 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture On Sunday, April 10, 2011, at 5:59 am, Terri Morgan wrote: > John wrote: > > Prochorus is one of the seven original deacons named in Acts 6. > > _Pace_ Bill East (the author of this notice, first posted on Sunday, > > 9 Apr 2000), there is insufficient evidence to sustain his repeating > > as though they were factual... > > Bill may not have. Please remember that my postings are a blend of many > different posts found in the archive. I did not preserve each of them > exactly as written if someone else added to the body of knowledge - your > additions are included in Bill's posts as well as Phyllis' and others. With respect, Bill did make those assertions in his notice of Prochorus from 9. April 2000. Here's Bill's notice (http://tinyurl.com/4xst77n): "PROCHORUS, martyr, bishop of Nicomedia (1st cent.) S. Prochorus was one of the first seven deacons, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, with S. Stephen and S. Philip, and also with Nicolas, who is said to have originated the heresy of the Nicolaitans, condemned by S. John. S. Prochorus became bishop of Nicomedia, and died a martyr at Antioch." And here's Terri's version (<http://tinyurl.com/3v2wgug>): "Prochorus (1st century) was one of the first seven deacons, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, with S. Stephen and S. Philip, and also with Nicolas (who is said to have originated the heresy of the Nicolaitans, condemned by S. John). S. Prochorus became bishop of Nicomedia, and died a martyr at Antioch." Terri's version drops the caption, transfers to the first sentence Bill's dating of Prochorus, makes a light change from "(1st cent.)" to "(1st century)", and at the beginning of that sentence drops the "S." from before Prochorus' name. These minor alterations change neither the burden of Bill's notice nor the great plurality of its form of words. They adapt Bill's notice to the style used by Terri in her postings. The activity they represent is editorial, not auctorial. As it is easily verifiable in the archives that Bill did make the assertions in question, Terri's "Bill may not have." is certainly misleading (others may think it disingenuous). Ditto for her suggestion that my "additions" as well as those of Phyllis and others are included in this notice. They are not. > If > you must slam someone for 'insufficient evidence' in one of my posts, > please > slam me. > This list declares itself a vehicle for "Scholarly discussions of medieval religious culture". In a scholarly context it is expected that statements will be attributed to their original author and that criticism of them will refer to that author even when they are repeated by others. "insufficient evidence" is not much of a slam when one considers that much of the content of the potted lives of the saints from which this list's daily notices of saints and feasts have been drawn repeats uncritically older matter giving credence to late antique and medieval accounts at which modern scholarship looks askance (Bill himself, in the previous notice in his post in question, refers to one such late antique text as a "piece of pious nonsense"). Given the conditions under which the list's daily notices are produced, it is inevitable that these notices will contain questionable matter deriving from such sources. Saying so in a specific instance seems perfectly appropriate in what after all are supposed to be scholarly discussions. Best again, John Dillon ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html