| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
 |
|
This is probably just for fun now.
But Caxton's successor at the Printshop of Legend was named Wynkyn de Worde?!? C'mon. The Wikipedia page for this publisher (nudge nudge wink wink) has about six theories for what his actual name was.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Pete Jones wrote: | | And since script means the same as scratch (which is how you engrave), then we can add a mountain of additional words nearly identical to Cax-, all of which mean scratch. |
Kegs are trousers. Except, I see when I checked, they are underpants in the north. Where they can't afford trousers. Either way you put your hands down them to scratch your balls.
| But Caxton's successor at the Printshop of Legend was named Wynkyn de Worde?!? C'mon. |
He features in RevHist:
"Would The Big Three of early English printing be what you are looking for? Incunabula by William Caxton, Wynkyn de Worde, Richard Pynson, that sort of thing?”
“Possibly. If I knew what an incunabula was.” |
| The Wikipedia page for this publisher (nudge nudge wink wink) has about six theories for what his actual name was. |
I wasn't aware they knew it wasn't his real name. I've never seen a reference to the possibility. Do any of them ask why he was given not one y but two and then a foreign-looking (French? Dutch?) surname?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Josephus Flavius was a jobbing historian, not a sprig from either the Flavian emperors or the House of David. |
ASSUMPTION: Josephus is a forgery.
FACT: Josephus does not mention the one person everyone would be most interested in hearing about.
CONCLUSION: That most-interesting personage was invented after the forging of Josephus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
If the most interesting personage is mentioned in only a single line or two in Josephus, does that mean that the people adding Jesus into the Josephus forgery were:
A) being slyly subtle?
B) underestimating just how interesting that personage would turn out to be?
C) adding in Jesus after the Josephus text had been around long enough for readers to notice if there were suddenly a new chunky section of text that did proper justice to how interesting Jesus had become in the meantime? So the addition had to stay small Option A seems not right because the passage seems clunkily added in. Slyly subtle people would have been slier.
Option B might imply this was all done early in the invention of Christianity, before the stories had been fully baked and made into an orthodoxy
Option C would seem to comply with Edwin Johnson's claim that Islamic Arabs were the original people of the book, then the medieval rabbis started copying their work (and inventing Jewish legend and texts), only followed at the end by the monks copying from the rabbis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | Josephus Flavius was a jobbing historian, not a sprig from either the Flavian emperors or the House of David.
ASSUMPTION: Josephus is a forgery. |
OK.
| FACT: Josephus does not mention the one person everyone would be most interested in hearing about. |
This is a vexed question. As far as I recall, one of the 'surviving copies' of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities mentions him, the others (other?) don't.
| CONCLUSION: That most-interesting personage was invented after the forging of Josephus. |
Another vexed question. It seems that Josephus material was written for general purposes--presumably in the Renaissance--and the Jesus interpolation added later. When you're in a hall of mirrors, it's difficult to know which mirror is which.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Pete Jones wrote: | | If the most interesting personage is mentioned in only a single line or two in Josephus, does that mean that the people adding Jesus into the Josephus forgery were: A) being slyly subtle? |
I wouldn't buy that. Apart from your use of 'slyly' and 'subtle' being a case of gilding the lily, mentioning him twice in passing would be gilding the lily.
| B) underestimating just how interesting that personage would turn out to be? |
That can't be true. You wouldn't put in someone's name unless he was already phenomenally interesting.
| C) adding in Jesus after the Josephus text had been around long enough for readers to notice if there were suddenly a new chunky section of text that did proper justice to how interesting Jesus had become in the meantime? So the addition had to stay small |
That follows.
| Option A seems not right because the passage seems clunkily added in. Slyly subtle people would have been slier. |
I withdraw my gilding-the-lily charge. I now accuse you of not knowing how to spell slyer.
| Option B might imply this was all done early in the invention of Christianity, before the stories had been fully baked and made into an orthodoxy |
That follows.
| Option C would seem to comply with Edwin Johnson's claim that Islamic Arabs were the original people of the book, then the medieval rabbis started copying their work (and inventing Jewish legend and texts), only followed at the end by the monks copying from the rabbis. |
That's the timeline I've been operating on independently though I hadn't got round to considering the Jewish contribution. It does make pretty good sense provisionally.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
I almost went with "more sly"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
