De Blogsos "Digging into dark secrets, there came light"

(you have to read the link of this blog from Liwaliw at http://glenncruz.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_glenncruz_archive.html to get into the context.)

Hey, glennie! Remember me telling you I so wanted to comment on this blog but rather not? Now I have to. I just want to let this one out of my system.

Two months into my job of editing Latin manuscripts, I always remember this blog everytime I face the screen to see how much mess the Sri Lankans did in encoding the manuscripts. And everytime, I get to be thrown into a different world. A real one that definitely happened some time in the past. Looking at the manuscripts and seeing them in the angle of context, content, and history. I see myself working on a manuscript that scores of scholars around the world would see. I see how the languages could cause war and peace. I see how the Latin language struggled with the rise of French, English, Spanish and the rest of the lingua franca. And how she died. Some people could just be told why Latin died, but I on my part, I was there in the forensic lab. Amazing! I see myself working on these manuscripts the way medieval monks handed to us the works of the

Ayan, matakot kayoh!

Greeks, from Aeschelus to Zeno of Ilea. I remember St. Irenaeus of Lyon. Do you? Yes, that guy you guys so hated for trashing the Gospel of Judas from the canonical books of the gospels. But, mind you, with what I do right now, I have so much sympathy for Irenaeus. I could very well identify with his predicaments as to which book should give credence to the matter in point, in his case - Jesus and his divinity. I now understand his responsibility of upholding the christology of the Church while at the same time recognizing which and whose writing is/are congruent with such theology. Judas's account just couldn't stand against all four - John, Luke, Mark, Matthew - enough for it to be trashed away. Yep, I could empathize with that. His dilemma is mine.

Part of my job is to see whether the encoders of the Latin manuscripts, say a catholic document on the Reformists particularly John Calvin, correctly tagged (you know xml, right) bible citations in the document as bible citations or mere patristics (citation from the Church Fathers). Turned out, as the encoders are Muslim or Buddhists Sri Lankans, everything is tagged as bible citations. Well, what do they know about the difference between the writings of St. John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, and Matthew? All of them are talking about the same Christ. If Irenaeus was Buddhist -- Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, and Judas... they are all the same. And if he's into xml, he can simply tag them all as bible citations.

Sometimes, the manuscripts I work on would site what seems to be a Bible site but does not quote directly from the bible. I could easily say it's from the Bible if it says Ioh.1.4 (John 1:4) or 1.Reg.4 (1 Kings Chapter 4). But if it says Epis.1.5 or Ep.2.4. I can't readily say the writer is citing from the Epistle of Paul or from the Epistle to the Ephesians. You see, the Church Fathers manuscripts are also cited by early theologians as Epistles (because that's what they are, letters) and are abbreviated as Epis. or Ep. (the latter is easily confused with the Ephesians of the New Testament) followed by verse numbers. Without any quotation or passages to identify the books as a Bible citation, we delve into the whole body of the work to see what the content is all about and compare it to what the Epistle of Paul or Epistle to the Ephesians are saying. Sometimes, we go as far as consulting the Septuagint (Greek version of the Bible) and Vulgate (Latin version). If they jibe, then it must be a bible quote. If not, it was one of those patrological writings, from Ambrose to Tertullian.

Irenaeus has the same dilemma. He was confronted by six, seven, maybe even twenty gospel versions. How to deal with them? Get those that agree with each other, in this case Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John. Treat others as "the others" and that's Judas and the rest in the trash bin. Sounds simplistic but that's how we systemically weed out the preposterous from the authentic (to determine how preposterous and authentic is another story). It's the same system used in the courts. One testimony against several witnesses, well, you know the verdict.

I can only say here what I feel in regards to the concern of Irenaeus, Judas's alleged gospel, and what I do at work. We all have the same dilemma. Someday, if ever I end up like Judas hanging on a tree, or Iraneaus being chastised by future scholars, you can say "Gregg was just a good friend who simply did what he can with those miskeyed manuscripts. Blame it to the Sri Lankans."