Second week of Tishri + 15 Month = Christmas

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Soon Christmas · New blog on the kid : On the Date of Christmas · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica : Second week of Tishri + 15 Month = Christmas · Does it Make Sense for Christ to Have been Born at Chanukka time?

Here is the argument of Dwight Longenecker:

Here’s how it goes: We know that John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah was a priest who served in the temple at Jerusalem. While he was serving an angel appeared announcing that his wife Elizabeth would become pregnant and the boy’s name would be John. The Jewish priests were on a schedule according to their family lineage because the priesthood was hereditary. Zechariah was a priest of the class of Abijah. This is recorded in Luke 1:5. The class of Abijah was the eighth class of priests. This is recorded in Nehemiah 12:17. Each class served one week in the temple twice a year. The Abijah class took their turn during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri. On our calendar that would fall between 22 and 30 September. Count ahead nine months. We celebrate the birth of John the Baptist on 24 June.

How does this connect with Jesus? When the angel comes to Mary to announce the conception of Jesus Christ after her assent, she goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth (John the Baptist’s mother and wife of Zechariah) when Elizabeth was six months pregnant. This is recorded in Luke 1:36. If John the Baptist was conceived around 25 September, this means Jesus was conceived around March 25 –the date Christians celebrate the Annunciation–. Count forward nine more months and you get December 25 as the date for the birth of Jesus Christ.

Yes, Jesus Really Existed and He Was Born on December 25
December 20, 2018 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2018/12/yes-jesus-really-existed-and-he-was-born-on-december-25.html

Now, "in our calendar" - depends on what year.

I was counting on 19 years, consistently adding 365.2425 days to the account at the start of a year, and consistently deducting 29.5 days per lunar month, ignoring when around half days the new days fall, but otherwise miming the functioning of Hebrew years. A bit too the Cycle of Meton, on which they are currently more or less based.

Now, after month IX, the days left of the year varied between 100 and 127 in those 19 "years". Now, "second week" of a month are its days 8 to 14. In Tishri, that includes ...

9 Tishrei – Erev Yom Kippur
10 Tishrei – Yom Kippur – (Fast Day)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tishrei

This means, we can well imagine Zacharias was offering the sacrifice of Iom Kippur ...

It also means, we can check whether Iom Kippur is a September 25, typically ...

2017 date Sunset, 29 September – nightfall, 30 September[1]
2018 date Sunset, 18 September – nightfall, 19 September
2019 date Sunset, 8 October – nightfall, 9 October
2020 date Sunset, 27 September – nightfall, 28 September

Yes, a September 25th date is possible, though not the only possible one.

Im Jerusalemer Tempel wurden an diesem Tag besondere Opfer dargebracht, es war der einzige Tag, an dem der Hohepriester – allein und streng abgeschirmt – das Allerheiligste im Tempel betreten durfte, um stellvertretend für das Volk die Vergebung der Sünden zu empfangen. Dort besprengte er die Bundeslade mit dem Blut von zwei Opfertieren.

It was the only day on which the High Priest - alone and strictly screened off - could enter into the Holy of Holies in the Temple ... however, Zachary was seemingly not offering blood of sacrificial animals on the Ark of the Covenant, he was offering incense:

According to the custom of the priestly office, it was his lot to offer incense, going into the temple of the Lord. And all the multitude of the people was praying without, at the hour of incense. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And Zachary seeing him, was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him: Fear not, Zachary, for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John: (Luke 1:9-13)

I wonder, does this mean, Zachary was doing incense while the High priest was entering the Holy of Holies? In fact, it seems Zachary never officiated as High Priest, according to the wikipedian list of High Priests:

Ananelus, 37-36 BC
Aristobulus III, paternal grandson of Aristobulus, 36 BC He was the last of the Hasmoneans; II and brother of Herod's second wife Mariamne I.
Ananelus (restored), 36-30 BC
Joshua ben Fabus, 30-23 BC
Simon ben Boethus, 23-5 BC (his daughter Mariamne II was third wife of Herod the Great)
Matthias ben Theophilus, 5-4 BC[13]
Joazar ben Boethus, 4 BC
Eleazar ben Boethus, 4-3 BC
Joshua ben Sie, 3 BC - ?
Joazar ben Boethus (restored), ? - 6 AD

On the other hand, since there are question marks at Joshua ben Sie and Joazar ben Boethus, this is not totally certain ... this means, Zachary would not have entered the Holy of Holies and therefore, he would not have been required not to offer incense on Iom Kippur - unless indeed the offering of incense was broken off due to fasting - and we cannot tie nor exclude Zachary's service to Iom Kippur. Only to the week.

Now, again, the Jewish year falls with its months and dates on various parts of the Gregorian or back then Julian year.

the earliest date on which Yom Kippur can fall is September 14, as happened most recently in 1899 and 2013. The latest Yom Kippur can occur relative to the Gregorian dates is on October 14, as happened in 1967 and will happen again in 2043.

Remember, Iom Kippur is 10 Tishri, second week of Tishri begins 8 and ends 14 Tishri ...

8 Tishri can therefore fall between September 12 and October 12, 14 Tishri between September 19 and October 19. So, overall, between September 12 and October 19. This means, between September 12 and "September 49".

49		38		11
11		/2		19
38		19		30

And no, the mean of this is not September 25, but September 30.

This means, in order to calculate forward to December 25 fifteen months later, one would have needed ... either another mean corresponence between Julian and Hebrew years then than now, or exact knowledge on which day of Tishri in which year and which years had late and early months, like if previous year had two Adar months, the Tishri would be late, but if that had happened the year before, the Tishri would be early.

Or even a record keeping in the Temple on what Roman dates corresponded to a Jewish year, if this knowledge came to the Church from the Temple.

It is nearly necessary to suppose such a thing in order to calculate anything, since the Challoner comment says:

[5] "Of the course of Abia": that is, of the rank of Abia, which word in the Greek is commonly put for the employment of one day: but here for the functions of a whole week. For, by the appointment of David, 1 Par. 24., the descendants from Aaron were divided into twenty-four families, of which the eighth was Abia, from whom descended this Zachary, who at this time was in the week of his priestly functions.

September 25 - 24 weeks = September 25 - 168 days

September 25
...
April 178 - 168 = April 10 - that would have been within his previous turn.

September 25 + 168 days = "September 193"

S 193		J 70
O -31		F 28
O 162		F 42
N -30		M 31
N 132		M 11
D -31
D 101
J -31
J =70

His next turn would have included March 11. In other words, an exact knowledge of when is necessary. At a minimum, if a priest became Christian after year 70, he must have been able to work it out backwards from Destruction of Temple, following the courses.

While Christianity is not Rabbinic Judaism, it starts out involved in Judaica, and when Jews convert, Christianity can get added info, not on doctrine, but on history. Church Fathers start mentioning Christmas after year 70 (and well before when Aurelian invented Sol Invictus - and Christmas is not even coinciding with Saturnalia). I think it is probable, the Church has at least known of December 25 since back then.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre
St. John's Day
27.XII.2018

PS, I also enjoy this article, about the place:

How Can We Be Sure That Jesus Was Born in Bethlehem?
https://dwightlongenecker.com/how-can-we-be-sure-that-jesus-was-born-in-bethlehem/

Dwight Longenecker at his best:

The evidence that Christians were worshipping at this site therefore dates from the beginning of the second century–at most one hundred and twenty years after the birth of Christ. Would the local people have retained a memory of the exact site? I think so. We only have to look around at the world today to see how the homes of famous people are remembered, identified, marked, and become places of pilgrimage. What famous person was born a hundred and twenty years ago? C.S.Lewis for one. His Oxford home has been turned into a study center and pilgrimage site for visitors, and this article tells how his boyhood home in Belfast is visited by C.S.Lewis fans.

PPS, one more thought on this : even the text of Luke presupposes that he had access to someone (probably St John the Gospeller, with whom the Blessed Virgin lived) who knew that Zachary had served in the course of Abiah. So, probably, that is how the Church knew when Christmas was./HGL

Ockham - Protestant, Sede or Trad?

Russell Grigg, on CMI, seems to imagine him as a Protestant.

Michael asked Ockham to study three papal bulls4 showing what Pope John XXII had previously written on the use of property. From these, Ockham concluded that Pope John was not just mistakenly wrong, but was stubbornly and heretically wrong, and so had forfeited his mandate. In short, Ockham protested that John was a pseudo-pope. Indeed, Ockham has the distinction of being designated ‘the first Protestant’—by no less an authority on this subject than the Catholic Encyclopedia.5

Actually, when I look up the article, I find:

He has, indeed, been called "the first Protestant". Nevertheless, he recognized in his polemical writings the authority of the Church in spiritual matters, and did not diminish that authority in any respect. Similarly, although he rejected the rational demonstration of several truths which are fundamental in the Christian system of theology, he held firmly to the same truths as matters of faith.

So, no, not a Protestant. Perhaps Russell Grigg had consulted the other one, which I have not been able to access ...

How about the quoted paragraph? The one quoted by Russell Grigg?

From these, Ockham concluded that Pope John was not just mistakenly wrong, but was stubbornly and heretically wrong, and so had forfeited his mandate. In short, Ockham protested that John was a pseudo-pope.

Sounds like a Sedevacantist. You know the guys who go:

Other Catholic

(since 2014)

You really should accept Evolution, Pope Saint John Paul II said "evolution is more than just a hypothesis".

Sedevacantist

Yeah, I know it was not "more than just one hypothesis" as some had hoped, I can only conclude Wojtyla was a pseudo-Pope. As Bergoglio for pseudo-canonizing him.

Other Catholic

(prior to 2007)

You can't go to the Masses of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, Pope Paul VI has changed the liturgy.

Sedevacantist

Yeah, I avoid their Masses too, now, since they pray "una cum papa nostro benedicto" (prior to 2007, remember) and Montini with successors Wojtyla and Ratzinger are pseudo-Popes.

So, was Ockham a Sede about John XXII? In fact, others seem to have had misgivings too. He momentarily entertained soul sleep, and said even the saints don't see God in Heaven prior to the Last Judgement. One or two saints promptly opposed this and their wording - "withdraw obedience" - can at least be reasonably interpreted as an euphemism for "go Sede". He did repent on this one.

Relationships between the parties deteriorated and in May 1328 Michael, Ockham, and some Franciscan sympathizers fled Avignon to the protection of the Holy Roman Emperor, Louis IV (Ludwig) of Bavaria, who became Ockham’s patron. Pope John promptly excommunicated Ockham and his companions, not for heresy but for defiance of his authority (i.e. leaving Avignon without his permission).

Sounds a bit like the reaction of "John Paul II" in 1988.

"Yeah, I know, you are concerned we are not sufficiently traditional in Rome, you think you have to defend tradition on your own, but hey guys, as long as you accept I am Pope, what you did is disobedience to the Pope on a very grave matter (consecration of bishops without authorisation by the Pope), so, just want you to know, the Church Law automatically excommunicated you ..."

VERY loose rendering of the notification act of Antipope Wojtyla on hearing bishops Lefebvre and Castro-Mayer had pulled through with consecrating four bishops at Écône. One of which, Mgr Williamson, is, by the way fairly strictly Creationist, excplicitly references Adam and Eve and the Flood. And the upcoming Antichrist.

So, as far as the mode of non-obedience is concerned, one can debate on whether William was Protestant (very improbable) or Sedevacantist or Trad (Lefebvrist). The latter two are more probable. Except, he was Caesareo-Papist:

In his controversial writings William of Ockham appears as the advocate of secular absolutism. He denies the right of the popes to exercise temporal power, or to interfere in any way whatever in the affairs of the Empire. He even went so far as to advocate the validity of the adulterous marriage of Louis's son, on the grounds of political expediency, and the absolute power of the State in such matters.

What a horror ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Créteil
St. Stephen
26.XII.2018

Gothic Sculptors

Before going on to personal details, the wiki category named with a few more, one person didn't even give his name:

Lamentation of Christ from Žebrák is a lime wood relief of the common subject of the Lamentation of Christ, from about 1510. It ranks among the finest works of Late Gothic sculpture in Bohemia. The anonymous artist, who is called the "Master of the Žebrák Lamentation of Christ" after this work, probably had his workshop in České Budějovice and could have been the same person as the woodcarver Alexandr (Alexandr Schniczer) who was in charge of that town’s guild between 1503 and 1516.[1] The relief is now part of the permanent collection of medieval art at the National Gallery in Prague.

That's how modest certain artists were in the Middle Ages. But, unlike an idealistic prejudice, not all. This very idealistic prejudice may have come from less familiarity with Gothic artists and therefore less ability naming them, so you say "they didn't sign their works" - some didn't, but many did or the artists was otherwise known, from contract and payment. A few others had birth or death year so uncertain I could not use them for a statistic like this ... here are those I could use for statistics*:

• André Beauneveu (born c. 1335 in Valenciennes, died c.1400 in Bourges) was an Early Netherlandish sculptor and painter, born in the County of Hainaut (Valenciennes is today in France), who is best known for his work in the service of the French King Charles V, and of the Valois Duke, Jean de Berry. His work in all media shows a generally naturalistic and 'sculptural' style, characteristic of the 'Pucellian revival' of the latter 14th century.
  
  
• Arnolfo di Cambio[1] (c. 1240 – 1300/1310) was an Italian architect and sculptor.
  
  
• Matteo di Cione (1330–1380) was an Italian sculptor, notable for being the brother of three of the great painters of Gothic Florence, Nardo di Cione, Jacopo di Cione and Andrea di Cione. The di Cione (pronounced dee choh’ nay) brothers often worked collaboratively, and Matteo is known to have supplied marble for Orcagna's altarpiece in the Orsanmichele (c.1381).
  
  
• Andrea di Cione di Arcangelo (c. 1308 – August 25, 1368), better known as Orcagna, was an Italian painter, sculptor, and architect active in Florence. He worked as a consultant at the Florence Cathedral and supervised the construction of the facade at the Orvieto Cathedral
  
  
• Simón de Colonia (Burgos, hacia 1450 - Burgos, 1511) fue un arquitecto y escultor español, hijo del arquitecto gótico Juan de Colonia y padre del también arquitecto y escultor Francisco de Colonia.
  
  
• Juan o Hans de Colonia (Colonia, ca. 14101​ - Burgos, 1481) fue un arquitecto alemán, que introdujo en Castilla el estilo gótico flamígero. Se le considera, junto a Enrique Egas, el representante más destacado del mismo en España. Fue padre y abuelo, respectivamente, de los también arquitectos Simón y Francisco de Colonia.
  
  
• Francisco de Colonia (Burgos, c. 1470 - ibídem, 1542) fue un arquitecto y escultor español.
  
  
• Gregor Erhart (ca. 1470?–1540) was a German sculptor who was born at Ulm, the son of sculptor Michel Erhart. Gregor spent his working career at Augsburg, where he was made master in 1496, and where he died. Attributions of sculpture to his workshop, mixing Late Gothic and Renaissance formulas, are based on a single documented work originally from the Cistercian Kaisheim Abbey, which was lost in World War II.
  
  
• Michel Erhart (c. 1440 to 1445 – after 1522, Ulm) was a German late Gothic sculptor who lived and worked in Ulm.
  
  
• Madern Gerthener (1360/1370 – 1430) was a German stonemason and late Gothic architect. (Self portrait on Eschenheimer Tor in Frankfurt, which I never noticed when living or visiting there).
  
  
• Henning van der Heide (sometimes von der Heide/Heyde, ca. 1460 - 1521) was a German late Gothic sculptor. Little is known about van der Heide's personal life. He was trained in the workshop of Bernt Notke (and worked with him on his famous Saint George and the Dragon statue in Stockholm) and seems to have lived and worked in Lübeck, present-day Germany. In 1485 he married, and in 1487 he purchased a house in Königstraße street of Lübeck. In 1513 he was made alderman at the guild of painters. He seems to have retired in 1519, when his workshop passed to his oldest son. For a craftsman of his age he appears to have been unusually wealthy as he managed to purchase three houses, one for each of his sons. (Or perhaps houses were cheaper then? Or craftsmen better paid?) Works attributable to van der Heide include ... a sculpture of St. Jerome in Vadstena Abbey, Sweden.
  
  
• Adam Kraft (or Krafft) (c. 1460? – January 1509) was a German stone sculptor and master builder of the late Gothic period, based in Nuremberg and with a documented career there from 1490.
  
  
• Lorenzo Maitani (c. 1275–1330) was the Italian architect and sculptor primarily responsible for the construction and decoration of the façade of Orvieto Cathedral.
  
  
• Hans Multscher (ca. 1400–1467) was a German sculptor and painter. He made himself acquainted with new artistic styles from northern France and the Netherlands, and became a free citizen of the city of Ulm in 1427. There, he married Adelheid Kitzin the same year. He ran his own business as a painter and sculptor, together with his brother Heinrich Multscher. Multscher died in Ulm.
  
  
• Bernt Notke (c. 1440 – before May 1509) was a late Gothic artist, working in the Baltic region. He has been described as one of the foremost artists of his time in northern Europe.
  
  He's the reason I started this statistic, and here is how I came across him:
  
  The statue was commissioned by Sten Sture the Elder following his victory over the Danish army in the Battle of Brunkeberg in 1471. During the battle, Sten Sture put his army under the protection of Saint George. Although not signed by him, the sculpture is widely attributed to the workshop of Bernt Notke.[1][2][3][4][5] Notke, who had his workshop in Lübeck, lived in Sweden between 1491 and 1497 and was a frequent visitor to the country before that. The sculpture was inaugurated on New Year's Eve 1489 by a papal nuncio.
  
  Saint George and the Dragon (Notke)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George_and_the_Dragon_(Notke)
  
  Obviously, at the battle of Brunkeberg and following years up to 1489, Sweden was still a Catholic country.
  
  
• Pere Oller (fl. 1394 - 1442) was a Catalan Gothic sculptor.
  
  
• Peter Parler (German: Peter von Gemünd, Czech: Petr Parléř, Latin: Petrus de Gemunden in Suevia; 1333 – 13 July 1399) was a German-Bohemian architect and sculptor from the Parler family of master builders. Along with his father, Heinrich Parler, he is one of the most prominent and influential craftsmen of the Middle Ages. Born and apprenticed in the town of Schwäbisch Gmünd, Peter worked at several important late Medieval building sites, including Strasbourg, Cologne, and Nuremberg. After 1356 he lived in Prague, capital of the Kingdom of Bohemia and seat of the Holy Roman Empire, where he created his most famous works: St. Vitus Cathedral and the Charles Bridge.
  
  
• Heinrich Parler the Elder (also Heinrich of Gmünd, German: Heinrich von Gemünd der Ältere; c. 1310 – c. 1370), was a German architect and sculptor. His masterpiece is Holy Cross Minster, an influential milestone of late Gothic architecture in the town of Schwäbisch Gmünd, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Parler also founded the Parler family of master builders and his descendants worked in various parts of central Europe, especially Bohemia. His son, Peter Parler, became one of the major architects of the Middle Ages. The family name is derived from the word Parlier, meaning "foreman".
  
  
• Johann Parler the Younger (Czech: Jan Parléř, German: Johann Parler der Jüngere; c. 1359 – 1405/06), was a Bohemian architect of German origin from the prominent Parler family of architects, master builders, and sculptors. He was the son of famous Gothic architect Peter Parler, the builder of Saint Vitus Cathedral and Charles Bridge in Prague. His uncle (i.e. Peter’s brother) was Johannes von Gmünd also known as Johann Parler the Elder, a German Gothic master builder who was architect of Freiburg Minster and also rebuilt the damaged Basel Minster.
  
  
• Wenzel Parler (Czech: Václav Parléř, c. 1360 – 1404) was an architect and sculptor from the Parler family of German-Bohemian master builders and son of Peter Parler. He worked on Gothic churches in the Holy Roman cities of Prague, Nördlingen, and Vienna during the Late Middle Ages.
  
  
• Master Paul of Levoča (Hungarian: Lőcsei Pál mester, Slovak: Majster Pavol z Levoče) was a medieval carver and sculptor of the 15th and 16th century, active mostly in the town of Levoča (Hungarian: Lőcse) in the Kingdom of Hungary (today in Slovakia). Most documents about him vanished at the Levoča fire in 1550. So, neither his surname, nor dates or places of birth and death are known. It is assumed that he was born between 1470 and 1480. He must have died between 1537 (when he is still mentioned on record) and 1542 (when his widow is mentioned).
  
  
• Anton Pilgram (also Anton Pilchramb) (around 1460, Brno (?) – 1516, Vienna) was a late medieval Austrian (German) architect and sculptor active in the area of today's Czech Republic (Moravia), Austria and western Germany. Pilgram is known as the sculptor of the portal of Old City Hall in Brno and craftsman of the pulpit in St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna. He spent a major part of his life in Brno, Moravia.
  
  
• Andrea Pisano (Pontedera 1290 – 1348 Orvieto)[1][2] also known as Andrea da Pontedera, was an Italian sculptor and architect.
  
  
• Bonanno Pisano (Pisa) (c.1150 - c.1200), active in the 1170s and 1180s, was an Italian sculptor, mixing Byzantine and classical elements. Giorgio Vasari wrongly attributed the realization of the Leaning Tower of Pisa to him in his Vite. Pisano was born in Pisa and worked there most of his life. In the 1180s, he departed for Monreale, in Sicily, where he completed the doors to the cathedral before returning to Pisa, where he died. Pisano was buried at the foot of the leaning tower, where his sarcophagus was discovered in 1820.
  
  
• Giovanni Pisano (c. 1250 – c. 1315) was an Italian sculptor, painter and architect, who worked in the cities of Pisa, Siena and Pistoia. He is best known for his sculpture which shows the influence of both the French Gothic and the Ancient Roman art. Henry Moore, referring to his statues for the facade of Siena Cathedral, called him "the first modern sculptor".
  
  
• Nicola Pisano (also called Niccolò Pisano, Nicola de Apulia or Nicola Pisanus; c. 1220/1225 – c. 1284[1]) was an Italian sculptor whose work is noted for its classical Roman sculptural style. Pisano is sometimes considered to be the founder of modern sculpture.
  
  
• Gil de Siloé (los historiadores del arte también le nombran como Gil de Siloe o, simplemente, Gil Siloe), fue un escultor castellano en estilo gótico activo en los últimos años del siglo XV. Hijo suyo fue Diego de Siloé, escultor y arquitecto en estilo renacentista. Su nacimiento puede datarse alrededor de 1440-50 y probablemente no mucho antes. / Gil de Siloé (Antwerp? 1440s – Burgos, 1501)
  
  
• Diego de Siloé —también citado por los historiadores como Diego de Siloe— (Burgos; c. 1495-Granada; 22 de octubre de 1563),1​ arquitecto y escultor castellano, uno de los primeros artistas del Renacimiento en este país.
  
  
• Claus Sluter (1340s in Haarlem[1] – 1405 or 1406 in Dijon) was a sculptor of Dutch origin.[2] He was the most important northern European sculptor of his age and is considered a pioneer of the "northern realism" of the Early Netherlandish painting that came into full flower with the work of Jan van Eyck and others in the next generation.
  
  
• Veit Stoss (also: Veit Stoß and Stuoss; Polish: Wit Stwosz; before 1450 – about 20 September 1533) was a leading German sculptor, mostly in wood, whose career covered the transition between the late Gothic and the Northern Renaissance. His style emphasized pathos and emotion, helped by his virtuoso carving of billowing drapery; it has been called "late Gothic Baroque".[1] He had a large workshop and in addition to his own works there are a number by pupils. He is best known for the altarpiece in St. Mary's Basilica in Kraków, Poland. (Ołtarz Wita Stwosza)

With a lot** of divergent figures, we get a divergent overall statistic, and I'll be giving the two extremes:

44 46 46 48 50 50 55 | 56 | 57 58 59 60 60 60 60 |
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 | 08 | 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 |
44 46 47 48 50 50 55 | 56 | 58 60 60 61 61 61 64 |

| 61 61 61 65 65 65 66 | 67 | 68 68 70 71 72 77 83
| 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | 23 | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
| 65 65 66 66 67 68 68 | 70 | 70 70 71 72 72 82 83

So, minimum and maximum on both views, both long and short view, 44 and 83.

Lower quartile also identic, at 56.

Median is 60 to 61 on short view and 64 to 65 on long view.

And upper quartile is either 67 or 70.

So, on the short view, half died between 56 and 67 around 60 to 61, and on the long view, half died between 56 and 70 around 64 to 65.

Were those lives really so short, as people like to pretend?

If you look at their work, the lives were not ugly. As far as the work is a measure of the personal life, which is questionable. But on average, if many artists live ugly lives, art tends to be ugly, and if many artists live beautiful lives, art tends to be beautiful. Medieval art was.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris IV
CHristmas Vigil
24.XII.2018

* Down to end of stats material, text is from wiki, my own few words are in italics. So are things taken from Spanish wiki. But they are in Spanish. ** From here back to normal.

[In answer to Q on "origin of language families"]

Creation vs. Evolution : Reviewing a paragraph from If You Believed Moses · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : [In answer to Q on "origin of language families"]

I'll start with a quote:

It is seldom emphasized that similarities between language families are themselves susceptible to the same three explanations. That we so seldom see mention of this corollary principle is largely because twentieth-century historical linguistics has been laboring under the delusion that language families like Indo-European share no cognates with other families, thus offering nothing to compare. At this level, it is alleged, similarities simply do not exist.

What is striking is that this position—for which considerable evidence to the contrary existed already at the start of this century (Trombetti 1905) and which on a priori grounds seems most unlikely (Ruhlen 1988a)—came to be almost universally accepted by linguists, most of whom have never investigated the question themselves.

From: 14 Global Etymologies
John D. Bengtson and Merritt Ruhlen
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.9508&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The three explanations he is talking of are : common origin, borrowing, convergence.

Now, there is a big difference in how diverse linguists classify human languages, if you go down below the signature, you will first in figure 1 see 244 language families on which wikipedians have no doubt of common origin.

In figure 2. you will partly see groups contentiously pretending common origin for more than one of them, and partly groups that consist of one or two single languages, which could be isolates. This lands us with probably at least anything from 208 to 273 language families.

In quote 3, you will find out how Merritt Ruhlen and John D. Bengtson classify only 32 language families, of which they consider some related to each other. Amerind and Khoisan are two families not found in the wiki fact space on "primary language families" which you can usually access from each of them, like from "Algic" - a family comprising Wiyot † (extinct), Yurok and Algonquian. In Ruhlen-Bengtson, you don't find Algic or Arawakan, they are both Amerind subfamilies. Pre-Columbian America has Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene and Amerind and that's it. And in Central and South America, only Amerind.

By Khoisan, Ruhlen-Bengtson - I'll add, already Greenberg, whom they are folllowing - dispense with Hadza, Sandawe, Khoe, Tuu and Kx'a. All of which are found separately in figure 1.

I submit as my hunch, and that it is a hunch, that the 32 groups are valid. I also submit, since they are fewer than 72, which is the number of original languages after Babel, that some groups have converged through mutual borrowing. That is, they are not families in the strict sense.

Note well, there is one explanation which Ruhlen and Bengtson left out. Miraculous "instant family" structures. Suppose that two groups of men came to adopt Quenya and Sindarin of Tolkien. In his "legendarium" or "mythology" these are related by a common origin some millennia before they emerge as clearly different languages. Proto-Eldarin cannot be used as someone's adopted language, Tolkien only sketched it out to have sth to derive Quenya and Sindarin from. This means that both languages in actual history were constructed as artistic constructed languages between, say, 1915 and 1950 (I don't think Tolkien made any revisions after that, major ones, since he used both as background enhancers in Lord of the Rings and any even slight revision after that would still involve the text scraps in Lord of the Rings). So, the two groups would be adopting languages with a "family origin" merely sketched out and an "instant family" arising between 1915 and 1950.

What Tolkien could do with fictitious races, what two groups of Tolkien fans could do, God also can have done.

This means, some languages arising immediately at Babel could have had a common proto-language never spoken on Earth, but extant only in God's imagination.

However, this is far from the only way in which Indo-European or Semitic, even Afro-Asiatic, languages could have become language groups.

Common origin is possible, but for Afro-Asiatic, it staggers belief that Mizraim, Assur, Joctan, Kush, would all adopt the language of Peleg and their descendants have time to diversify them as much as ... Old Egyptian, Akkadian, Arabic, Ethiopian, all the while Canaaneans and Syrians adopted Hebrew and Aramaic along with descendants of Peleg. The 72 languages were extant in 2562 BC (if my reconstruction of chronology within Roman Martyrology context is correct for Peleg), which is carbon dated as 8600 BC (if my identification with Göbekli Tepe as Babel is correct) and we have Old Egyptian and Akkadian texts carbon dated (directly or indirectly, like organic material from same shelves or same tombs) to 2600 BC, which would arguably be the times of Joseph, around 1700 BC. Do 700 years really explain such a diversity?

So, this leaves two more possibilities : convergences through mutual borrowing and auxiliary languages.

In a scenario of auxiliary languages, I'd consider Sumerian was the first one. Note, it has been classified diversely as "isolate", as "Uralic" and - by Ruhlen-Bengtson - as Dené-Caucasian, if I recall correctly, related to Athapascan Apache and to Basque and to Chinese and Tibetan and to Circassian, but not to Georgian. I'd go one further, it can have been the first auxiliary language, and been part template for other ones, both Ural-Altaic and North Caucasian. And even for Bantu. Or Dravidian. Depending on whether the "blackheads" that Sargon chased away, the indigenous speakers of Sumerian, went to Africa or India.

Of course, a natural language can also serve as an auxiliary language, as English does for me, since I am not a native English speaker.

I'd venture that following auxiliary languages leading up to Indo-European were Hattic and Tyrsenian - which Alinei classifies as Old Hungarian. Then Indo-European, whether as a natural language (like Hittite) or as an articificial auxiliary language, tried to bridge Uralic and Afro-Asiatic traits. As Merritt Ruhlen and John D. Bengtson wrote, Indo-European can have outside affinities. Personal verb endings are close to Uralic, specifically Finnish.

eleipon		lähden
eleipes		lähdet
eleipe		lähdee
eleipomen		lähdemme
eleipete		lähdette
eleipon		lähdevät

Ablaut system and some aspects of how tense stems are formed from a common verb root seem loosely based on Afro-Asiatic, perhaps Hebrew, but note well, loosely. Semitic have basic short vowels a, i and u, along with absence of vowel, while Indo-European has (in Greek or even more reconstructed proto-form) e and o and null. Both languages insert or take away diverse extra consonants in forming diverse stems, like present stems with an extra -n- or -yod or aorist stems with an extra -s, taking the Indo-European side, which I know.

And in tenses, "classic" Indo-European (Italic, Greek, Sanskrit) combine the Uralic opposition of present and past with the Semitic opposition of ongoing or finished. In sense these overlap, and therefore a language can get along with only one of them, but Indo-European has both.

In nouns, feminines in -a (originally according to one theory -e+laryngeal 2, -eH₂) seem close to Semitic feminines in -at, which in some positions is -ah. The Arabic and Akkadian case ending vowels seem echoed in at least some Indo-European forms, like -u in Latin and Greek -us/-os, -i in Old Irish and Latin Genitive -i, in Latin and Greek Dative -i and perhaps even -a in Greek third declinsion accusative -a. And if you reply this -a is really -m, well, the Arabic case endings also come with Nunation -un, -in, -an. Again, very loosely based, not at all a clear identity.

And on the other side, some similarities in the Afro-Asiatic group - notice, I don't say family, since I don't believe in a common origin - would have been there due to Hebrews being a bit everywhere, in their attempst to shirk the building of Babel - and successful ones, since God didn't punish them by language loss and new imposed language. Both in the way that some took up Hebrew instead of their own language (notably in Canaan), but also in the way that some used Hebrew as lingua franca with other neighbours and they both started adopting Hebrew features, like feminines in -at/-ah.

The other possibility for Indo-European is, languages started out on a fairly equal footing as isolates around Aegean, Iavan's language in Greece, Lud's language in Troy (more Luwian than Lydian or Phrygian, possibly), Gomerite further East in Cappadokia, notably Kanesh, whence Nesili (the indigenous term for Hittite), while they were less in mutual contact with the more or less Uralic Hattic, probable language of Canaan's son Heth. Unless, as mentioned, based on Sumerian, with some looseness. If then a certain French linguist was right and plucks up his courage again to reclassify the unclassified Cypro-Minoan language of the Caphthorim as an Aryan one, this is a fairly big hunch of Indo-European languages in a fairly small area.

Now, I have a test to do on vocabulary before I have what I consider as scientific confidence in this model, in this hunch. So long as the test is not done, it is a hunch. Nevertheless, even a hunch is a valid alternative to a theory which is based on ignoring that hunch.

But for language families or language groups outside those mentioned, I do not even have a hunch. Except mathematics, 244 "language families" are clearly more than the original ones and 32 are clearly fewer than them. I was very tempted to make an angry reply like the Genie in Aladdin on being asked for the egg of the bird Roc - that's about what you can expect from a linguist if asked to outline (as fact, not as alternative hunches) how the language families arose - unless they are of Ruhlen-Bengtson's school and trace all 32 back to "proto-world" through 27 roots. One of them could well be onomatopoic since M and GLGL sound like a baby suckling and swallowing "milk" (Indo-European meaning), from his mother's "breast" (meaning in some other language family) into his "gorge" (meaning in yet another family). While this does not rule out a common origin, it certainly poses a problem in proving Merritt Ruhlen's and John D. Bengtson's theory of proto-world by that root, since onomatopoeia is one of the areas where "convergence" rather than common origin is highly featured as a possibility. Also, Biblically, I don't believe in "common origin" of this type.

Edenics? I haven't read the paper, do not take this as a review of it, I do not want the paper to be blocked because I'd give an adverse review, I don't believe in peer review before publishing, you do with your conscience as to that paper, but if God used Hebrew as ultimate template for languages, it is possible in some cases He used as roundabout coding for it as "hala" for "penyo" or "penyo" for "hala". Perhaps one could loook up Jalaa and Plateau Penutian and see if they have words glossing Hebrew ones in the jala=peño way. I don't expect languages to have only a slight divergence from Hebrew, and I don't think any divergence from Hebrew is linguistically speaking garbling. The "confusion" or "garbling" was on the level of personal linguistic competence. Not of resulting one. Each one who had his language changed would have been fine with learning the new one if he had kept Hebrew too - except, then they would have executed Nimrod's orders, and probably trying to fuel a three step rocket with Uranium would have resulted more in like a mushroom cloud than in man walking on the Moon. So, God made cooperation impossible in the last moment.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of St. Thomas
20.XII.2018

(Typo corrected on Boxing Day.)

Also on Boxing Day : Tolkien tinkered on with all aspects of Quenya and Sindarin up to his death, except where some aspect was already fixated through Lord of the Rings, H/T to Stephen St. John for this correction./HGL

Figure 1. Generally acknowledged families.
Abinomn · Afro-Asiatic · Ainu · Alacalufan · Algic · Alsea · Arai–Samaia · Arafundi–Piawi · Arawakan · Arauan · Araucanian · Arnhem/Macro-Gunwinyguan · Arutani–Sape · Austroasiatic · Austronesian · Aymaran A 16 Baining · Bangime · Banzsl · Barbacoan · Basque · Binanderean–Goilalan · Boran · Border · Borôroan · Bulaka River · Bunuban · Burushaski B 12 28 Caddoan · Cahuapanan · Camsá · Candoshi · Cariban · Catacaoan · Central Solomons · Chapacuran · Charruan · Chibchan · Chimakuan · Chimane · Chimariko · Chimbu–Wahgi · Chinookan · Chiquitano · Choco · Chonan · Chukotko-Kamchatkan · Chumashan · Comecrudan · Coosan · Cuitlatec C 23 51 Darwin River · Doso–Turumsa · Dravidian D 3 54 East Geelvink Bay · East Strickland · Eastern Daly · Eastern Tasmanian · Eskimo–Aleut · Elamite · Eleman · Engan E 8 62 Fas · Fulniô F 2 64 Garawan · Giimbiyu · Great Andamanese · Guaicuruan · Guajiboan · Guató G 6 70 Hadza · Haida · Harákmbut–Katukinan · Hattic · Hmong–Mien · Hodï/Joti · Huaorani/Waorani · Huave · Hurro-Urartian H 9 79 Indo-European · Iroquoian · Itonama · Iwaidjan I 4 83 Jalaa · Japonic · Jarrakan · Jê/Gê · Jicaquean · Jirajaran · Jivaroan J 7 90 Kalapuyan · Karajá · Kariri · Kartvelian · Karuk · Katembri–Taruma · Kaure–Kosare · Keresan · Khoe–Kwadi · Kiwaian · Kol · Koreanic · Kra–Dai · Krenak · Kunza · Kuot · Kusunda · Kutenai · Kutubuan · Kwomtari · Kx'a K 21 111 Lakes Plain · Leco · Lencan · Lower Mamberamo · Lower Sepik L 5 116		Madang · Maiduan · Mairasi · Maku-Auari of Roraima · Malak-Malak · Marrgu · Mascoian · Matacoan · Maxakalian · Mayan · Meemul · Mirndi · Misumalpan · Mixe–Zoque · Mongolic · Movima · Mura-Pirahã · Muskogean M 18 134 Na-Dene · Nadahup · Nambikwaran · Niger–Congo · Nihali · Nivkh · North Bougainville · Northeast Caucasian · Northeastern Tasmanian · Northern Tasmanian · Northwest Caucasian · Nyulnyulan N 12 146 Ofayé · Ongan · Oto-Manguean · Otomákoan O 4 150 Palaihnihan · Pama–Nyungan · Pano-Tacanan · Pauwasi · Pawaia · Peba–Yaguan · Plateau Penutian · Piaroa–Saliban · Pomoan · Porome · Puinave · Purian P 12 162 Quechuan Q 1 163 Ramu R 1 164 Salishan · Sandawe · Senagi · Sentani · Sepik · Seri · Shastan · Shuwa gozoku · Shǒuyǔ · Sino-Tibetan · Siouan · Siuslaw · Skou · South Bougainville · Southern Daly · Sumerian S 16 180 Takelma · Tambora · Tangkic · Tanoan · Tarascan/Purépecha · Teberan · Tequistlatecan · Ticuna–Yuri · Timotean · Timucua · Tiniguan · Tiwi · Tor–Kwerba–Nimboran · Torricelli · Totonacan · Trans-Fly · Trans–New Guinea · Trumai · Tsimshianic · Tucanoan · Tungusic · Tupian · Turama–Kikorian · Turkic · Tyrsenian · Tziij T 26 206 Uralic · Urarina · Uru–Chipaya · Utian · Uto-Aztecan U 5 211 Wagaydyic · Wagiman · Waikuri · Wakashan · Warao · Washo · Wintuan · Wiru · Witotoan · West Papuan · Western Daly · Western Tasmanian · Worrorran W 13 224 Xincan X 1 225 Yabutian · Yam · Yamana · Yana · Yangmanic (Wardaman) · Yanomaman · Yawa · Yeniseian · Yokutsan · Yuat · Yuchi · Yukaghir · Yukian · Yuman–Cochimí · Yuracaré Y 15 240 Zamucoan · Zaparoan · Zhōngguó · Zuni Z 4 244

The ones marked with question marks would include both language isolates, adding one family, and disputed superfamilies, ridding of families. Some are families other than the ones above, and so add. "Ijaw" is considered a distinct group within "Niger Congo", so, Ijaw either is its own family or a Niger Congo group. I am considering Ijaw as + 1 (adding one group to above) and a compulsory one unless you agree with Niger Congo. Similarily, Songhay is either its own family or you agree with Nilo-Saharan. Vasconic? = Basque + extinct languages like Aquitanian and Iberic. Northeast New Guinea languages, I could not study, has no article.

Figure 2. To add or detract.
Anêm? + 1 · Aikanã? + 1 · Andoque? + 1 · Ata? + 1 (+4) Chimuan? + 1 · Cofán? + 1 (+6) Digaro? + 1 (+7) Esmeralda–Yaruro? + 1 (+8) Hibito–Cholón? + 1 · Hrusish? + 1 (+10) Ijaw? + 1 · Irantxe? + 1 (+12) Kadu? + 1 · Kho-Bwa? + 1 (+14) Laal? + 1 · Lule–Vilela? + 1 (+16) Miju? + 1 (+17) Nilo-Saharan? + 1 · Nukak? + 1 (+19) Shabo? + 1 · Siangic? + 1 · Songhay? + 1 · Sulka? + 1 (+23) Taiap? + 1 · Tequiraca–Canichana? + 1 to + 2 · Totozoquean? + 1 · Tuu Mande? + 1 (+27 / +28) Ubangian? + 1 (+28 / +29)		Altaic? - 3 to - 5 · Austronesian–Ongan? - 1 · Austro-Tai? - 1 (-5 / -7) Bora–Witoto languages? - 1 (-6 / -8) Dené–Yeniseian? - 1 (-7 / -9) Hokan? - 7 (at least) (-14 / -16) Macro-Jê? - 5 (-19 / -21) North Papuan? - 4 (-23 / -25) Papuan Gulf? - 4 · Penutian? - 7 (-34 / -36) Sino-Austronesian? - 2 (-36 / -38)

244 + 2 = 246
244 + 29 = 273
246 - 38 = 208
273 - 36 = 237

3. Quote Bengtson Ruhlen:

Specifically, we will be comparing items in the following 32 taxa, each of which we believe is a genetically valid group at some level of the classification: Khoisan, Niger-Congo, Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian, Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus, Korean, Japanese-Ryukyuan, Ainu, Gilyak, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut, Caucasian, Basque, Burushaski, Yeniseian, Sino-Tibetan, Na-Dene, Indo-Pacific, Australian, Nahali, Austroasiatic, Miao-Yao, Daic (= Kadai), Austronesian, and Amerind.

14 Global Etymologies
John D. Bengtson and Merritt Ruhlen

Petites questionnettes de philologie, bis

Pain bagnat est-il un beignet? · Chivas Regal, ça a quoi à faire avec les Highlands d'Écosse? ·Poubelles, manches Raglan, Cardigans ...

I

Pain bagnat est-il un beignet?

Pas exactement, mais, quand je me posait la question ce que serait "beignet" en italien, je tombais sur **"begnato" ce qui ne veut rien dire et ensuite "bagnato" - baigné. Le mot beignet est une variante d'orthographe pour baigné. En latin "balneatum".

Et pan bagnat veut aussi dire "pain baigné". En latin "panem balneatum".

Le type de bain diffère. Le beignet est beigné (ou baigné ou baignet ou beignet justement) en huile bouillante au lieu d'avoir une cuisson classique. Il est aussi sucré (après cette cuisson).

Il pan bagnat par contre è bagnat après la cuecha en òli crus e en poma d'amor.

(Par contre, le pain bagnat est baigné après la cuisson en huile d'olive crue et en tomate).

Bonus, le verbe baigner en latin n'est pas "balneare" ou "balneari" en latin classique, mais ... "tingere" pour le processus derrière le beignet et "perfundere" pour ce qu'on fait avec le pan bagnat (à moins que ce soit l'inverse). Par contre, un endroit où on est capable de "lavari" est appelé, en substantif, "balneum".

En plus, le "beignet" s'appellait "laganum" en latin.

revenir au contenu

II

Chivas Regal, ça a quoi à faire avec les Highlands d'Écosse?

En fait, le nom du whisky vient du nom de deux distributeurs et distilleurs d'Aberdeen, les frères Chivas.

Leur nom de famille ne se prononce pas comme "ch" en anglais, "tch", mais comme le "ch" du français, donc ce serait "sh" en anglais.

D'où ça? Le nom commun "síobhas" en gaélique se prononce "chivas" (comme en français), signifie ciboulette, et ceci de dit "chives" en anglais (à prononcer "tchaïvz").

Pour le nom propre Chivas, prendre la prononciation gaélique et affubler avec une orthographe inspiré de l'anglais. C'est donc Síobhas déguisé en Chives, mais juste légèrement.

Si vous voulez prendre votre whisky avec un plat de ciboulette, libre à vous de le faire, pour ma part, il me semble que les frères Chivas ont peut-être surdosé sur ciboulette à la ferme et se sont mis sur le whisky pour avoir autre chose à faire. Je crois que les ciboulettes vont mieux dans le pan bagnat - mais ceci est une questionnette gastronomique, pas philologique.

revenir au contenu

III

Poubelles, manches Raglan, Cardigans ...

La poubelle comme nom commun d'un objet usuelle vient de son inventeur (au moins dans la préfecture de Paris) Eugène-René Poubelle, qui était un préfet de Paris.

Par contre, d'où vient son nom de famille?

"Origine : poubelle est un matronyme localise en champagne et bourgogne, represente un sobriquet qui signifie peu belle ."

La manche Raglan vient de FitzRoy James Henry Somerset (30 septembre 1788 – 28 juin 1855), 1er baron Raglan, militaire puis diplomate britannique.

Et le baron Raglan est baron de Raglan en Monmouth County. Pays de Galles. Pour son toponyme, il semble y avoir un doute s'il est gallois ou anglais. Une source médiéval refère à "Ragland" - ce qui en anglais dirait "pays(age) de lambeaux". Rhaglan en gallois viendrait de Rhag + llan, donc "pré-paroisse" selon mes lumières limitées sur cette langue. Ce serait alors le village (il y a un village) avant la paroisse.

Un pull vient de l'anglais pullover, mais on dit en anglais plus souvent Cardigan. Le "sweatshirt" (chemise à suer) est appelé pour James Thomas Brudenell, 7e comte de Cardigan, qui est aussi immortalisé par le poëme "Charge of the Light Brigade" par Tennyson. Le premier comte de Cardigan soutenait le roi Charles I dans la Guerre Civile d'Angleterre. Il était Catholique et il soutenait le roi parce que les Roundheads étaient pour davantage d'intolérance contre les Catholiques. Pendant la période de Cromwell, il était enfermé dans le Tour de Londres, et il fit élévé à ce peerage suivant la Restauration de Charles II, fils du roi défunt.

Je ne sais pas si ça a ou non une connection avec la ville en Pays de Galles, Aberteifi en Gallois (abèrtèïvi), Cardigan en anglais, et qui fut autrefois la capitale du royaume Ceredigion. Et Ceredigion en son tour est "la terre de Ceredig" (kérédigue). Et Ceredig est le gallois pour latin Coroticus. Pourtant, ce n'est pas le même Coroticus qui était excommunié pour esclavagisme par St. Patrick. D'ailleurs, je ne trouve pas étymologie pour Ceredig, ni pour Coroticus. Si je ne sais pas, je crois que la meilleure réponse est de dire que je ne sais pas.

Cédric est une forme anglicisé de Ceredig. Mais si Cédric avait été la vraie forme du nom, ça aurait été non Coroticus, mais **Cotorix ou **Cautorix en latin. Et, contrairement à Coroticus, ça n'existe pas.

La terre de quel Ceredig, alors? "Le nom de Ceredigion signifie terre de Ceredig, qui était un fils de Cunedda, un chef breton qui reconquit la plupart du pays de Galles au détriment des Irlandais aux alentours du Ve siècle." Son petit-fils était le Saint David du pays de Galles (oui, en pays de Galles, on s'appelle David, ce n'est pas toujours pour l'ancêtre de Notre Seigneur).

revenir au contenu

Answering Kudrophobia

Here are ten films which premièred in France and came from US.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quelques_minutes_apr%C3%A8s_minuit
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnal_Animals
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Grande_Muraille_(film,_2016)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Face
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_to_Be_Blue
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation_(film,_2016)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXx:_Reactivated
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_Night
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_in_Atlanta
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tous_en_sc%C3%A8ne_(film,_2016)

Now, taking producer, director, screenplay, three main actors, I get these results:





7 % if we take only Jews. 18 % if we add people probably not Jewish themselves but of Jewish connexions.

Overrepresented? Probably. Dominant? Not in numbers, at least.

And if we take another minority, known Christian affiliation is higher than known Jewish one : 11 % for the 3 Catholics, one Anglican (even if they say Episcopalian over across the Atlantic), one Mormon or probably ex-Mormon and one with at least acquaintance with Church of Christ.

Pepperdine college is also where the recent convert to Catholicism, Lizzie Reezay, went. Definitely not a place for confessional Jews. They would certainly be respected, but as certainly feel somewhat out of place.

Disclaimer : "not Jewish" or "pas Juif / pas Juive" means not known to be Jewish.

This means, the Jewish stats for those films could rise, if some people with no background or no religious clue in background come forth as saying they are Jewish./HGL