| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
Wilcox is pretty common.
As in Jason Wilcox, a footballer of some repute.
William Caxton
Cox is very common. Still, what stands out is that folks are calling their sprogs after the hated Conqueror
Wiley's theory is that he, Will, was in fact much admired so lots of folks named their kin after him.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This impinges on something very relevant at these times.
| 'When did the English acquire surnames?' |
Orthodoxy claims it was when taxation became personal and widespread, and there was a need to record ordinary people's names. I find that less convincing than this being when English started being written down. Before that people's names couldn't be recorded, only transposed into Latin.
Orthodoxy cannot avail itself of this theory because for them written English goes back to Anglo-Saxon times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
Re: Josephus, this is Edwin Johnson's take (from The Rise of English Culture, page 544, broken into shorter chunks for readability):
Here [John] Selden [ca, 1630] takes up the intermediate position between those who blindly submit to the Roman Church, and those who rashly think they can understand the Scriptures by the light of nature, without regard to the Church histories, the Fathers, and the Councils. He appeared plainly to perceive that the references to Jewish high priests in the New Testament in reality veiled the institutions of the Synagogue.
Had he pushed the point a little further, he might have discovered that the Pontificate of the Hebrews with its ideal Succession was the mediæval dream of the Jewish Churchmen of the time of Maimonides.
It was then that the Rabbis began to talk of Princes and Fathers of the Synagogue, and they were followed by the Benedictines in the composition of the Book of the Gospels, and of Josephus. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
on Johnson's next page:
To this period [post-1634, after released from prison for sedition] belong his other writings on Hebrew antiquities. Here again, he showed his appreciation of the Rabbinical learning.
He laid stress upon what the Rabbins practically called "the Seven Noachic precepts," a knowledge of which is evinced in the canonical Acts of the Apostles. But he missed the opportunity of ascertaining when that so-called "Tradition" was first heard of in our world. The determination of the point would have been the determination of the approximate date of the New Testament writings, and the relation of the Writers to the Rabbins.
Whenever learning shall revive in England, our scholars may yet find in the material accumulated by Selden, and his con-temporaries Lightfoot and Pococke, a precious fund of instruction on these and kindred matters. |
So, for what it's worth, Johnson thought there were clues to be found in what apparently were untapped sources in his day (untapped, at least as they relate to the chronology of chronology of Christian history). I wonder if they've ever been mined with Johnson's hint in mind. Maybe a job for ChatGPT
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| To this period [post-1634, after released from prison for sedition] |
For some reason that has never been unfathomed, the authors of influential works--but that we suspect are fakes--virtually always have a spell in the slammer somewhere on their résumé. If anyone can think of a reason for this, we'll be well on our way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
