Huon

If you have never heard of Evagrius Ponticus, his works are currently being published in french by les Sources chrétiennes. This group belongs to the french Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), which is a state-financed university institution. Many members of les Sources chrétiennes are Dominicans, and their books are published by les Editions du Cerf (cerf, pron. serf = a hart, a stag).

Ben C Smith

!!!

Collating and translating the ancient texts (or any other written artifacts) is the first duty for scholarship. Offering sweeping theories and hypotheses to explain all those texts in one fell swoop is strictly secondary.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Hence the phrase "Cerf's up". Monks on surfboards, no less.

Thanks for the info. I'd never known what Cerf stood for.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

squiz

I did not wish to trivialise the work that they are doing. Without a solid foundation there can be no structure. However a foundation without a structure is rather pointless. Your dichotomy of the careful collators as opposed to the wild hypothesisers seems to be a bit of a bad caricature to me. I think careful theorising based on the evidence is of equal importance.

I think some good examples can be found in the world of science. Think of Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Newton. Tycho Brahe performed his incredibly accurate measurements, while all the time believing in a type of Earth-centric system. Kepler then took these measurements and came up with the ellipse theory (as well as describing the speed at which they moved). Newton showed how gravity could explain these observations. Tycho and Kepler both believed in Astrology. Kepler also took a long time to finally accept his "laws" because they went against all his previously held theories of the "harmony of the spheres". Newton was a believer in a "bible code".

squiz

Noone is developing theories in order to disprove someone's belief system, but rather to better explain the evidence.

squiz

Unbelievably scholarly? It reminds me of when people use the word professional to mean that someone dresses in a nice suit. Seriously though, I'll take your word for it that these people do good scholarship. Maybe you could also answer my question as to whether any of these people publish papers in reputable scholarly journals in which they explicitely support supernatural explanations, prophecy fulfillment or inerrancy?

Ben C Smith

That may be, but you seemed to be questioning whether their work on the primary sources even qualified them as scholars. The answer is yes, they are certainly scholars. Offering broad hypotheses is one thing that scholars do, of course, but doing so does not define one as a scholar; anyone can do that, after all, while far from everybody can produce a critical text of Melito of Sardis.

In general, it would be. But I was specifically addressing your point about what qualifies these French translators as scholars.

These scholars do plenty of careful theorizing. They theorize as to what sources Origen was working with, which lost works by Hippolytus bearing similar titles might be the same work, how many texts attributed to Justin Martyr are really his, the origins of various obvious corruptions in patristic texts, and so forth. Few of these topics are very sexy, of course.

That is probably a pretty good analogy. No one would think of denying the label scientist to Kepler, right?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I think the term crank theory has been misused on this thread several times. A key ingredient of a crank theory, it seems to me, is its eccentricity. American Heritage Dictionary:

An eccentric person, especially one who is unduly zealous.

Believing in miracles or in divine providence over the texts is not eccentric. It may be wrong. But it is the opposite of eccentric; it is quite traditional. Give scholarship enough time and maybe belief in miracles will be eccentric enough to qualify as cranky, as it were, just as belief in a flat earth has become by now.

To my mind, the difference in terminology here is that a person, no matter how smart, can embrace a traditional viewpoint, no matter how wrong, passively. He or she learned it from his or her parents, grandparents, childhood church, society, or what have you. But a crank theory has to be actively pursued, often against heavy social pressures; one does not passively inherit it, even if it is relatively well known. Doubtless exceptions might be sought out and even found, but I think this is generally true.

I urge, moreover, that neither traditional nor crank is to be cleanly equated with right or wrong. But I myself am suspicious of both.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Well... theories come and go. But a good edition remains for centuries.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Again, I can only suggest that you ask your local anglophone scholar.

I wouldn't know. Anglophone editors all consider it their duty not to discuss such subjects, so, whether the contributors think this or not, they cannot get publication.

All the best,

Roger Pearse