with her maids, threw the books into a large water basin in the center of the building. Later the books were retrieved and this is why the many books of Ibn Fātik which have been preserved are in such a state.”

I say: Among the pupils of al-Mubashshir ibn Fātik was Abū ‘l- Hair Salāma ibn Rahmūn.

Ibn Fātik wrote the following books:

1) “K. al-Wasāya wal-Amtāl wal-Mūgaz min Muhkam al-Aqwāl.”
2) “Choice Maxims and Best Sayings.”
3) “The Book of the Beginning,” on logic.
4) A book on medicine.

(After some thought I have refrained from posting an image of an “ignorant but hot” woman as an illustration.  I have a feeling it might give the wrong message).

Share
  1. [1]Chapter 42: “Had Elizabeth’s opinion been all drawn from her own family, she could not have formed a very pleasing opinion of conjugal felicity or domestic comfort. Her father, captivated by youth and beauty, and that appearance of good humour which youth and beauty generally give, had married a woman whose weak understanding and illiberal mind had very early in their marriage put an end to all real affection for her. Respect, esteem, and confidence had vanished for ever; and all his views of domestic happiness were overthrown. But Mr. Bennet was not of a disposition to seek comfort for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice. He was fond of the country and of books; and from these tastes had arisen his principal enjoyments. To his wife he was very little otherwise indebted, than as her ignorance and folly had contributed to his amusement. This is not the sort of happiness which a man would in general wish to owe to his wife; but where other powers of entertainment are wanting, the true philosopher will derive benefit from such as are given.↩
  2. [2]Translated L. Kopf, p.705-6.↩

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In to town, to hand back Vermaseren’s Mithras: the secret god.  No sign yet of two British Library loans of other Mithras books.  I was relieved to discover that the local library was open, as I had feared that it might not be — there is a public sector workers strike today.

I am still reading Grant’s book on Greek and Roman authors, one entry at a time.  I am learning things from it, that’s for sure.

Not everything in such books is sound.  In the entry for Athanasius, for instance, he refers to the existence of a possible autograph letter of Athanasius to the monk Paphnutius.  It seems that this was published in 1924 by H. I. Bell in Jews and Christians in Egypt, and bears the shelfmark Papyrus London 1929.  But a Google search revealed that Tim Barnes, for instance, in his Constantius and Athanasius, considered that there was no evidence that the “Athanasius” of this letter was the same as the famous archbishop.  The letter was found together with others which suggested that Paphnutius may have been a Meletian.  It is slightly frustrating that I was unable to locate Bell’s work online.

A chance visit to Wikipedia yesterday revealed another poor soul there being bullied and harassed there by a gang of other users, and being treated with little respect or mercy.  (I didn’t agree with his edits, but I could see what was being done to him).  The ploy seemed to be to bully him until he left, and then, if he returned under another name, block him for “sock puppeting”.  I suspect that bullying is endemic in Wikipedia, in truth, and that it is concealed merely because Google doesn’t make it easily possible to search the endless pages in which it is taking place.  It’s not a safe place to visit, and it needs to be placed under proper management, and scrutiny.

Meanwhile the task of OCR’ing Ibn Abi Usaibia grinds on.  I’ve now passed page 700; only another 250 pages to go!  The low light conditions at this time of year, and the short days, leave me feeling very sleepy much of the time, and it’s not that easy to gather the energy to buckle down and do things.

So … what shall I do this afternoon?

Share