I see 3 different husbands for Anna of Arimathea, daughter of Joseph of
Arimathea now.
one is 3 generations apart.
1. Beli Mawr, "King" of the Britons
bef 162 BC, died 72 BC
2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
(Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)
born Siluria (now Monmouth), Wales
(grandson of #1 Beli Mawr)
and now this...
3. Manogan, Celtic King of the Druids
(father of Beli Mawr, son of Eneid
one entry I found, even showed Anna married to #2 then #1
Can anyone clear this one up in an hurry?
David Samuelsen
Most often, many listed #2.
Funniest post I've seen in weeks.
Your chain has been pulled -- repeatedly.
DSH
"W. David Samuelsen" <ds...@sampubco.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2091.1189448...@rootsweb.com...
What sources are you using?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
----------------
No it's quite silly. The Anna who married Brian Boru was the daughter of James the Just the first Bishop of Jerusalem
Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
DSH
"WJhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2093.1189450...@rootsweb.com...
None of those people ever existed.
RIGHT!
The brother of Jesus of Nazarath. <G>
DSH
> Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
DSH
"Hovite" <paulv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189450275.0...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
RIGHT!
The brother of Jesus of Nazareth. <G>
DSH
Pax Vobiscum
> Will "giggling hysterically" Johnson
Then it *must* be necrophilia.
As others have pointed out, there is no surviving evidence that any of
them ever existed. These are all invented individuals.
taf
The ancient name for Monmouth was Blestium.
Siluria is a modern invention; it does not occur in any source.
The people were the Silures, who are mentioned in several sources,
including Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy.
Their capital was Venta Silurum, now Caerwent, in Gwent (previously
Monmouthshire).
Siluria is in Alabama.
Surreyman
> I see 3 different husbands for Anna
She Anu, the Celtic Earth goddess.
> 1. Beli Mawr, "King" of the Britons
He is Belinos, a Celtic god, consort of Anu.
> 2. Brian Boru ap Ly Llediaith
> (Bran Fendigaid "the blesed" Llediaith ap Llyr, King of Siluria)
Bran Vendigeit is another Celtic god; Brian Boru was a King of Ireland
(died 1014).
> 3. Manogan, Celtic King of the Druids.
"the name of Manogan is interpolated by a Welsh redactor from native
sources, to form an extra generation, which is absent from Geoffrey's
text".
(Studies in Early British History)
etc.
Thanks for the details. Certainly more convincing than my simple
denial.
taf
pip phillips
pip phillips
The above is not legend but rather fantasy. Perhaps anyone at all listening would care to try to find any of this related in any credible history book modern or ancient.
Will
pip
you are not very well read, are you?; or at least have never research
this subject
--------------------------
I tend to stay away from connections based on fantasy, conspiracy theories
and lizards.
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
> Anne, the so-called sister of Jesus, came to Rome with a party of
> Christians led by Joseph of Arimathea at the time of the first
> persecution of the Jerusalem Church in AD 36 where according to legend
> she met and married the British prince Belus, the son of the British
> ex-king Dubnovellus [who was himself an exile in Rome], who eventually
> returned to Britain with her and had issue. This Belus (c. AD 35/50)
> is not to be confused with his ancestor Beli Mawr, who sacked Rome in
> 386BC in the "First Celtic Storm". See the "Beli & Anne Pedigree" in
> Bartrum's "Early Genealogical Tracts".
Perhaps you could cite some primary data that suggests otherwise, but
I don't know that there is a single thing in this paragraph that
represents solid history (e.g. recorded less than, say, 500 years
after the events being reported). As to Bartrum, he was compiling
pedigrees that appear in 15th century (and later) manuscripts, not
reporting authentic history, and he makes this distinction clear.
taf
No persons referred to above are mentioned in near-contemporary, non-
biblical sources, except Jesus (Joseph._AJ_28.3). Four brothers and
at least two unnamed sisters appear in the Bible, as well as Joseph of
Arimathea, the latter seen in biblical criticism as a fictional
character invented as a plot device [J. D. Crossan,_Jesus_9 (San
Francisco, 1994), 156-8;_The Oxford Companion to the Bible_(New York,
1993), s.v. "Joseph of Arimathea"]. Rabanus Maurus, a ninth-century
German monk, is the earliest writer to connect Joseph with Britain.
Christopher Ingham
pip
pip >>
---------------------
You are reading it correctly. He is citing a work which has (within it, probably a contributor) Crossan stating that Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional plot device.
It's not new that biblical criticism points out things about the Bible that may startle the more conservative Biblicist.
Will
Dear Will
What if someone two thousand years hence knowing only this thread were
to say that Crossan is a plot device?
Yours, etc
Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.
That person might well be right --
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Then they will be scholars of the type that Crossan could appreciate,
thinking critically about their sources rather than just blindly
accepting them. Further, these future researchers, if they only knew
of Crossan from this thread, would know that whether he was a reality
or a plot device he had no place in a pedigree, there being no
surviving contemporary record of his parents, wives of children.
taf
--------------
He'd be ecstatic that he is still remembered at all.
good Lord, your references are bogus and you are beyond ignorance to
even consider them worthy of any consideration
i have a reference for you: "thinking themselves to be wise, they were
really fools" (Rom.1:22)
you have sold your soul to the devil for this brief flirtation with
false fame - oh, and when you open your eyes in hell ask yourself "was
it worth it"
------------------------
They are not *my* references you silly monkey.
pip
I don't yet know you well enough to truly insult you with passion and verve. But keep it up mister smart aleck and we'll see ;)
Will
A small caveat. Epiphanius does mention by name two sisters of Jesus,
calling them the daughters of Joseph by his "first wife" : Mary and
Salome. In another work he has Anne and Salome, but editors have
wondered if the word there might be a scribal error and thus would
possibly erase Anne.
Sophronius who is probably dependent on Epiphanius merges these to
have Anne, Mary and Salome.
As to "... British prince Belus, the son of the British ex-king
Dubnovellus ...", I wonder if this does not refer to the same
individuals that Geoffrey of Monmouth calls : Belinus, King of
Britian, son of Dunwallo [Molmutius], King of Cornwall then of all
Britain who reigned for forty years.
This Belius is further given a son "Gurgiunt Brabtruc" who became in
turn King of Britain.
There is nothing in this part of the history that allows me to give a
chronology, but IF there is indeed *some* legend that Jesus and
Dunwallo or Belinus were contemporaries that would certainly help the
situation. Of course that legend should be properly cited and
quoted. But it's certainly not in Geoffrey's work, so I don't know
from where it comes.
Will Johnson
--------------------
Geoffrey states that he got his material from an old book. The accepted wisdom is either that he made it all up which seems hardly likely if you read it; OR that he was relating actual stories mixed in with some of his own fiction.
Certainly it seems pretty odd that he would believe that King Arthur (who per the loose chronology I've built based on Geoffrey, must have reigned around 500) had actually conquered Paris and all of Gaul, etc, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark....
That part, I can certainly believe, Geoffrey very greatly exaggerated. Arthur it seems, based simply on the *amount* of material he gives him and his exploits, was the main point of the work, although we don't get *to* Arthur until the last few "books" (12 books in all).
He mentions Merlin here and there, but quite a lot of the book is very dry detailing of genealogies, apparently stretching back to perhaps 1500 to 2000 BC, not all of which obviously connect to each other. If this is a work of pure fiction is a very boring one, and judged by the things he says about Arthur he certainly *could* have made up a lot more about everyone else. If you're going to write a whopper of fiction pretending to be fact, why make parts of it dreadfully dull?
In particular, although he claims British lineage for Constantine the Great among others, he doesn't really dwell on what Constantine exactly did. Seems a bit odd to just skip merrily past one of the greatest leaders of the past if your main point is to show how amazing the British were.
Will Johnson
My question is, is this the best _you_ can do? You have attacked his
education, his reading, and the well-being of his soul. What you have
not done is support your position.
taf
> As to "... British prince Belus, the son of the British ex-king
> Dubnovellus ...", I wonder if this does not refer to the same
> individuals that Geoffrey of Monmouth calls : Belinus, King of
> Britian, son of Dunwallo [Molmutius], King of Cornwall then of all
> Britain who reigned for forty years.
These people are unknown to history, but they could be corruptions of
Cunobelinus and Dubnovellaunos, who were real kings.
They were not, of course, Kings of Britain.
Dubnovellaunos was King of the Trinovantes, from about 15 BC to about
10 AD.
Cunobelinos was King of the Catulvellauni, from about 10 to about 40
AD. His coins indicate that he successfully absorbed the Trinovantes,
as some were minted at Camulodunum. Others state his parentage:
Tasciovani f.
In a sense, therefore, Cunobelinos was the successor of
Dubnovellaunos, but they came from different tribes and were members
of different dynasties.
Cunobelinos could also be the origin of the Beli myth, as on some
coins the king's name is abbreviated and split between two panels:
CVNO
BELI
But Beli is generally thought to be derived from the god Belinos.
> I don't yet know you well enough to truly insult you with passion and verve. But keep it up mister smart aleck and we'll see
> Will
----------------------------------------------
is that a threat? communication of threats is against the law? I think
I will consult my cousin, a lawyer, as what options I have
Pip
is that a threat? communication of threats is against the law? I think
I will consult my cousin, a lawyer, as what options I have
-----------------------------
Please do, it would be a hoot.
> BELI> CVNO
>
> But Beli is generally thought to be derived from the god Belinos.
Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote in an era when it was trendy to imitate
the_Aeneid_, and to trace particular groups of peoples (in his case,
the Celts) back to the Trojans, all the while showing how these
peoples merited the favor of the gods due to their superior virtue
over all others. Even his contemporaries, living in an age when
scholarly historiographic standards were rather low, denounced his
work as a "tissue of lies."
With Epiphanius, writing centuries after the events described, one has
to fall back on the refrain, "What are his sources?" And as to the
kings, whose existence is only documented in a smattering of
references in Roman histories, make of it what you will.
Christopher Ingham
"This note is either inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that
it can no longer be presented as credible evidence"
A. Schweitzer: "The Quest of the Historical Jesus", page 359.
He cited the the passage as "Antt. 18, 3, 3" so I'm not entirely sure
this is the same reference. Anyway, the paragraph he quoted is very
obviously a later insertion by a Christian.
Besides Josephus, the earliest sources are Tacitus, Suetonius, and
Pliny, all from about 100 AD. They are all somewhat hostile, and
therefore their comments are more likely to be genuine.
Yes, the passage is 18.3.3 from_Antiquities_. The authenticity of the
passage is under question but not outright dismissed, except for the
latter part containing the_testimonium_, "He was the messiah."
Josephus, living in Rome and writing to please a Roman audience,
certainly would not have made such a statement.
Christopher Ingham
Then this group has been quite genuine, of late.
taf
--------------------
Am I right in thinking this was Shakespeare's Cymbeline aka Kymbelinus ?
If so, he is also mentioned by Geoffrey, but as a different person. He states in particular that this Kymbelinus was "brought up by Augustus Caesar" which at least allows us a chronological peg at this point in his narrative.
He gives the father of this Kymbelinus as Tenuantis (aka Tasciovan), Duke of Cornwall and later King of all Britain, who must have lived per my framework from say 90/70 BC until at leat 50 BC
The father of this Tasciovan being King Lud
The son of Kymbelinus is given as Arviragus who fought against Claudius' armies [which occurred in 43 AD]. This Arviragus is given there as marrying Claudius daughter, named Genuissa.
This is fable by the way, but I'm interested only to see if the chronology can hold together. This Genuissa has to be the daughter of Valeria Messalina. I do not have a source describing *exactly* when Claudius married Valeria and hopefully someone has a very good primary source for this, as plenty of secondary sources can't seem to agree.
We do know it must have been sometime between 31 AD and 40 AD. Valeria was stabbed to death, on the orders of Claudius in 48AD. So we have a pretty narrow window for Genuissa's birth which is good.
Their son is given as Marius, King of Britain the father of Coillus "brought up at Rome" (probably as a hostage?)
Marius is the father of "Old King Cole" aka Coillus or Coel who is mentioned at stirnet here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/ancient/ae/brittany1.htm#link1
Cole appears to alternatively be given a mother of "Penardun" ? this might be an error in my database, its possible Penardun is a male, but given a father of "Bran of Siluria" which following Paul Heath should be rendered Bran of the Silures aka Bron the Blessed which I suppose implies that he comes from the Mabigonian although I haven't yet read it to see what it does or doesn't say to support this.
This Bran or Bron is that same one that many people have as married to Anna "of Arimathea" which started this whole thing, but also given as a daughter of James the Bishop of Jerusalem, brother to Jesus.
ALL OF THIS IS FABLE. Just thought I'd throw that in. It's going to prove impossible to co-relate ALL the legends together, but at least we can discuss whether any one of them even works by itself at all.
An alternate mother to Coillus "Cole" is given as "Julia of the Iceni" on stirnet supposed there to be a daughter of Boedicea "Queen of Britons" by Prasutagus, King of the Iceni.
Boedicea BTW is one person who Geoffrey never even alludes to much less mentions by name.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------
As I stated Epiphanius *may* have only known two sisters Mary and Salome. Anna as a sister may be the result of a corrupt textual descent. Epiphanius no place mentions all three sisters together, but three times he mentions Mary, twice Salome, and once this "Anna".
As to his sources, there is a reference to the "three Marys", called in one place his mother, his sister and his companion. Supposedly they were steadfastly with him from the beginning.
Salome of course is a well-known figure, just not as his sister in particular, although reading the text with that in mind, there is no contradiction that can be drawn.
Although the ancient sources do not explicitly state the date, the
marriage of Claudius to his third wife, his third cousin Messalina, an
adolescent, is fixed at between AD 38 and 40 (B.
Levick,_Claudius_[New Haven, 1990], 55;_OCD_, 3rd rev. ed. [2003],
s.v. "Valeria Messal[l]ina" [J. P. V. D. Balsdon and M. T. Griffin]).
Messalina forestalled her own imminent execution in 48 by committing
suicide. Her children, Claudia Octavia and Britannicus, were executed
by Nero, stepson of Claudius by his forth wife, as was the only other
surviving child of Claudius, Claudia Antonia. Her marriage is closely
covered by Tacitus (e.g., _Ann._11.29-32, 34-8), among others, and she
is definitely not the mother of any Genuissa.
Keep plugging away, though, Will; I'm sure that one day you will at
last establish a definitive history of primeval Britain.
Christopher Ingham
As I'm rereading a book that I found on the bookshelve, that mentions
Geoffrey of Monmouth and his famous work, your remark drew my
attention.
> Even his contemporaries, living in an age when
> scholarly historiographic standards were rather low, denounced his
> work as a "tissue of lies."
Who are you talking about, when did they and in what work?
Hans Vogels
On 14 sep, 19:47, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Sep 14, 10:44 am, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > But Beli is generally thought to be derived from the god Belinos.
>
> Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote in an era when it was trendy to imitate
> the_Aeneid_, and to trace particular groups of peoples (in his case,
> the Celts) back to the Trojans, all the while showing how these
> peoples merited the favor of the gods due to their superior virtue
> over all others. Even his contemporaries, living in an age when
> scholarly historiographic standards were rather low, denounced his
> work as a "tissue of lies."
[snip]
> Christopher Ingham
An interesting post you made here. Friday, dusting the bookshelves, I
came across an English book I bought in Canada in 2000:
Steve Blake, Scott Lloyd with John Baldock, 'The Keys to Avalon. The
true location of Arthur's kingdom revealed' (2000).; HB ISBN 1 86204
735 9 and PB ISBN 1 86204 723 5. Published in the USA in 2000 by
Element Books, Inc., 160 North Washington Street, Boston, MA 02114.
It seems that Geoffrey translated a book in the Welsh language into
Latin, that Walter the archdeacon of Oxford brought with him from his
travels to Wales. In translating the text Geoffrey interpretated
wrongly the geographical names with the consequense that (his-)stories
happening in the past of Wales were situated in Great Brittain (England
+Wales+Scotland). These stories as Geoffrey related them have been
long regarded long as real. They have even been politically exploited
but as time went by and new generations of reseachers and historians
found faults, Geoffreys work has been categorised as a fancyfull mix
of facts and fiction.
'Brittain' in 1136 should be read as Wales. The authors deduced that
as Geoffrey was translating a Welsh book there may have been more
Welsh versions of the text he had in front of him. Those versions do
indeed exist. There are over 70 surviving manuscripts of a Welsh text
known as Brut Y Brenhinedd (Chronicle of the Kings). These manuscripts
have been thought versions of a Welsh translation of the Latin
translation of Geoffrey. The Brut has details that Geoffrey's
translation does not have:
"within Geoffrey's translations there are numerous instances where the
name is still to be found in its original Welsh form alongside the
'corrected' location provided for the book's Norman audience." "These
corrections - or 'explanations' - were absent from nearly all of the
Welsh copies of the Brut, presumably because because the latter were
intended for a Welsh audience who would have known where these places
were."
So Geoffrey kind of corrupted the Welsh text and provided all who just
read his work a wrong track for study, research and debate. It is not
my intention to claim the work of Geoffrey is factual, but it seems
that in the Welsh versions of the Brut there may be more real facts
and hints that meet the eye than in Geoffreys work. So anyone quoting
"The History of the kings of Britain" should stop doing that. Try the
above mentioned book as an eye opener and for some new research
tracks.
I can say no more on the subject as I just started reading it again in
my spare time.
Hans Vogels
I confess that I relied on reference books for this assessment. Here
are some comments:
"_The Historia regum Britanniae_, published sometime between 1135 and
1139, was one of the most popular books of the Middle Ages, although
its historical value is almost nil....Denounced from the first by
sober historians, Geoffrey's fictional history nevertheless had an
enormous influence on later chroniclers."
[_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 15th ed., s.v. "Geoffrey of Monmouth."]
"The_Historia_ was attacked as a worthless historical account but
became very popular and survived even the harshest denunciations by
scholars."
[M. Bunson,_Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages_(New York, 1995), s.v.
"Geoffrey of Monmouth."]
"Geoffrey's_History_is, on the last analysis, a prose romance and...a
palpable excursion in fiction....[I]n the words of William of
Newburgh, the entire work is a tissue of 'impudent and shameless
lies.'"
[_The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in Eighteen
Volumes_, vol. 1 (1907), 9.9, "Geoffrey of Monmouth," consulted
online.]
http://www.bartleby.com/211/0909.html
I read other unflattering quotations from Geoffrey's contemporaries,
but I can't recall at this moment in which texts they are located.
To be fair, Geoffrey did did rely on some Celtic documents, now lost,
and he probably recorded much current lore.
Christopher Ingham
Some of the catching phrases from the back cover:
Avalon exists. It is a real place with geographical boundaries and a
turbulent history. It is the treasure house of Arthurian legend. It is
the secret location in which the identity of an entire nation has lain
buried. Until now ... Intertwining the mystery and romance of ancient
myth with the exitement of modern historical discovery, The Keys to
Avalon:
- exposes the rewriting of history and the olitical intrigue which
robbed a people of their heritage and cultural identity,
- is the first book to establish a viable setting for the Arthurian
legacy,
- challenges the accepted theories about early British history and
Arthur, providing a solution to the mystery of Avalon,
-substanciates its claims with detailed references to original Welsh
textual sources, maps and genealogical charts,
goes beyond well-known Arthurian texts to their roots in ancient
Welsh manuscripts ande the history of the land.
The Keys to Avalon is the first work to unlock the doors to a past
that has been swathed in myth and legend, revealing a landscap which
is as real as it is hauntingly magical.
Hans Vogels
> > Will Johnson- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
. . .
> The Keys to Avalon is the first work to unlock the doors to a past
> that has been swathed in myth and legend, revealing a landscap which
> is as real as it is hauntingly magical.
This would all be more believable if the same claim wasn't made
several times a year on the jacket of every new book on Arthur, and
each one giving a different "key" to the past.
taf