Hapsburgs
david hughes
There are several theories that have been proposed by historians over
the centuries on the origins of the Habsburgs.
(A) as early as the 14th century the Habsburg genealogists attempted
to trace their origins as descendants of Italy's Colonna Family, the
Counts of Tuscany, who traced their descent in the male-line from the
Roman gens "Forum Iulii", which descended in the male-line from Julius
Caesar's cousin, Sextus Caesar.
(B) in the 15th century the Habsburg genealogists attempted to trace
their origins as descendants of Italy's Pierleoni, the Counts of
Aventine, who traced their descent in the male-line from the medieval
Jewish exilarchs, and, ultimately, from Israel's Davidic Dynasty.
(C) also, during the 15th century attempts were also made to trace
the Habsburgs from the Merovingians, whose ancestor, Quintus Tarus,
the Roman Prefect of Province [who was made into a sea-monster in
medieval romance], was a "desposynic" prince, descended from
Christianity's Holy Family, and, ultimately, from Israel's Davidic
Dynasty.
(D) in the 17th century the theory was proposed that the Habsburgs
descended from the Etichoni, the Dukes of Alsace, who descended from
Wago, Count of Montreuil 512-?, whose origins are open to debate. It
has been proposed that Wago was a scion of the Teutonic Istvaeones,
which was divided into three major descent-lines, which were: (1)
early Frankish kings; (2) dukes of Franconia [ancestors of the
Lotharingians of Upper Lorraine]; and (3) the Salian Kings of Germany.
This theory was particularly popular at the time of the marriage of
the Empress Maria-Theresa, the heiress of the Habsburg Dynasty [which
became extinct in the male-line upon her father's death], to Francis
Stephen, Duke of Lorraine, who represented a male-line branch of the
Etichoni, hence, it was like the union of two collateral-lines.
(E) in the 20th century the theory was proposed that the Habsburgs
descended from a "desposynic" descent-line, that is, a male-line
branch of Christianity's Holy Family. This theory is based on the
supposition that a "desposynic" descent-line settled in the Swiss
canton of Aargau, near present day Zurich, sometime in the fourth
century during the persecution of the "Desposyni" [= descendants of
Jesus' so-called "brothers" referred to by St. Matthew 13:55], and was
prestigious enough to marry female members of the imperial Roman
nobility, and later female members of the Merovingians of France and
Germany, and, during the period of the Holy Roman Empire married
female members of the Etichoni of Alsace, the Colonna of Tuscany, and
the Pierleoni of Aventine. This theory was popularized in 1982 by the
occultic book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" in which the author to
sensationalize his work purposely misidentified Jesus of Nazareth with
His 2nd-cousin Jesus "of Gamala", for the author surely would have
known better from his research. The author by this misidentification
could make the claim that Jesus of Nazareth married Mary Magdalene and
sired children and had descendants who eventually became the noble
ruling houses of medieval and modern Europe, which the author refers
to as the "Jesus Dynasty" or "Jesus Bloodline", however, these are the
wife and children of Jesus "of Gamala", the 2nd cousin of Jesus of
Nazareth, who by all accounts was celibate. It is true that
descendants of Jesus' so-called "brothers" and "cousins", the
"Desposyni", gave Europe some of its noble and royal houses, however,
none descend from Jesus of Nazareth Himself but only from His
relatives "according of the flesh", and, ultimately descend from
Israel's Davidic Dynasty, which according to the Bible has a "divine
right" to rule. It was the "Desposyni" who introduced the doctrine of
the "Divine Right" in Europe.
An important document on the early history of the Habsburgs is the
"Annals of the Muri Monastery", which manuscript was written in the
twelfth century but was lost in a monastery library until its
discovery in the sixteenth century. The annals gives an account of the
lives of the early Habsburgs. The founder of the dynasty was Guntram
"The Rich". The name is a name common to the Merovingians and must
have entered into the proto-Habsburgs through intermarriage. His
epithet "The Rich" testifies to his great wealth, which the family may
have accumulated from the donations of the churches to the "desposynic
families", which practice was known to have existed from the late
fourth century, through the fifth century, to the early sixth century,
after which it seems to disappear.
The "Annals" tell us that the Holy Roman Emperor Otto gave Guntram
"The Rich" of the Swiss canton of Aargau the surrounding terrorities.
The heirs of Guntram flourished yet none possessed an official
dynastic title for about a century. Lanzelin, the son of Guntram "The
Rich", was sometimes referred to as the "Count of Altenberg", which is
the basis of the theory of the Habsburgs' descent from the
Merovingians; for a secondary-line of the Merovingians were the Counts
of Altemberg [the ancestors of the Counts of Sundgau], which branch
has been proposed to have produced the Habsburgs. The three sons of
Lanzelin succeeded one another as the head of the house and were
referred to as the "counts of the northern territories". Radbot,
Lanzelin's son, married the daughter of the Duke of Lorraine. It was
Radbot who built Habsburg Castle in 1020. He chose the most central
part of his territorial holdings in the Aargau, which afforded a
strategic advantage in case of attack. Castle Habsburg
[="Habichtsburg", i.e., "Hawk's Castle"] was built on a steep hill,
called "Wulpelsberg", in the Swiss canton of Aargau, and was
considered impregnable. The Habsburgs came into European prominence
upon the election of Rudolf, Count of Habsburg, as Holy Roman Emperor
in 1273. He took advantage of his position to increase his family's
territorial holdings, and in 1282 he acquired the Duchy of Austria,
which the Habsburgs [and later House of Habsburg-Lorraine] held almost
continually with few interims until 1918. The Habsburgs monopolized
the imperial throne of the Holy Roman Empire of Europe from the
election of Frederick V, Duke of Austria, as Holy Roman Emperor
Frederick III in 1440 until the deposition of Holy Roman Emperor
Francis II in 1804 by Napoleon, who abolished Europe's
imperial-system. Later that year, like the Holy Roman Emperors,
Napoleon was crowned "emperor" by the Roman Catholic Pope as the
"successor to Charlemagne", whom an earlier pope had crowned "Roman
Emperor". The Bonapartes in the nineteenth century may be comparable
to the ninth century Carolingians. The male-line of the Habsburgs
became extinct on the death of Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI in 1740,
who was succeeded on "Charlemagne's Throne" by the Holy Roman Empress
Maria-Theresa, the heiress of House of Habsburg. Her marriage to Duke
Francis of Lorraine in 1736 created the House of Habsburg-Lorraine.
Here, the House of Lorraine inherited all the Habsburg territories as
well as its legacy. The House of Habsburg-Lorraine held Austria until
1918, when the dynasty was overthrown following World-War-One, and
forced to go into exile the following year. It was not until 1961 that
the Habsburgs [Habsburg-Lorraine] were allowed to return to Austria as
private citizens.
The Habsburg heir is among the claimants to Europe's imperial throne.
Since the Roman/Byzantine Empire never developed a system of
succession all of the claimants are equally eligible to the "Throne of
Europe", that is, "Charlemagne's Throne", which still may be seen in
Aachen, Germany, which was Charlemagne's main residence and
capital-city. The imperial claims of the Habsburg heir along with the
other claimants may very well come into play in the future. For, the
present "European Union", which is a confederation of independent
nation-states, could only be converted into a federation of
united-states by the revival of the imperial system in Europe which
sometime people forget is a part of the heritage of "western
civilization".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theory "A": descent from the Colonna
01. Zottone of the "Forum Iulii", 1st Duke of Benevento 571-594
02. Grasulfo I, Duke of Friuli 581-589, bro of Gisulfo I, Duke of
Friuli 569-581
03. Gisulfo II, Duke of Friuli 589-610, bro of Grasulfo II
04. Grimoaldo I, Duke of Friuli 647-662; Lombard-King 661-671, bro of
Rodoaldo, Duke of Benevento
05. Romoaldo I, Duke of Benevento, bro of Garibaldo, Lombard-King
671-674
06. Gregorio, Count Comis, bro of Grimoaldo II, Duke of Benevento, and
Gisulfo III, Duke of Fruili
07. Tolomeo I, Count Comis
08. Tolemeo II, Count Comis
09. Theodatus
10. Alberic, bro of Hadrian I, Pope 772-795
11. Leudfrido, bro of Alberic I, Count of Camerino, and Benedict
[father of Agapitus, aka Hadrian III, Pope 884-5]
12. Hunroch
13. Guntram "The Rich", founder of the House of Habsburg (d973)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theory "C": descent from the Merovingians
01. Quintus Tarus, a Roman prefect (d438)
= Argotta, the Frankish heiress [also called Siegse in early Teutonic
literature]
02. Merovech, King of France 447-457
03. Chilperic, a prince [not to be confused with his half-uncle the
Frankish King Chilperic I, that is, the issue of Argotta, the Frankish
heiress, by her 2nd husband, Chlodio "Le Chevalu", King of France
428-447]
04. Clovis "The Great", King of France 481-511
note: his 1st wife Dochilt, was the widow of Prince Clovis, the son of
the Frankish King Chilperic I, who predeceased his father; =2
Evochilde, an Ostro-Goth princess; =3 Clotilda of Burgundy, who was
the mother of
05. Clothaire I, King of East Franks 555-561/2; King of West Franks
558-561/2
06. Sigebert I, King of France 561/2-575
07. Childebert II, King of France 575-596
08. Thibert II, King of France 596-612
09. Ligibert, Duke of Austrasia
10. Othobert, Count of Altemberg
11. Amprinteus, Count of Altemberg
12. Hectobert, Count of Altemberg
13. Rampert, Count of Altemberg
14. Guntram, a count
15. Liutfrid I, Count of Sundgau
16. Liutfrid II, Count of Sundgau
17. Liutfrid III, Count of Sundgau
18. Liutfrid IV, Count of Sundgau, d912
19. Liutfrid V, Count of Sundgau, d925
20. Hundifrid, a count
21. Guntram "The Rich"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Theory "D": descended from the Etichoni
01. Aymes
02. Wago, Count of Montreuil 512-XXX
03. Leuthaire, Duke of Allemania (d533/4), one of his bros was
Theobald (below)
= sister of Butilin, Duke of Allemania
04. Erchenaud (Erkembald)
= Gertrude, dau of Richimer of Burgundy
05. Leuthaire [II] (Laetharus)
= Gerberge, dau of Aega, Major Domo of France, & Gertrude, dau of
Theobald, son of Wago (above)
06. Erchinold, Major Domo of France (d657/661)
= Leudefindis
07. Leuthaire [III], aka Leudisius of Peronne, Major Domo of France
(d673)
= Hilde, dau of Boniface, Duke of Alsace 656-662, son of Gundo, 1st
Duke of Alsace 640-656
08. Eticho [I], Duke of Alsace 662-690, ancestor of the Etichoni
09. Adalbert, Duke of Alsace 690-722, bro of Hetto [Eticho II], Count
of Nordgau, and Adalric, a count (d735)
10. Liutfrid I, Duke of Alsace 722-731, bro of Eberhard I, Duke of
Franconia (d747) [father of Warin, Count of Altdorf], and Haichon, a
count (d749)
11. Liutfrid II, Duke of Alsace 731-767
12. Liutfrid III, Duke of Alsace 767-802, bro of Erchambald,
Chancellor of France 797-812, and Augilbert (Englibert), 1st Count of
Ponthieu (d814)
13. Hugh II "Le Mefiant", Duke of Alsace 802-837
14. Liutfrid IV, Duke of Alsace 837-864,
bro of Hugh III, Count of Auxerre, Bourges, & Nevers (d853) [father of
(a) Liutfrid V, Duke of Alsace 884-903; (b) Tertulle, Seneschal of
Gatinais; and (c) Stephen, Count of Bourges],
and,
bro of Adalbert (d876) [father of Eberhard, father of Erenfred,
father of Eberhard (913), father of Erenfred [Ehrenfried] (d963),
father of Egon "von Ehrenfried", 1st Count-Palatine 959-969]
15. Hugh IV, Duke of Alsace 864-884
16. Liutfrid VI, Duke of Alsace 903-912
17. Hunfrid, bro of Hugh V, Duke 925, and Liutfrid VIII, Duke
18. Guntrum "The Rich"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the confusion of the Habsburg ancestry by medieval clerics
came about by the genealogical sequence in all three genealogies,
which are basically the same names:
Theory "A" (above)
11. Leudfrido, bro of the Count of Camerino
12. Hunroch
13. Guntram "The Rich"
-------------
Theory "C" (above)
19. Liutfrid V, Count of Sundgau
20. Hundifrid
21. Guntram "The Rich"
-----------
Theory "D" (above)
16. Liutfrid VI, Duke of Alsace
17. Hunfrid
18. Guntrum "The Rich"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theory "E" (above)
there are several desposynic descent-lines that may have produced the
Habsburgs, which are:
pedigree "a"
01. Matthan
02. Jacob "Nasi", Patriarch of Jerusalem 32-23BC, bro of Hizkiah "The
Zealot" and Judas "of Gamala"
03. Joseph, foster-father of Jesus of Nazareth
04. Jose[ph] Ha-Rama-Theo", one of Jesus' so-called "brothers"
05. Josue El-Harami, ancestor of
- nine generations -
15. Josue (Joseph), one of eight desposynic princes who visited the
pope in Rome in Year 318, possible ancestor of the Habsburgs
---------------------
pedigree "b"
01. Matthan
02. Jacob "Nasi", Patriarch of Jerusalem 32-23BC, bro of Hizkiah "The
Zealot" and Judas "of Gamala"
03. Joseph, foster-father of Jesus of Nazareth
04. Simon, one of Jesus' so-called "brothers"
05. Zakheas (Zakkai), 4th Bishop of Jerusalem
06. Matthias, 8th Bp, bro of Tobias, 5th Bp, & Ephres, 13th Bp
07. Senikus, 10th Bp, bro of Philip, 9th Bp, & Justus II, 11th Bp
08. Joseph, 14th Bp (d132)
09. son
10. Alexander, a bishop (d251)
11. Demetrius (d263)
12. Mazabanes (d266)
13. Hymenaeus (d298)
14. Zacherias (Zachery), one of eight desposynic princes who visited
the pope in Rome in Year 318, possible ancestor of the Habsburgs
----------------------
pedigree "c"
01. Matthan
02. Jacob "Nasi", Patriarch of Jerusalem 32-23BC, bro of Hizkiah "The
Zealot" and Judas "of Gamala"
03. Joseph, foster-father of Jesus of Nazareth
04. Jude "of Galilee", one of Jesus' so-called "brothers"
05. Jacob (James), begot two sons 6A & 6B (below)
6A James (AD 96), ancestor of Simon, one of eight desposynic princes
who visited the pope in Rome in Year 318, possible ancestor of the
Habsburgs
6B Zoker (AD 96), ancestor of Joses, one of eight desposynic princes
who visited the pope in Rome in Year 318, possible ancestor of the
Habsburgs
------------------------
pedigree "d"
01. Matthan
02. Jacob "Nasi", Patriarch of Jerusalem 32-23BC, bro of Hizkiah "The
Zealot" and Judas "of Gamala"
03. Clopas, bro of Joseph, foster-father of Jesus of Nazareth
4A-D any one of his four sons [ Jesus' so-called "cousins"] could have
been the ancestor of the Habsburgs
--------------------------
pedigree "e"
01. Matthan
02. Judas "of Gamala" (ex AD 6), bro of Hizkiah "The Zealot" and Jacob
"Nasi" (above)
03. Joseph "of Gamala" (kld AD 66)
04. Jesus Bar-Joseph "of Gamala" (68/69), who later married Mary
Magdalene, and begot two sons and a daughter, who were
5A Jesus Justus of Rome [ancestor of Merovech, King of France]
5B Joseph Bar-Joseph "of Rome" (below)
5C Tamar (dau), wife of Paullus Maximus, a Roman senator
-------------
5B Joseph Bar-Joseph "of Rome" (above), bro of Jesus Justus, &, Tamar
06. John, bro of Jude
07. Anicetus, 11th Bishop of Rome (d166)
08. Hilarius (175)
09. Eustathius (200)
10. Athanasius (225)
11. Severianus (250)
12. Constantinus
13. Lucinianus
14. Valentius (325)
15. Johannes (John), possible ancestor of the Habsburgs
------------------
david hughes
Rdavi...@AOL.com
marshall kirk
"(C)," as it's a corker. Who the devil, I asked, is "Quintus Tarus,
the Roman Prefect of Province [sic]"? It took a few seconds for the
penny to drop, but then I recognized his origin: a continuator of
Gregory of Tours -- Fredegar? -- included in his early annals the tale
that the mother of Merovech had been impregnated, while swimming, by
"a beast of Neptune similar to a quinotaur." The reader should note
that this fable dates from many centuries before the era of "medieval
romance," which wouldn't have had to to make the quinotaur into a
"sea-monster," anyway: the chronicle states flatly that that's what
it was. (Need I reiterate that this is not history, in any case?) A
more interesting question might be, who recast a purported sea-monster
as an unattested "Quintus Tarus"?
As an example of how much stock to place in Frankish histories of the
late Roman era in Gaul, consider this: the story of the seduction of
Petronius Maximus' wife by Valentinian III is thoroughly garbled in
detail, and displaced from Rome in the 450s to Trier in -- judging
from the general tenor of the narrative -- the 410s or 420s, with the
intrusion of an unknown "Lucius," and the swapping out of the Vandals
for the Franks.
Rdavi...@Aol.com (david hughes) wrote in message news:<c57e4f24.04070...@posting.google.com>...
> Habsburg Dynasty: one of Europe's most prominent dynasties
> There are several theories that have been proposed by historians over
> the centuries on the origins of the Habsburgs.
> (C) also, during the 15th century attempts were also made to trace
marshall kirk
"(C)," as it's a corker. Who the devil, I asked, is "Quintus Tarus,
the Roman Prefect of Province [sic]"? It took a few seconds for the
penny to drop, but then I recognized his origin: a continuator of
Gregory of Tours -- Fredegar? -- included in his early annals the tale
that the mother of Merovech had been impregnated, while swimming, by
"a beast of Neptune similar to a quinotaur." The reader should note
that this fable dates from many centuries before the era of "medieval
romance," which wouldn't have had to to make the quinotaur into a
"sea-monster," anyway: the chronicle states flatly that that's what
it was. (Need I reiterate that this is not history, in any case?) A
more interesting question might be, who recast a purported sea-monster
as an unattested "Quintus Tarus"?
As an example of how much stock to place in Frankish histories of the
late Roman era in Gaul, consider this: the story of the seduction of
Petronius Maximus' wife by Valentinian III is thoroughly garbled in
detail, and displaced from Rome in the 450s to Trier in -- judging
from the general tenor of the narrative -- the 410s or 420s, with the
intrusion of an unknown "Lucius," and the swapping out of the Vandals
for the Franks.
Rdavi...@Aol.com (david hughes) wrote in message news:<c57e4f24.04070...@posting.google.com>...
> Habsburg Dynasty: one of Europe's most prominent dynasties
> There are several theories that have been proposed by historians over
> the centuries on the origins of the Habsburgs.
> (C) also, during the 15th century attempts were also made to trace
marshall kirk
below, which is a corker. The origin of "Quintus Tarus" (unattested,
as far as I know), would seem to be a passage in a continuator of
Gregory of Tours -- Fredegar? -- who says that the mother of Merovech
was impregnated, while swimming, by a "beast of Neptune similar to a
quinotaur." (Dunno what a quinotaur's supposed to be -- should it
really be _e_quinotaur? -- tho' it's clearly envisioned as an animal
of some sort, not a Roman official.) This fable pre-dates "medieval
romance" by many centuries. The question is not, why did medieval
romance make a Roman official into a sea-monster -- which is what the
beast already was -- but why did (whoever, whenever) make a
sea-monster into a Roman official?
I'd suggest reading the early chapters of Fredegar's chronicle for his
interpolations of Gregory, which will give a better idea than I can
(before I'm timed out, anyway) of just how much stock to put in this
material as a source for historical detail.
Rdavi...@Aol.com (david hughes) wrote in message news:<c57e4f24.04070...@posting.google.com>...
> There are several theories that have been proposed by historians over
> the centuries on the origins of the Habsburgs.
> (C) also, during the 15th century attempts were also made to trace
William Earl Haskell
> I've snipped most of Mr. Hughes's post, but must comment on "C),"
> below, which is a corker. <snip>
Your post appeared three times for some reason. "What I say three times is
true."
As for myself, I believe the Hapsburgs were descended from a tribe of Alpine
hillbillies, who didn't amount to much until one day their chieftain was
out shootin' at some food...
Kevin Randolph Hearst
Frankly, I have to wonder how a Neptunian beast became a Roman
aristocrat. The Empress Maria Theresa viewed her and husband as
descendants of two branches of the same family, from the Alsace
dynasty. I recall a quote that she saw the marriage as a mergerer of
the two branches of the family.
I honestly wonder if they knew where the hell they were from. Clearly
all the descents can't be right and I don't believe in choosing the
most appealing, that's not scholarship. My guess is the dukes of
Alsace were their ancestors, but this isn't proven beyond a shadow of
doubt, at least in my mind.
__
Kevin Randolph Hearst
www.hearstmania.com
citizenkane1123[erase this gap]@hotmail.com
Quote of the Day
Source: self
"She was dating him, but they broke up. Didn't you read it in Star
magazine?...Yeah, I know. God, I hate that magazine."
mkk...@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote in message news:<1c74a9e5.04070...@posting.google.com>...
marshall kirk
yields strange results -- tho' it may after all be something *I* did,
akin to pressing the elevator call button, impatiently, half-a-dozen
times.
I suspect, with you, that the Hapsburgs didn't really know their own
deep patrilineal roots.
I'd like to share one example of the sort of late Roman 'history' one
will find in Fredegar's first book. (I *think* it's Fredegar; but I'm
at work, and can't check.) The story of Petronius Maximus' arranging
of the assassination of Valentinian III in retribution for V's
dalliance with PM's wife is displaced, in garbled form, to Trier,
apparently (judging from the sequence of stories) in the very early
400s. The assassination in fact happened (tho' quite possibly for
other reasons) in 455 or so, in Rome. Names have been changed, along
with time and place; a "Lucius" is one of the protagonists. The
Vandals sacking Rome as an indirect consequence of the preceding
events have become another tribe sacking Trier. Now, this V/PM story
first appeared, as far as I know, in full form in the 540s or
thenabouts, in the pages of Procopius, who doesn't seem to have been a
terribly critical historian for events before his own time (to put it
mildly); I *suspect* that the story got to Gaul *via* Procopius' work,
and was displaced by the Franks to the court of one of the
usurper-emperors of the early 400s. Other theories?
ke...@hearstmania.com (Kevin Randolph Hearst) wrote in message news:<10011fd7.0407...@posting.google.com>...
WJho...@aol.com
Rdavi...@aol.com writes:
> ...misidentified Jesus of Nazareth with His 2nd-cousin Jesus "of Gamala",
> for the author surely would have known better from his research. The author by
> this misidentification could make the claim that Jesus of Nazareth married
> Mary Magdalene and sired children and had descendants who eventually became
> the noble ruling houses of medieval and modern Europe, which the author refers
> to as the "Jesus Dynasty" or "Jesus Bloodline", however, these are the wife
> and children of Jesus "of Gamala", the 2nd cousin of Jesus of Nazareth, who by
> all accounts was celibate. It is true that
> descendants of Jesus' so-called "brothers" and "cousins", the "Desposyni",
> gave Europe some of its noble and royal houses, however, none descend from
> Jesus of Nazareth Himself but only from His relatives "according of the flesh",
> and, ultimately descend from Israel's Davidic Dynasty, which according to the
> Bible has a "divine right" to rule. It was the "Desposyni" who introduced
> the doctrine of the "Divine Right" in Europe.
1) What is the proof that Jesus "of Gamala" and Jesus the Nazarene were 2nd
cousins?
2) What is the proof that Jesus of Gamala and his wife had children who
became the forebears of the royal houses of Europe?
3) What is the proof that Jesus brothers and cousins gave Europe "some of its
noble houses"
4) What is the proof that Jesus was celibate?
5) What is the proof that God intended the Davidic house to rule forever ?
Really your post is interesting but its not genealogy and its not history
either.
You should know better than to allow certain "experts" to delude you into
thinking we can know the genealogy of people who lived two thousand years ago.
There was a great deal of interest then as now in creating fictitious
pedigrees.
Will Johnson
Francisco Antonio Doria
The only point which I find interesting in this
discussion is: if Yehoshua ben Yussef was a rabbi, he
had to be married - with children, for these meant
God's blessings over his marriage. So...
(Of course I know this is in contradiction with the
Gospels; I'm just pointing this out.)
fa
--- WJho...@aol.com escreveu: > In a message dated
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail agora com 100MB, anti-spam e antivírus grátis!
http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/
Kevin Randolph Hearst
descendant of Jesus or his brother James. Evidence? David Hughes has
El-Kasai listed as the son Justus "Gaiso" who was the third bishop of
Jerusalem whom he called the son of James, brother of Jesus. This
Justus or Jude, who is listed in Catholic writings as the son of
James, can possibly be identified with Jesus Justus whom some consider
to be the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. So, maybe he was turned
into a nephew of Jesus, rather than his son, by the Church to avoid
Jesus having heirs if you want to believe that, or he was just
rightfully the son of his brother James. El-Kasai went to Persia for a
time, before heading off to Rome, where he gathered quite a following
with Gnostic like teachings, saying that there would be many Christs
to come and teaching of multiple baptisms. The name El-Kasai itself
means "God-in-Man". El-Kasai was known to have descendants who stayed
in Persia and were literally worshiped. Their spit and even the sand
beneath their feet were collected by people for good luck. Their
names? Two sisters named Martha and Marthus. Sort of like the Mary
Magdalene's sister Martha...hmmm. Anyway Mani was descened from
Persian nobility, perhaps with royal connections, and his parents were
leaders in a group of followers of El-Kasai. So, it is not beyond the
realm of possibility the Mani was a descendant of El-Kasai or maybe
his brother, Yechai.
__
Kevin Randolph Hearst
www.hearstmania.com
citizenkane1123[erase this gap]@hotmail.com
Quote of the Day
source: Insanity - Oingo Boingo
"A billion years of evolution and we get Danny Quayle"
Phil Moody
Mani whose patron was Shapur (I) for a time?
Cheers,
Phil
WJho...@aol.com
ke...@hearstmania.com writes:
> I'm going out on a limb here, so bear with me. Perhaps Mani is a descendant
> of Jesus or his brother James. Evidence? David Hughes has El-Kasai listed as
> the son Justus "Gaiso" who was the third bishop of Jerusalem whom he called
> the son of James, brother of Jesus.
Based on what source?
This Justus or Jude, who is listed in Catholic writings as the son of James,
can possibly be identified with Jesus Justus
> whom some consider to be the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
There is no such thing as "Catholic writings". Please cite your source.
So, maybe he was turned into a nephew of Jesus, rather than his son, by the
Church to avoid Jesus having heirs if you
> want to believe that, or he was just rightfully the son of his brother
> James. El-Kasai went to Persia for a time, before heading off to Rome, where he
> gathered quite a following with Gnostic like teachings, saying that there
> would be many Christs to come and teaching of multiple baptisms.
I have never heard of such a thing. Forgive me for being sceptical. I feel
that I'm rather widely read in religion. What is the source and provenance
for such an event.
The name El-Kasai itself means "God-in-Man". El-Kasai was known to have
descendants who stayed in Persia and
> were literally worshiped. Their spit and even the sand beneath their feet
> were collected by people for good luck. Their names? Two sisters named Martha
> and Marthus. Sort of like the Mary Magdalene's sister Martha...hmmm. Anyway
> Mani was descened from Persian nobility, perhaps with royal connections, and
> his parents were leaders in a group of followers of El-Kasai. So, it is not
> beyond the realm of possibility the Mani was a descendant of El-Kasai or maybe
> his brother, Yechai.
I'm doubtful that one language can have two sisters named Martha and Marthus.
Rather it sounds like a translated name of the same person. It would be
like in English having two sons named Mark and Marcus. Its the same name. And
what is your source that Mani's parents followed this alledged "El Kasai"
person ?
Thank you
Will Johnson
Kevin Randolph Hearst
Patak and Maryam. His mother had the royal connections.
>
> > I'm going out on a limb here, so bear with me. Perhaps Mani is a descendant
> > of Jesus or his brother James. Evidence? David Hughes has El-Kasai listed as
> > the son Justus "Gaiso" who was the third bishop of Jerusalem whom he called
> > the son of James, brother of Jesus.
>
> Based on what source?
>
> This Justus or Jude, who is listed in Catholic writings as the son of James,
> can possibly be identified with Jesus Justus
> > whom some consider to be the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
>
> There is no such thing as "Catholic writings". Please cite your source.
Any writings written by Catholics about the Catholic faith I consider
to be Catholic writings. Maybe calling them writings of the early
church fathers would be more appropriate in this case.
In Eusebius' list of the bishops of Jerusalem he is called Justus and
in the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles it reads "after whom the
third was Judas the son of James". James is sometimes referred to as
James the Just, so perhaps Justus was an attempt at a Roman name.
>
> So, maybe he was turned into a nephew of Jesus, rather than his son, by the
> Church to avoid Jesus having heirs if you
> > want to believe that, or he was just rightfully the son of his brother
> > James. El-Kasai went to Persia for a time, before heading off to Rome, where he
> > gathered quite a following with Gnostic like teachings, saying that there
> > would be many Christs to come and teaching of multiple baptisms.
>
> I have never heard of such a thing. Forgive me for being sceptical. I feel
> that I'm rather widely read in religion. What is the source and provenance
> for such an event.
El-Kasai and his brother both wrote books, both of which are lost.
Yechai's was supposed to be a secret book, which was only viewed by
the leaders of the community apparently. El-Kasai's book is quoted by
Epiphanius and Hippolytus.
>
> The name El-Kasai itself means "God-in-Man". El-Kasai was known to have
> descendants who stayed in Persia and
> > were literally worshiped. Their spit and even the sand beneath their feet
> > were collected by people for good luck. Their names? Two sisters named Martha
> > and Marthus. Sort of like the Mary Magdalene's sister Martha...hmmm. Anyway
> > Mani was descened from Persian nobility, perhaps with royal connections, and
> > his parents were leaders in a group of followers of El-Kasai. So, it is not
> > beyond the realm of possibility the Mani was a descendant of El-Kasai or maybe
> > his brother, Yechai.
>
> I'm doubtful that one language can have two sisters named Martha and Marthus.
> Rather it sounds like a translated name of the same person. It would be
> like in English having two sons named Mark and Marcus. Its the same name. And
> what is your source that Mani's parents followed this alledged "El Kasai"
> person ?
Marthus and Martha(na) have a contemporary source which verifies their
existence in Epiphanius who wrote about El-Kasai.
"The influence of the Elchasaites upon Mani, as we now know from the
Cologne Mani Codex, must however have been quite considerable. Down to
his 24th year Mani lived in an Elchasaite community, and his own
independent teaching developed in controversy with this baptist group.
" - Johannes Irmscher's New Testament Apocrypha page 686-687
The Elchasaites were similar religiously to the group called the
Nazarenes, which were the original Christians before the Romans began
to dominate them.
__
Kevin Randolph Hearst
www.hearstmania.com
citizenkane1123[erase this gap]@hotmail.com
Quote of the Day
source: John Kerry
"We've got better vision, better ideas, and we've got better hair"
Kevin Randolph Hearst
Patak and Maryam. His mother had the royal connections.
>
> > I'm going out on a limb here, so bear with me. Perhaps Mani is a descendant
> > of Jesus or his brother James. Evidence? David Hughes has El-Kasai listed as
> > the son Justus "Gaiso" who was the third bishop of Jerusalem whom he called
> > the son of James, brother of Jesus.
>
> Based on what source?
>
> This Justus or Jude, who is listed in Catholic writings as the son of James,
> can possibly be identified with Jesus Justus
> > whom some consider to be the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
>
> There is no such thing as "Catholic writings". Please cite your source.
Any writings written by Catholics about the Catholic faith I consider
to be Catholic writings. Maybe calling them writings of the early
church fathers would be more appropriate in this case.
In Eusebius' list of the bishops of Jerusalem he is called Justus and
in the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles it reads "after whom the
third was Judas the son of James". James is sometimes referred to as
James the Just, so perhaps Justus was an attempt at a Roman name.
>
> So, maybe he was turned into a nephew of Jesus, rather than his son, by the
> Church to avoid Jesus having heirs if you
> > want to believe that, or he was just rightfully the son of his brother
> > James. El-Kasai went to Persia for a time, before heading off to Rome, where he
> > gathered quite a following with Gnostic like teachings, saying that there
> > would be many Christs to come and teaching of multiple baptisms.
>
> I have never heard of such a thing. Forgive me for being sceptical. I feel
> that I'm rather widely read in religion. What is the source and provenance
> for such an event.
El-Kasai and his brother both wrote books, both of which are lost.
Yechai's was supposed to be a secret book, which was only viewed by
the leaders of the community apparently. El-Kasai's book is quoted by
Epiphanius and Hippolytus.
>
> The name El-Kasai itself means "God-in-Man". El-Kasai was known to have
> descendants who stayed in Persia and
> > were literally worshiped. Their spit and even the sand beneath their feet
> > were collected by people for good luck. Their names? Two sisters named Martha
> > and Marthus. Sort of like the Mary Magdalene's sister Martha...hmmm. Anyway
> > Mani was descened from Persian nobility, perhaps with royal connections, and
> > his parents were leaders in a group of followers of El-Kasai. So, it is not
> > beyond the realm of possibility the Mani was a descendant of El-Kasai or maybe
> > his brother, Yechai.
>
> I'm doubtful that one language can have two sisters named Martha and Marthus.
> Rather it sounds like a translated name of the same person. It would be
> like in English having two sons named Mark and Marcus. Its the same name. And
> what is your source that Mani's parents followed this alledged "El Kasai"
> person ?
Marthus and Martha(na) have a contemporary source which verifies their
ロイ・グレイディ
I am also where I cannot check the sources justat this moment. But
Fredegar's "Lucius" sounds suspciously like the Arthurian Roman official who
according to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Arthur supposedly went to Gaul to attack
some time later. (Geoffrey of Monmouth perhaps mixed some Fredegar into his
story? a double dose of legend and confusion)
The other point that comes to mind is that Petronius Maximus asked
Eparchius Avitus to be an official of his short lived govenment. Ford and
Kelly some time back suggested (please forgive any untintended imprecision
on my part in recounting this) that Petronius Maximus' wife could have been
a sister of Eparchius Avitus. If so the connection with Trier (though by
the 450's perhaps a little anachronistic) is perhaps understandable.
Recently there has been some discussion of Clermont(Avitan) Trier area
connections that go back long before Theodoric of Austrasia.
I think Trier changed hands several times either nominally or in fact during
the 5th century betwen Romans, Huns and various German groups. Count
Arbogast appears according to Sidonius to have been in authority around he
460's and when after that Trier finally and permantly became a Frankish
settlement I am not sure is known though it seems likely it may have become
"Frankish" in the context of the struggle for contro of the region betwen
Aegidius and Childeric (and their respective sons). Aegidius at least held
some sway among the Franks and Syagrius is likely to have as well though
Gregory may not know of it or mention it, and the rivalry with Childeric
(and later betwen Syagrius and Clovis) can in part be seen not entirely as
an ethnic conflict but a contest for the control and allegiance of the local
Frankish forces. I suspect that switches of allegiance by the populace and
military forces may have played as great or a greater role than actual
conquest in the final act. And the way Clovis is recorded as having
consolidated power in the region once it was under Frankish control suggest
that the city may have changed hands more than once in quick succession
afterwards.
Returning to the Arthurian theme (not of course with the intent of tyring to
establish genealogical links to anybody but rather to ask why men like
Geoffrey joyously counfounded generations of people with their spirited mix
of scraps of history and copious imagination) I note that Childeric and
Aegidius were active and may have been involved with the shadowy British
leader Riothamus who was operating in Gaul about then. One wonders just
what writings Geoffrey had contact with? Fredegar (probably not Sidonius)?
Gregory of Tours? certainly Gildas and Nennius. The Irish/British
monasterties of course had access to a great deal given their ties to the
Frankish Court and Monasteries (Didier of Poitiers comes to mind and
Columbanus).
One of the things I enjoyed about reading Dumville's study of manuscripts of
Nennius' history was the analytical and very careful and conservative way he
looked at his subject. I have to say that one has to have a certain amount
of confidence in Dumville's conclusion that Arthur should not be deduced as
an historical person from Nennius alone (and since almost everything else
about Arthur is post Nennius one can understand the difficulty of the case
for Arthur). I do not recall what or whether Dumville commented on the
Annales Cambriae or their purported Easter Cycle Chronicles which (as Mr.
Hughes recently related andI think is mentioned in Alcock) mention Arthur
twice and if they can be regarded as annales kept at themonastery at St
Davids have at least some claim to being contemorary or based on something
that was. Additionally there is the enigmatic pillar of Eliseg which, while
it does not mention Arthur, is supportive of some elements of the Arthurian
legend -particulary regarding the usurper Maximus who is claimed as the
forbear for various Welsh clans in later dynasties (I think it would be
senseless to suggest that Geoffrey was unaware of the pillar as he was in
Wales and the pillar was almost certainly in better condition then than in
later days.) I think Nennius is well dealt with by Dumville but I would
appreciate it if those who are better familiar with the topic would speak as
to the value if any of the Annales Cambriae and the Pillar of Eliseg.
The other point I am wanting to make is that it would be nice to someday
read a contemporary study, in light of what we are now coming to better
understand of Late Roman, Romano British, Gaelic, Frankish and Anglo Saxon
cultures and histories, of what historical sources Geoffrey drew on, how he
used and trasformed them, what errors or misinterpretations he made and to
the degree possible, where he invented things from whole cloth. If we could
do that then we might be able to narrow down or identify the mysterious
British book he supposdly relied on or at last confidently deduce its
non-existence. It is this possibility that Nennius and Geoffrey had access
to some mysterious history that continues to lend confusion to early British
history and geneaology whereas in fact it may have been nothing more
exciting than Geoffrey reading Nennius and then pasting the identity of
various other vague figures from the histories purporting to cover the same
period. One possible example could be a rather exotic interpretation by
Geoffrey of the Fredegar passages you have indicated. The reference to
"Lucius" is very interesting. I had thought for certain that Geoffrey had
entirely made up Arthur's continental exploits (or maybe borrowed them from
Niall of the Nine Hostages who I have heard somewhere made it as far as the
Alps in his adventures). In fairness the "Riothamus is Arthur" theory has
been taken up by others elsewhere but I wonder if it is not something any
more difficult than two medieval writers with a hero they wanted to tell a
story about grabbing on every suspciously attractive looking detail not
otherwise tied down to a well known histoical fugure and attributing it to
their own hero.
This is sort of the same thing as the 3 Jesus theory that has been going
around SGM only I think it may be more applicable to the legend of Arthur -
sort of a cofusion of Riothamus, Constantine (the emperor and the later
Usurper), Maximus, Aurelius Ambrosius (whose name suggests ties with the
Ambrosii of the North East Gaul) and perhaps one or more actual leaders of
Welsh or Irish extraction. In fairness to Geoffrey of Monmouth, he may have
been trying to do no more (to the extent he was not writing an entertaining
and perhaps surreptitiously didactic yarn for the Plantagenets) than to fill
in the vast gap in British history from the end of Empire down to point
where the works of Bede begin to take on historical importance. Without
doubt there were powerful figures at work in Britain: we have seen the
remains of their halls and earthworks and their names remain tantalizingly
just out of reach as garbled words or phrases in the names or rivers or
towns or riven in stones and crosses that can still be found across the
countryside. When they lived, what they accomplished, what descendants they
left remain complete and perfect mysteries. I suspect Geoffrey and perhaps
even Nennius were trying to fill that gap much the same way we do now for
varius difficult periods of history. It may have been easier for them to do
then than us now but probably not much easier. The way the English kingdoms
were either created or transfered over from pre existing Celtic or
Romano-Celtic kingdoms may have made it difficult to transmit much of this
information.
To the extent that Geoffrey in particular has created in our consciouness a
profound figure who either never existed or who existed perhaps in a far
different way than we now collectively believe is a sobering reminder to all
of us interested in this early, uncertain poorly documented era of genealogy
of the potential importance of what we do and how long lasting the effects
can be. To the credit of the modern speculative genealogist (and
historian), the craft has matured considerably since Geoffrey's day and the
avaialbility of criticism and review both from others engaged in the same
pursuits and more operative genealogists (those interested exclusively in
discovering formally verifiable lines of descent) I hope lessen the danger
of the creation of entirely fictitious personages and descents from them to
bedevil future generations. As to the Arthur business I would still be
interested to hear any negative comment on either the Annales Cambriae or
the Pillar of Eliseg.
On the matter of Jesus, there has been much passionate debate - there was no
Jesus, Jesus was a composite, Jesus was a rabbi, etc... There has been a
lot of study on the Gospels, and the Letters of Paul and other New Testament
chapters. I suspect that there is a scholarly consesnus of some sort as to
the era they were written in and the time peiod. If Paul was active around
Palestine ten years or so after Jesus death and was as was claimed engaged
in seeking out and prosecuting Jesus' followers, and, if he was any good at
what he did, he will have spoken with dozens and perhaps even hundreds of
people who knew Jesus. To suggest that his letters are not persuasive of
the existence of a single Jesus Christ as founder inadvertently or otherwise
of Christianity suggests that (a) Paul did not write the letters or (b) he
was lying about almost everything in them. I assume that Paul [as opposed
to say Eusebius] wrote the letters inasmuch as I am not aware of any
scholars mking a major argument to the effect that he did not [such an
argument would have profound implications] I grant that the letters can
have been rewritten but to rewrite the letters to the extent that the person
who is the subject the letters is made to exist where he did not before
[which is a plausible argument perhaps for a writing so short as the
Testamentum Flavianum] to a level of skill sufficient to evade the detection
of modern scholars is something that common sense tells me was certainly
beyond the abilities of the monks working in medieval scriptoria or their
predecessors at the court of Constantine. As to fabricating the existence
of Jesus, why? If Paul had been talking about somebody (like Arthur) 2 or 3
hundred years dead at the time he wrote, it is plausible that he could have
fabricated his hero and gotten away with it. However, ten to twenty years
after whatever did or did not happen with Jesus there were too many people
who still remembered what did (or did not) happen and who were (as Jews or
Gentiles) involved in the new Christian religion. If there is a tradition
in the Christian (or non Christian ancient world) world to the effect that
Paul lied about or invented the existence of Jesus I am not aware of it (OK
well maybe the gnostics) . Short of a reasoned scholarly argument showing
that these letters are not authentic (either in their inception or through
almost incomprehensibly complete redaction) I would have to say that I
believe a reasonable case has been made out for the existence in the early
first century CE of a Jewish man living in Palestine named Jesus who was
executed by Roman authorities and upon whose activities early Christianity
was at least originally based.
BTW Josephus mentions another Jesus I think who was politically active in
sourthern Palestine near Beersheba mid century so there may be some support
for the idea that the activities of more than one person named Jesus were
added to our historical image (though about the dynamics of such a
conflation I am not qualified to speak) but nothing I have seen at SGM yet
suggests that Jesus did not exist (Yes, I know, we cannot be asked to prove
something does not exist, but I think the situation here is more that there
is and has been for many centuries a plausible case for the existence of
Jesus, sort of as we think of him that must be rebutted, and while a
facially plausible argument may be rebutted by attacking the soundness of
its reasoning or the validity of its elements that requires more than a
simple statement of "There is no proof". It is proof of existence that is
being evaluated. The defects or insufficiency of the proof or reasoning
should be demonstrated. If anyone knows of such demonstration I would be
much obliged (not to the effect that "Pauls letters were redacted a lot" or
"Dishonest medieval monks or later Roman Church fathers doctored the
letters.") My own opinion on this is not yet set, but sadly the SGM on this
issue has yet to "show me the way" so to speak: and I say sadly because
caustic as SGM can be at times, I rarely go away unsatisfied or not having
learned something of use. A reasoned conclusion based on textual analysis
which if possible identifies the putative actors and their putative motives
would be instructive. I will certainly look for one and I respectfully hope
our more learned members who may already know of such will oblige if such
exist.
(Marshall sorry to ride all this on a reply to your post)
Best Regards
Grady Loy
"marshall kirk" <mkk...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1c74a9e5.04070...@posting.google.com...
WJho...@aol.com
ke...@hearstmania.com writes:
> El-Kasai went to Persia for a time, before heading off to Rome, where he
> >>gathered quite a following with Gnostic like teachings, saying that there
> >>would be many Christs to come and teaching of multiple baptisms.
> >
> >I have never heard of such a thing. Forgive me for being sceptical. I
> feel
> >that I'm rather widely read in religion. What is the source and provenance
>
> >for such an event.
>
> El-Kasai and his brother both wrote books, both of which are lost.
> Yechai's was supposed to be a secret book, which was only viewed by
> the leaders of the community apparently. El-Kasai's book is quoted by
> Epiphanius and Hippolytus.
>
El-Kasai if there was such a person, never went to Rome. Hippolytus tells us
that under Callistus (217-222), Alcibiades a native of Syria came to Rome
bringing a book which he had received from Parthia by a just man named Elchasai.
Hippolytus seems to think that Alcibiades was the actual author of the book.
Origen, writing somewhat later (c246-9) says the heresy was quite new.
Ephiphanius mentions some things about this community of Ebionites as well.
However I see nothing to link Mani to the Elkasites.
The father of Mani joined the South Babylonian Puritans (Menakkede) or
Mandaeans and had his son educated in their tenets.
I wonder what the origin is of Johannes saying this was an Elchasite
community. Of course since this new find of the Cologne Mani Codex is not yet public
domain, it's difficult to comment on it.
And I do not think his parents were leaders in the community. It was his
father that was apparently a leader. His mother is not mentioned again as far as
I know.
At any rate, I do not think these fragments qualify as any sort of useful
link between Jesus, James, El-Kasai, and Mani in terms of blood relations.
Will
Kevin Randolph Hearst
> El-Kasai if there was such a person, never went to Rome. Hippolytus tells us
> that under Callistus (217-222), Alcibiades a native of Syria came to Rome
> bringing a book which he had received from Parthia by a just man named Elchasai.
>
> Hippolytus seems to think that Alcibiades was the actual author of the book.
> Origen, writing somewhat later (c246-9) says the heresy was quite new.
> Ephiphanius mentions some things about this community of Ebionites as well.
>
> However I see nothing to link Mani to the Elkasites.
>
> The father of Mani joined the South Babylonian Puritans (Menakkede) or
> Mandaeans and had his son educated in their tenets.
>
> I wonder what the origin is of Johannes saying this was an Elchasite
> community. Of course since this new find of the Cologne Mani Codex is not yet public
> domain, it's difficult to comment on it.
>
> And I do not think his parents were leaders in the community. It was his
> father that was apparently a leader. His mother is not mentioned again as far as
> I know.
>
> At any rate, I do not think these fragments qualify as any sort of useful
> link between Jesus, James, El-Kasai, and Mani in terms of blood relations.
>
> Will
Mani belonged to to Elchasites who were called the Baptists, due to
El-Kasai's teaching of multiple baptisms. They were similar to the
Mandaeans, but a different group. Just because you haven't researched
the individuals doesn't mean they didn't exist.
__
Kevin Randolph Hearst
www.hearstmania.com
citizenkane1123[erase this gap]@hotmail.com
Quote of the Day
Source: Will Farrell as Neil Diamond on SNL
"Few people know that I am fueled creatively by my massive hatred of
immigrants."
WJho...@aol.com
ke...@hearstmania.com writes:
Where exactly do I say they don't exist? The said that El-Kasai may not have
existed, and I think you will find copious quotes that agree with that point
if you look.
I have pointed out the false statements in the post. You merely *stating*
that he did, does not make it so.
If you have a source, we can actually review, versus some other modern-day
commentator *stating* that Mani did belong to the Elchasites, than please bring
it forward.
Will