Comments on: "Jesus Christ - the genealogy code"?

"Jesus Christ - the genealogy code"?

PeteyStock — Mon, 02 May 2005 18:25:28 -0800

Echoes of DaVinci code? A scholar in Wales found (rediscovered?) a 400+ year old folio at Llandovery College in Wales that may shed light further light on the genealogy of Christ. Whether a hoax or not, 'tis always interesting what you may find hiding in the stacks when you're just perusing things. [via original article at Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter]

By: jikel_morten

jikel_morten — Mon, 02 May 2005 18:51:35 -0800

Ok, what am I missing? What insight does a book written 400 years ago have into the life of someone of 2000 years ago? OT: Is the jury still out as to whether Christ actually existed?

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Mon, 02 May 2005 19:16:04 -0800

Probably better written than TDC, at any rate.

By: heatherann

heatherann — Mon, 02 May 2005 19:28:11 -0800

jikel_morten writes " OT: Is the jury still out as to whether Christ actually existed?" Yep. Okay, I've read the article twice and don't really see how this is anything other than a smaller version of a Strong's Concordance.

One [section] is about, "the names, people and empires recorded in the old and New Testaments". The other is titled "biographical reference of old Bible stories". It is an alphabetical way to find a seemingly endless list of religious characters. Mr Hogan said, "It has details on everybody in the Bible, who they were married to where they came from and their family trees.

Mmmhmm. Sounds like a concordance to me. Or, if not, fabrication 1500 years after the fact.

By: unsupervised

unsupervised — Mon, 02 May 2005 19:28:16 -0800

jikel_morten: I was about to ask the same question. The debate over the historicity of Christ was first brought to my attention when I was reading Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. Up until that point, I had taken the existence of a historical Jesus as a given. Most of what Barker has to say on the subject is summed up in this Wikipedia article, albeit in less detail. My guess is that the jury will be out for a long, long time...at least until they can safely return without being shot.

By: sharksandwich

sharksandwich — Mon, 02 May 2005 19:30:19 -0800

Maybe we'll finally find out what the "H." stands for.

By: Mean Mr. Bucket

Mean Mr. Bucket — Tue, 03 May 2005 09:55:35 -0800

Viruses of the Mind by Richard Dawkins.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Tue, 03 May 2005 10:05:37 -0800

"I knew we had some books squirrelled away so I went to see. Their books are "nuts?"

By: JeffK

JeffK — Tue, 03 May 2005 10:26:01 -0800

I just want to know how to get chicks to "...minister into [me], of their substances."

By: Plutor

Plutor — Tue, 03 May 2005 10:26:30 -0800

sharksandwich: "Maybe we'll finally find out what the "H." stands for." Haploid.

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Tue, 03 May 2005 10:39:25 -0800

Come to Wales: We're Credulous as Hell

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Tue, 03 May 2005 10:49:37 -0800

Ugh. The Da Vinci code comparison is laying it on a little thick. But finding a new 400-year-old manuscript is pretty cool. It might not tell you The Ultimate Truth about Jesus, but it'll still give you some insights into how people thought about religion 400 years ago, and that's nice too.

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:22:18 -0800

There's a joke in here somewhere with the punchline "Llandovery Baptist."

By: Flitcraft

Flitcraft — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:50:35 -0800

You can find genealogies of Jesus in any Bible, making it one of the worst kept secrets in the world. You know like the genealogies you find at the beginning of Matthew and Luke? It will be an early modern version of his ancestry, probably expanded a bit from the Bible by religious tradition. As for Mary Magdalene being one of the women who ministered to him from her substance, again this is a boringly biblical concept. And if every scoring out in a 17th century manuscript shows that there is a conspiracy going on, then why, I must have seen thousands of them in my time as an early modern manuscripts curator. Who knew there were so many conspiracies as opposed to sloppy scribes and authors changing their minds? It is, by the sounds of it, a nice 16th-17th manuscript which might tell us something about early modern religious thought and nothing whatsoever new or of any significance about Jesus. What this article illustrates is that we've got to a state of such moronic illiteracy in some quarters of the media about basic Christian religious history and culture that they don't know what is in the Bible any more - not even basic stuff like like large chunks of the gospels. Hence they can't understand texts and manuscripts coming the predominantly Christian culture of 400 years ago.

By: telstar

telstar — Tue, 03 May 2005 12:42:45 -0800

Good point Flitcraft. Every xmas supermarket shelves bulge with newsmagazine stories ("Who was Jesus") posed as if centuries-old theology was discovered just last week. Now, for the real news on Jesus.

By: cosmonaught

cosmonaught — Tue, 03 May 2005 13:26:46 -0800

Good news, everybody!

By: Specklet

Specklet — Tue, 03 May 2005 14:40:18 -0800

Maybe we'll finally find out what the "H." stands for. It's Hallowed. Hallowed be thy name.