Of Dipthongs and Dipsticks
G.D.O'Bradovich III
December 5, 2016
In our often imagined magnum opus, “Jean Hardouin Vindicated: Evidence for the Falsification of History”, we demonstrate in the final chapters that the alleged writings of the Church Fathers never, with one known exception, quote from Bibles with either variants or scribal errors, but due to the evidence of their consistency, from one uniform text consisting of the Old and New Testaments. This text without variations and universally available could not have existed before the age of printing. Therefore, the massive commentaries that reference the Bible could not have been completed before the availability of the printed Bible.
From the available evidence, there was no uniformity in English spelling before printing or before a consensus regarding correct spelling. Once the idea of correct spelling was adopted, the next step would be to reach a consensus as to how each word should be spelled. This process of agreement must have taken a long, but ill defined, time for the introduction of correct spelling and the prohibition of incorrect spelling.
We are not familiar with the development of Italian as a modern language, however, unlike English or French, there are few surprises for the student between the spelling of Italian words and the pronunciation of Italian words. The only “silent” letter in the Italian alphabet is the letter “h”.
Similar to Italian, Latin spelling and pronunciation have few exceptions, and while philologists may suggest many plausible reasons for these phenomena or exceptions to the rule, we are confronted by the same issue encountered with English spelling; namely, a lack of consensus before the standardization inherent with printed books and consistent education. Although we concede there are few surprises between Latin spelling and pronunciation, there exists two notable examples; “catholic” and “Christ”.
We learn that the “th” in catholic and the “ch” in Christ are diphthongs in the Greek language and we do not dispute this fact. Yet, we are informed the late Latin spelling of “diphthongus” became the late modern English spelling of “diptongus”. Ironically this evolution omitted the two diphthongs present in the word “diphthong”. The modern English spelling has replaced the formerly omitted diphthongs. Based on the evidence of spelling alone, it would seem that the English “diptong” was first, based exclusively on hearing the Greek word and its subsequent transcription, while the Latin “diphthongus” demonstrates a familiarity with the conventions of transcribing two Greek diphthongs.
From the available evidence, there was no uniformity in English spelling before printing or before a consensus regarding correct spelling. Once the idea of correct spelling was adopted, the next step would be to reach a consensus as to how each word should be spelled. This process of agreement must have taken a long, but ill defined, time for the introduction of correct spelling and the prohibition of incorrect spelling.
We are not familiar with the development of Italian as a modern language, however, unlike English or French, there are few surprises for the student between the spelling of Italian words and the pronunciation of Italian words. The only “silent” letter in the Italian alphabet is the letter “h”.
Similar to Italian, Latin spelling and pronunciation have few exceptions, and while philologists may suggest many plausible reasons for these phenomena or exceptions to the rule, we are confronted by the same issue encountered with English spelling; namely, a lack of consensus before the standardization inherent with printed books and consistent education. Although we concede there are few surprises between Latin spelling and pronunciation, there exists two notable examples; “catholic” and “Christ”.
We learn that the “th” in catholic and the “ch” in Christ are diphthongs in the Greek language and we do not dispute this fact. Yet, we are informed the late Latin spelling of “diphthongus” became the late modern English spelling of “diptongus”. Ironically this evolution omitted the two diphthongs present in the word “diphthong”. The modern English spelling has replaced the formerly omitted diphthongs. Based on the evidence of spelling alone, it would seem that the English “diptong” was first, based exclusively on hearing the Greek word and its subsequent transcription, while the Latin “diphthongus” demonstrates a familiarity with the conventions of transcribing two Greek diphthongs.
In English, Christ was frequently written as “Crist(e)”. and occasionally as “Krist(e)”. These spellings indicate the English writers had no detailed knowledge of the Greek language, although they could, and did, write what they heard. Clearly, these writers neither understood any reason to add a superfluous letter,”h”, to the word “Crist” nor knew what diphthongs are, insofar as the Greek language is concerned.
We must conclude that the transcribers of Greek into Latin knew the nature of diphthongs and accordingly transcribed the Greek letter Chi, “X”, with two Latin letters, “ch”. During the later half of the 16th century, the English language saw the introduction of the letter “h” in the word “Christ”, and with the subsequent introduction of printing, it has remained. This addition is due to either the learning of the existence of Greek diphthongs or borrowing from the Latin spelling.
Before the introduction of Greek scholarship in the 1480s to western Europe, we are expected to believe that for many generations, scribes consistently copied “Christ” without omitting the letter “h” while lacking the benefit of either uniform education or printing. Although this scenario is possible, we have reservations that no innovations occurred in the frequently spoken and written word “Christ”; all the while unfamiliar Biblical passages, which should cause the scribe to proceed with diligence and caution, are, nonetheless subject to errors or variations.
The ever ignorant English speakers, upon encountering the word “catholic”, would pronounce the “th”, resulting in the pronunciation of “catholic”, while the remainder of European speakers would pronounce it similar to “cat’olic”; once again demonstrating their ignorance of Greek diphthongs. We must conclude that the word “Crist” was introduced into England before the word “catholic”. Therefore, the English knew of the good news of Christ, without knowledge of the catholic or universal church. The ignorance of English pronunciation is not confined to the ancients, as certain current English speakers pronounce the “o” in police and the “e” in Detroit. The correct pronunciation is “p’lice” and “D’troit”, not “poe lice” and “Dee troit”. Therefore, we are reasonably certain “catholic” was introduced into England as a written word, while “Crist” was introduced as a transcription from hearing the name “Christ”. The earliest documentation in English knows nothing of Jesus, as this word was correctly understood as “saviour” and translated accordingly into old English as “haelend”, therefore the name of Jesus was not known until a later period in English history. As to the exact timeframes of these introductions, as contrasted to relative dating, we will never know, as the Anno Domine system of dating was not universally applied until the 17th century.
We have presented facts from English history, Latin spellings and the Greek language that is readily available to the amateur researcher. Although this information has been available to professional philologists for centuries, it seems that Hardouin was the first to make a radical conclusion public. This novel conclusion was hinted at in his Prolegomena, as Hardouin often repeated that the Vulgate Bible could not be corrupted, since it was in the hands of all. We do not dispute the validity of this statement, in fact, this is most convincing evidence for a conspiracy.
The thoughtful reader of the prolegomena should ask when, generally speaking, was the Vulgate Bible in everyone's hands. If the answer is in antiquity, then the time of the conspiracy could be assigned to any period after that time. Hardouin suggests the 14th century and this is a possible conclusion. This conclusion assumes the New Testament was in existence either during the 14th century or prior to that time. Yet, Erasmus’ first edition was titled “The New Teachings”, while the subsequent editions were titled “The New Testament”. We conclude there was no New Testament before Erasmus’ efforts in the early 16th century. Therefore, the Bible could not have been in everyone's hands before the 1520s, at the earliest, and the writings assigned to the Church Fathers could not predate the early 16th century. This conservative conclusion is based on accepted chronology.
We must conclude that the transcribers of Greek into Latin knew the nature of diphthongs and accordingly transcribed the Greek letter Chi, “X”, with two Latin letters, “ch”. During the later half of the 16th century, the English language saw the introduction of the letter “h” in the word “Christ”, and with the subsequent introduction of printing, it has remained. This addition is due to either the learning of the existence of Greek diphthongs or borrowing from the Latin spelling.
Before the introduction of Greek scholarship in the 1480s to western Europe, we are expected to believe that for many generations, scribes consistently copied “Christ” without omitting the letter “h” while lacking the benefit of either uniform education or printing. Although this scenario is possible, we have reservations that no innovations occurred in the frequently spoken and written word “Christ”; all the while unfamiliar Biblical passages, which should cause the scribe to proceed with diligence and caution, are, nonetheless subject to errors or variations.
The ever ignorant English speakers, upon encountering the word “catholic”, would pronounce the “th”, resulting in the pronunciation of “catholic”, while the remainder of European speakers would pronounce it similar to “cat’olic”; once again demonstrating their ignorance of Greek diphthongs. We must conclude that the word “Crist” was introduced into England before the word “catholic”. Therefore, the English knew of the good news of Christ, without knowledge of the catholic or universal church. The ignorance of English pronunciation is not confined to the ancients, as certain current English speakers pronounce the “o” in police and the “e” in Detroit. The correct pronunciation is “p’lice” and “D’troit”, not “poe lice” and “Dee troit”. Therefore, we are reasonably certain “catholic” was introduced into England as a written word, while “Crist” was introduced as a transcription from hearing the name “Christ”. The earliest documentation in English knows nothing of Jesus, as this word was correctly understood as “saviour” and translated accordingly into old English as “haelend”, therefore the name of Jesus was not known until a later period in English history. As to the exact timeframes of these introductions, as contrasted to relative dating, we will never know, as the Anno Domine system of dating was not universally applied until the 17th century.
We have presented facts from English history, Latin spellings and the Greek language that is readily available to the amateur researcher. Although this information has been available to professional philologists for centuries, it seems that Hardouin was the first to make a radical conclusion public. This novel conclusion was hinted at in his Prolegomena, as Hardouin often repeated that the Vulgate Bible could not be corrupted, since it was in the hands of all. We do not dispute the validity of this statement, in fact, this is most convincing evidence for a conspiracy.
The thoughtful reader of the prolegomena should ask when, generally speaking, was the Vulgate Bible in everyone's hands. If the answer is in antiquity, then the time of the conspiracy could be assigned to any period after that time. Hardouin suggests the 14th century and this is a possible conclusion. This conclusion assumes the New Testament was in existence either during the 14th century or prior to that time. Yet, Erasmus’ first edition was titled “The New Teachings”, while the subsequent editions were titled “The New Testament”. We conclude there was no New Testament before Erasmus’ efforts in the early 16th century. Therefore, the Bible could not have been in everyone's hands before the 1520s, at the earliest, and the writings assigned to the Church Fathers could not predate the early 16th century. This conservative conclusion is based on accepted chronology.
We recall the Orthodox Church held a council in 1672 addressing the Council of Trent, Protestantism and Calvinism. We find it unlikely, althought not impossible, that the eastern church debated these three developments for over a century before issuing their postion.
Our liberal estimate regarding the the lifetime of Erasmus is that he lived a century later and that the distribution of the Bible occured in the early 17th century. Based on our liberal, but not unreasonable conclusion, the alleged writings of the Church Fathers were created during the 17th century, that is, the same century of Hardouin’s discovery or realization.
Hardouin asks why the conspiracy was not detected in any previous century. He answers that sufficient time was needed for the books to become publicly available, and we agree. However, this process, as far as the Church Fathers are concerned, did not take centuries, but decades. We suggest Hardouin was the first to realize the inherent atheism of the Church Fathers for two reasons: the fortuitous timing of his birth and his extensive and intense subjects of study.
Hardouin argues that tradition, and not the writings of the Church Fathers, is what the Church teaches. While this may have been a factual statement in the early 18th century, however, due to continuing developments in the Roman Church, this is now only applicable to the Orthodox Church. Interestingly, the “essences” of the Church Fathers has had no effect on the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
Our liberal estimate regarding the the lifetime of Erasmus is that he lived a century later and that the distribution of the Bible occured in the early 17th century. Based on our liberal, but not unreasonable conclusion, the alleged writings of the Church Fathers were created during the 17th century, that is, the same century of Hardouin’s discovery or realization.
Hardouin asks why the conspiracy was not detected in any previous century. He answers that sufficient time was needed for the books to become publicly available, and we agree. However, this process, as far as the Church Fathers are concerned, did not take centuries, but decades. We suggest Hardouin was the first to realize the inherent atheism of the Church Fathers for two reasons: the fortuitous timing of his birth and his extensive and intense subjects of study.
Hardouin argues that tradition, and not the writings of the Church Fathers, is what the Church teaches. While this may have been a factual statement in the early 18th century, however, due to continuing developments in the Roman Church, this is now only applicable to the Orthodox Church. Interestingly, the “essences” of the Church Fathers has had no effect on the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
