Cerne Giant in Dorset dates from Anglo-Saxon times, analysis suggests

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You're my inspiration for that.

Given your latest faux pas both on this thread re the Littlington White Horse and your confusion over natural philosophers and antiquarians, along with your categorical statement that there was no evidence for Pontius Pilate "outside of Christian sources" I recommend you look in the mirror..

He would have been considered a "natural philosopher" which was essentially the term used for "scientist" back then

He was not a natural philosopher although he knew several. He was an antiquarian/antiquary. There is a distinct difference between the two interests and pursuits.

Your point especially given I specifically mentioned that they were geologists?

Geologists are not antiquarians.

I never said otherwise.

You wrote that "it being Anglo-Saxon, which is what was first suggested back in the 17th cent".

That statement is not supported by the text you cited from Wiki.

The citation even makes it crystal clear that these 17th cent references "associated it,

No it doesn't. The Wiki extract states that this site was first mentioned in the seventeenth century.

The next sentence in that extract starts with "Early antiquarians associated it, on little evidence, with a Saxon deity". It gives no date for those "Early antiquarians". They may have been from the 1700s or later.

You therefore made an unfounded assumption when you wrote "it being Anglo-Saxon, which is what was first suggested back in the 17th cent".

[rogue06]

Given your latest faux pas both on this thread re the Littlington White Horse and your confusion over natural philosophers and antiquarians, along with your categorical statement that there was no evidence for Pontius Pilate "outside of Christian sources" I recommend you look in the mirror..

Given your shock and doubt concerning that we've known for centuries who the intended audiences for the Gospels were and many similar incidents of expressed ignorance of what should be the basics of a topic you sought to pontificate about... And I'm not the one posing as an actual historian

He was not a natural philosopher although he knew several. He was an antiquarian/antiquary. There is a distinct difference between the two interests and pursuits.

And the utter arrogant ignorance rears its head yet again.

Source: John Aubrey

John Aubrey FRS (12 March 1626 – 7 June 1697) was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Antiquary: John Aubrey's Historical Scholarship

John Aubrey (1626–1697), antiquary, natural philosopher, and virtuoso...

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Archiving the Inventor of the Archive: Scholarship traces the birth of the archive to natural philosophers like John Aubrey

Source: John Aubrey

John Aubrey (March 12 1626 – June 7 1697) was an English biographer, natural philosopher, antiquary and folklorist.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Natural History of Wiltshire by John Aubrey

[*In the ABOUT JOHN AUBREY section:*]

John Aubrey FRS was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: John Aubrey Mar 12, 1626 - Jun 7, 1697

John Aubrey FRS was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Does this from the first page of a search for Aubrey natural philosopher suffice to demonstrate your ignorance in this matter or will you regale us with another round of desperate defensive pleading that we all have come to expect from you when you're shown to be wrong oh Ms. faux pas?

Professional historian my... eye.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given your shock and doubt concerning that we've known for centuries who the intended audiences for the Gospels were and many similar incidents of expressed ignorance of what should be the basics of a topic you sought to pontificate about... And I'm not the one posing as an actual historian


And the utter arrogant ignorance rears its head yet again.

Source: John Aubrey

John Aubrey FRS (12 March 1626 – 7 June 1697) was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Antiquary: John Aubrey's Historical Scholarship

John Aubrey (1626–1697), antiquary, natural philosopher, and virtuoso...

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Archiving the Inventor of the Archive: Scholarship traces the birth of the archive to natural philosophers like John Aubrey

Source: John Aubrey

John Aubrey (March 12 1626 – June 7 1697) was an English biographer, natural philosopher, antiquary and folklorist.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: The Natural History of Wiltshire by John Aubrey

[*In the ABOUT JOHN AUBREY section:*]

John Aubrey FRS was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: John Aubrey Mar 12, 1626 - Jun 7, 1697

John Aubrey FRS was an English antiquary, natural philosopher and writer

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Does this from the first page of a search for Aubrey natural philosopher suffice to demonstrate your ignorance in this matter or will you regale us with another round of desperate defensive pleading that we all have come to expect from you when you're shown to be wrong oh Ms. faux pas?

Professional historian my... eye.

He was not a natural philosopher in the definition of a propensity for studying the natural world and the universe. As you seem to favour Wiki here is what it says about antiquarians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquarian

An antiquarian or antiquary (from the Latin: antiquarius, meaning pertaining to ancient times) is an aficionado or student of antiquities or things of the past. More specifically, the term is used for those who study history with particular attention to ancient artifacts, archaeological and historic sites, or historic archives and manuscripts.

And as Kelsey Jackson Williams notes in the introduction to his biography of Aubrey: See page 7

At the same time that classical antiquaries were defining their subjects of study with ever greater precision, antiquarian techniques were being deployed to reshape understandings of the ancient and medieval history of northern Europe. Scholars as diverse as George Hickes in England, Jean Jacques Chifflet in France, Ole Worm in Denmark, and Olof Rudbeck in Sweden used the tools forged by earlier generations of predominantly classically focused antiquaries to construct interpretations of the histories of non-classical civilizations. These scholars, like their predecessors, engaged with the full range of antiquarian subjects, from manuscripts, at the philological end of the spectrum, through the mixed media of coins and inscriptions, to a variety of artefacts, ruins, and sites at the archaeological end of antiquarian research. While engaged in an ongoing dialogue with antiquaries studying the classical world, these scholars built a more methodologically expansive toolbox in their pursuit of the non-classical past, liberally helping themselves to the practices not only of historians and philologists, but of natural philosophers and physicians. In Aubrey’s lifetime, a scholar could be described as an antiquary as a result of activities as diverse as editing saints’ lives and excavating prehistoric burial mounds, and could explain his findings with theoretical tools drawn from areas as widely separated as geology and comparative religion.

[My emphasis].

However, none of that eliminates the fact that you made an assumption about what your own Wiki link stated.

[rogue06]

He was not a natural philosopher in the definition of a propensity for studying the natural world and the universe. As you seem to favour Wiki here is what it says about antiquarians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquarian

An antiquarian or antiquary (from the Latin: antiquarius, meaning pertaining to ancient times) is an aficionado or student of antiquities or things of the past. More specifically, the term is used for those who study history with particular attention to ancient artifacts, archaeological and historic sites, or historic archives and manuscripts.

And as Kelsey Jackson Williams notes in the introduction to his biography of Aubrey: See page 7

At the same time that classical antiquaries were defining their subjects of study with ever greater precision, antiquarian techniques were being deployed to reshape understandings of the ancient and medieval history of northern Europe. Scholars as diverse as George Hickes in England, Jean Jacques Chifflet in France, Ole Worm in Denmark, and Olof Rudbeck in Sweden used the tools forged by earlier generations of predominantly classically focused antiquaries to construct interpretations of the histories of non-classical civilizations. These scholars, like their predecessors, engaged with the full range of antiquarian subjects, from manuscripts, at the philological end of the spectrum, through the mixed media of coins and inscriptions, to a variety of artefacts, ruins, and sites at the archaeological end of antiquarian research. While engaged in an ongoing dialogue with antiquaries studying the classical world, these scholars built a more methodologically expansive toolbox in their pursuit of the non-classical past, liberally helping themselves to the practices not only of historians and philologists, but of natural philosophers and physicians. In Aubrey’s lifetime, a scholar could be described as an antiquary as a result of activities as diverse as editing saints’ lives and excavating prehistoric burial mounds, and could explain his findings with theoretical tools drawn from areas as widely separated as geology and comparative religion.

[My emphasis].

However, none of that eliminates the fact that you made an assumption about what your own Wiki link stated.

Is there some particular reason that you are ignoring that aside from Wiki I also provided sources from Oxford University Press, JSTOR and a few others? Perhaps this is this another example of your trick of deliberately trying to misrepresent the evidence presented so you can pretend that you didn't end up with the proverbial egg on your face.

This is hardly the first time you've tried to pull this.

I provided, in order, what I found on the front page of the most cursory of checks.

Further, your quote does not say that he wasn't a natural philosopher but rather indicates that he could also be called an antiquarian. You know, sort of like how Stephen Hawking is a scientist who could be described as a theoretical physicist. This binary black-and-white thinking of yours is exactly what got you in trouble in the discussion about "contradictions" in the Gospel Resurrection accounts and it's doing it again here.

I just finished (?) a discussion in Natural Science where I delved pretty deeply into various natural philosophers stretching from the Medieval Ages up through the early 19th cent^[1] and Aubrey's name popped up from time to time while I looked for secondary confirmation for various points.





1. it involved how even some of the most religious of them such as a Galileo, Boyle and Newton, still insisted on employing what would much later be called methodological naturalism in their work. they had little time for invoked miracles to explain things.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Is there some particular reason that you are ignoring that aside from Wiki I also provided sources from Oxford University Press, JSTOR and a few others?

Is there some particular reason you failed to recognise your own source? I refer to Kelsey Jackson Williams, who is your "sources from Oxford University Press".

And I found no JSTOR reference.

[tabibito]

rogue06
"Given your shock and doubt concerning that we've known for centuries who the intended audiences for the Gospels were"

Can you perchance provide a link to the relevant thread - it might be relevant to upcoming studies.

[rogue06]

Is there some particular reason you failed to recognise your own source? I refer to Kelsey Jackson Williams, who is your "sources from Oxford University Press".

And I found no JSTOR reference.

Then you didn't bother to look

Archiving the Inventor of the Archive: Scholarship traces the birth of the archive to natural philosophers like John Aubrey

[rogue06]

rogue06
"Given your shock and doubt concerning that we've known for centuries who the intended audiences for the Gospels were"

Can you perchance provide a link to the relevant thread - it might be relevant to upcoming studies.

Where I first brought up intended audiences, but in a general way: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e3#post1266746

Where I responded to H_A about intended audiences: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e4#post1267448

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Then you didn't bother to look

I missed your link in your post #17 and you did not bother to check that your source https://oxford.universitypressschola...-9780198784296 was cited in my reply at post #18 where I quoted from Kelsey Jackson Williams' book.

[rogue06]

I missed your link in your post #17 and you did not bother to check that your source https://oxford.universitypressschola...-9780198784296 was cited in my reply at post #18 where I quoted from Kelsey Jackson Williams' book.

And yet you still insisted that Aubrey wasn't what is considered a natural philosopher in spite of your own sources telling you so?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And yet you still insisted that Aubrey wasn't what is considered a natural philosopher in spite of your own sources telling you so?

Not in the sense in which you tried to apply it. You originally gave examples of two geologists and then made a claim for the content of your Wiki article that was not supported by the content in that article.

[rogue06]

Not in the sense in which you tried to apply it. You originally gave examples of two geologists and then made a claim for the content of your Wiki article that was not supported by the content in that article.

I gave them as examples of the sort of works I read when I read old scientific works. You never were able to figure that out.

And that still leaves us with your own sources confirming what I said and you ignoring it because... well, you're H_A. You can't spin that away.

[tabibito]

Where I first brought up intended audiences, but in a general way: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e3#post1266746

Where I responded to H_A about intended audiences: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e4#post1267448

So much being misinformed. And dealt with repeatedly in times past.

[rogue06]

So much being misinformed. And dealt with repeatedly in times past.

Hard to tell what you mean, but if you believe I was misinformed I'd be glad to look at anything to the contrary.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I gave them as examples of the sort of works I read when I read old scientific works. You never were able to figure that out.

And that still leaves us with your own sources confirming what I said and you ignoring it because... well, you're H_A. You can't spin that away.

When you can admit your main source of information is the internet and always has been.
When you have the integrity to link to the websites you use so that we can see from whence you obtain all your academic quotes etc.
When you can acknowledge your own mistakes and historical gaffes....

Then you can start criticising other people.