Answers for January 2008

This month’s theme was J.H.Christ and his biography. Well, it was about poo last month …. Being interested in textaul erors I bought the book, neither from or off the web site, but from Amazon upon ening redirected there by the Skeptics web site. Some Christians take umbrage at anyone pointing to errors in anything Biblical, but I reckon overall the author has a good point. Hey, I’m not even a Christian, although I reckon I know the Bible probably better than most fundamentalists.

In a close call this month as a lot of people got most questions right, even spotting the deliberate mistake of confusing parablepsis and periblepsis. Gosh, this religion thing is so difficult … Runners up would include Win Fowles, Peter Cuthbert, Andrew Morokoff, Martin Binford, Linda Houston, Dave Hawley, and Pope Hilarious (not sure if one of those is real) … but our WINNER this month lives in the frozen wastes of Canada, and sent me a nice picture to illustrate the locality:

Wendy Mooney

Question 1

One 14th-century manuscript of the Gospel according to Luke had, in chapter 3, the human race’s oldest ancestor named as Phares, and God as being the son of a man named Aram.  How come?


The begat’s were originally listed downwards in two or three columns, and were then read across during copying.

Additional Answers

  • A bit of flyshit on the paper.
  • A dyslexic monk copied the manuscript. He also was around before the OED. Luke believed that Phares would come back in a different guise and spelling and win the Melbourne Cup
  • A little too much holy wine, I reckon.
  • A sun starved scribe slaving late at night made a boo boo copying across columns instead of down a 2 columned page. In fact, everyone’s father here is incorrect. Also, Phares literally means “the source of the whole race”. Don’t despair, it was just a copy of a manuscript, not in the accepted Bible today.
  • After he’d spent all that time beautifully illuminating the first letter of the page, the monk wasn’t in the mood to go back and correct it.
  • All are errors in translation.
  • Aram was a monkey.
  • Because God really *was* the son of Aram. All other Bible versions have suffered from an unfortunate clerical error which transposed the lines.
  • Because in the 14th- century they found that their “god” had to be better and older than anyone elses
  • Because of Space Zombies.
  • Because that was an incorrect translation which proves it was written by a man unlike the versions of the gospel that are actually in the Bible which are clearly the word of God. Except the one by Mark.
  • Because the scribe was copying the genealogy in Luke, and instead of copying the columns of names from top to bottom, he copied them across, therefore almost everyone is made the son of the wrong father.
  • But KJV says, “And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom” (Matthew 1:3). So good old Matthew claims Judas must be older than Phares, meaning bloody Luke got it wrong again, silly boy. And, just to rub it in, if God is the son of Aram he must also be the grandson of Japheth’s brother (Genesis 10:22-23), and what a shem that would be.
  • Codex 109 has Luke’s genealogy of Jesus by following the lines across two columns rather than following the columns. Almost everyone is made the son of the wrong father; and God is called the “son of Aram”.
  • Don’t drink write,it is worse than drink driving.
  • Evil diabolical satanic interpolation!
  • God has a Father? this religion stuff just gets harder and harder
  • Hey, it’s only the Bible you know. You try writing the damn thing!
  • How many gospels according to luke are there? You would think they were the same, but now i am being told there is more than one, and they are different……WTF?
  • I personally never trust 14th C manuscripts as my main source of information, everybody KNOWS they were the Wikipedia of their day. The 15th C, now THAT was knowledge.
  • I ron’t have any irea.
  • Incorrect, before Phares was his father Juda, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Thara, son of Nachor, son of Saruch and sixteen more fathers back to Adam and then God. This verse does not ane Heavenly Father’s father. Sorry, not sure what you’ve been reading.
  • It is written; my son
  • It was a pilot script for a prequel to the Bible, a bit like the Phantom Menace, in fact a lot like it.
  • It was probably a case of pariblepsis caused by homoeoteleuton. The monk who was copying it just got aroused by all the begatting going on, and mixed his lines up.
  • Jesus is often referred to as “the Lamb of God”, therefore according to this interpretation he must be the son of a ewe and A RAM. But, as !Everybody Knows!, Jesus is God, and therefore God is the son of A RAM. I make sense?
  • Mistranslation from the greek by the translators
  • Monk closed the pages before the ink was dry and the words transferred.
  • No idea – am I allowed to google it?
  • On the keyboard r and d are close and he missed
  • Phares begat the dude who begat Aram. Aram is Mary backwards, who begat Jesus. Phares is seraph backwards. Coincidence?!? I think not. Conspiracy!! Ergo, Man is the child of a pre-pubescent chubby boy and an unmarried teen mother.
  • Probably that homoerotic periwinkle thing in Q3.
  • Something to do with the printing process at the time, I’d imagine.
  • Sub editors error.
  • That was their names. Or perhaps because it’s all a fairy tale designed to control the masses?
  • That’s the correct information, everbody else got it wrong. Aram was indeed God’s dad. AKA The Big Banger. Also Phares was pretty old but who knows if there wasn’t an even older ancestor? My oldest ancestor was only 82 but my mother may yet beat that.
  • The Creationist loonies got a head-start with the typewriter before the committee-men of the Council of Nicea noticed anything amiss.
  • The manuscript was the result of a 1500 year game of chinese whispers, so obviously a couple of errors would have crept in. For instance, it says that Jesus was born on a table in Birmingham.
  • The manuscript was transcribed from another containing a genealogy listed in two columns of 28 lines. The transcriber mistakenly copied the names from left to right, in succession down the list instead of copying one column first followed by the second.
  • The scribe was copying the genealogy in Luke, and instead of copying the columns of names from top to bottom, he copied them across. Thus, in his copy of the Bible, almost everyone has the wrong father, the start of the human race is not God but Phares, and God ends up as the son of Aram!
  • The transcriber went and read across the tops of the columns instead of reading down them. As a result, all of the sons were listed as coming from the wrong fathers. Personally, I think the Bible is a much better read without all of the begats anyway. They just slow down the pace too much.
  • The writer of the manuscript was not a logical person.
  • This is one of about 15 different genealogies in early manuscripts and is referred to as “youngs literal translation”. Which one is right “God only knows”
  • Vertical antipathy, resulting in paternal dislocation.
  • You’re talking about 14th century here. Religious writings have progressed significantly since then. We now know the races oldest ancestor is called “Boo Boo the Orang-Utan” and God, although DNA tests suggest there is a 93% chance he was fathered by Aram, has asked to not be disturbed any longer, he just wants to be left alone with his rose garden.

Question 2

Did Jesus ever get angry?


Yes, according to Mark; but when Luke & Matthew copied their gospels from Mark’s effort, they omitted these bits.

Additional Answers

  • Bloody oath! How happy would you be having nails through the hands & having to push bloody great boulders around just to get some fresh air?
  • If any of his old man’s temper rubbed off on him I’d lay evens that he did his fair share of smiting.
  • At least once: Matthew 21:12 (cleansing the money changers from the temple). This may depend on your version of the Bible, the wording varies considerably.
  • At least thrice. 1. Jesus wept, and I cry when I’m angry. 2. He was pissed off at a leper who might have outed his secret identity as Batman. And 3. I imagine I’d be a tad miffed with the soldier kebabbing Me in the side with a bloody spear: What do you suppose jesus christ yelled at him: ‘Me Me!’? [Like Adolf used to saqy “Heil me!”?]
  • Best guess? Of course he did. He was human like the rest of us. Of course, I wasn’t there to see for myself. I’ll have to check with my mother-in-law to be sure.
  • Christ yes! Once when he got blown for being off side he chucked a real tanty … got sent off. You do mean Jesus Donprepuce? from Brunswick?
  • Didn’t he do his quince and turf out the moneylenders? (Of course the C of E Sunday School in Dalwallinu in the sixties could have got it wrong.)
  • Fig trees and moneychangers made JC snakey (Matthew). I don’t blame him – the former still block the sewers and the latter still rip people off. I’d dearly love to chop down my neighbour’s Ficus and then go tip over a table at my local Westpac but, if biblical history is a guide, I’d get arrested and bloodywell crucified for my trouble.
  • God knows
  • He once smashed up a market when they were trading on a Sunday didn’t he? Oh, and he got really pissed once when Mary Magdelene told him that she had crabs.
  • If Jesus ever lived as a real human being mentally sound, then he undoubtedly got angry by time to time simply because anger is a real human emotion that sometimes has to be expressed. In the leper’s story in Mark, along with other stories found in Mark (the first gospel written, used by Matthew and Luke as a source for their own stories about Jesus), we see that Jesus was often angered by events, questions and requests coming from his disciples, his followers and the religious leaders of his day. (Ehrman p. 135)
  • No, but he is now!
  • No, he smoked lots of pot and it kept him pretty calm
  • No. And he couldn’t even get even, cos they nailed him to a cross, which makes it rather difficult to move.
  • Objection, your honour! The question assumes facts not in evidence. How can a person/demi-god/thing that may or may not have existed express emotions? But yes, according to the book he did get angry when he threw the money-changers out of the temple. The Vatican now posts a guard in case he comes back and starts making a fuss about being charged 20 euros to get into the Sistine Chapel.
  • Of course he did. Remember how he forcefully chucked the people and the money out of the Holy (sic) Temple? Doesn’t sound like something the Son of God would do.
  • Of course not. He’s the good cop.
  • Oh Hell yes!
  • Oh yeah, sure. Jesus was on the ladder painting my great room and Manuel got a call on his cell phone so he let go of the ladder and it fell. Not only did Jesus break his arm, but the ladder spilled the bucket of paint Jose was using on the other side of the room and ruined the carpet which had to be replaced. Anyway I sure learned some Spanish words that day.
  • Well if my friend betrayed me and then I got crucified because of it I would have been pretty angry so I am thinking that jesus was very angry, he just might not have shown it like I would have
  • Well one day he walking to skool and a speed-boat hit him, he got angry over that one
  • Well yeah, wouldn’t you be angry if you had to carry your own cross and have some git put nails through your hands and feet? I’d be really pissed off.
  • Well, he was angry at moneylenders (but I don’t think that counts – everybody is angry at moneylenders) and was really really pissed off at that fig tree in Mark that he cursed. Mind you since figs were out of season at that time of year it also means he was either bloody impatient or knew nothing about horticulture.
  • When Jesus cleared the temple of the moneychangers and animal-sellers, He showed great emotion and anger (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; John 2:13-22)
  • Yeah, well there was this ten-year-old in the front row whining about not liking tuna sandwiches. What did he think it was, bloody a la carte?
  • Yes – thrice. Once with the moneylenders in the temple, once with God when he was being crucified and once because I always wanted to use the word thrice in a sentence.
  • Yes he did because Brian is not the messiah but a very naughty boy.
  • Yes, a few times, in Matthew 5:22; Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 3:1-6; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46; and John 2:13-17.
  • Yes, and rightly so. He drove gamblers and defilers of the temple out. One myth is that he apologised and repented for those actions but he did not as he was justified.
  • Yes, at people who ask questions like this!
  • Yes, he got angry when he had a few too many and tried to turn water into alcohol and his miracle powers didnt work when he was drunk already
  • Yes, He got rather pissed when some guy stuck him to the cross with nails … I know I would have been pissed.
  • Yes, if you count beating up money changers and overturning tables as evidence of temper
  • Yes, when he turned the merchant’s tables over in the temple
  • Yes. Does throwing people out of the temple grounds count. What about telling Satan to get over himself. Those are just 2 Biblical examples. He probably still gets angry over humanity today who still don’t get it; He is the only way to God.
  • Yes. When the final nails were being driven in on Calvary, he suddenly cracked, and yelled, “Right, that’s it! You’ve REALLY got my dander up now! Daddy – I’m sick of suffering for these ignorant bastards! Smite them right now!!! Right NOW Daddy!… Daddy???…” (JUNIAS 1:24)
  • Yes. For example, He “looked round about them with anger” when the Pharisees refused to answer His questions.
  • Yes. He kicked a few money lenders up the jacksie in the temple for fun otherwise.
  • Yes. Need I say more? Oh, Okay. Money lenders. Temple.
  • Yes.He was only impolite to his own mum,but got really mad at moneychangers and figtrees.Human behaviour.From a god no less.
  • You better f&*ken believe he did, the snotty little impulse-control-challenged, ungrateful, violent self-aggrandising bugger.
  • Well, he cursed a fig tree.
  • Yes, when he read the Bible and saw he was mis-quoted. It’s “The sneak shall inherit the earth!”

Question 3

Is homoeoteleuton a reasonable explanation for periblepsis?


(1) Yes – skipping over some lines of text in copying, that are between two lines that end with the same words.
(2) No – it is an explanation for parablepsis. Dr Bob copied Ehrman’s mistake.

Additional Answers

  • ‘ken oath, mate!
  • Absolutely not – so you’ll have to some up with something else to explain the child’s tricycle embedded in your rectum.
  • Absolutely not! I have never heard anything more preposterous in my ENTIRE life! The nerve!
  • Any excuse is acceptable.
  • Ask Tim Flannery, he’ll make a big deal of it.
  • Certainly, but haplography requires a certain skill. Elision is my speciality. I can apparently leave out whole ends of sentences without noticing, despite hours of editing.
  • Homoeoteleuton is not a reasonable explanation for anything!
  • I don’t know if it’s a reasonable explanation for periblepsis, but it certainly can be a contributing factor to parablepsis… Since “Misquoting Jesus” has such an obvious spelling mistake there, the whole textual criticism within the book is of course totally wrong and the existing texts are exactly as they were when they were first written, Divinely inspired and anyone who doesn’t agree will burn in h*ll for all eternity!
  • I would never blame anything on homo something. There’s laws in Australia to stop that sort of nonsense you know.
  • I’ve done it myself being a heterosexual palimpsest: it’s the accidental skipping of a line when copying a text because two lines end similarly
  • If you can say it then yes
  • If you mean `parablepsis’ instead of periblepsis then the answer is yes, otherwise likely no. Parablepsis which comes from the Greek words para- (“beside”) and blepein (“to look”) and refers to a circumstance in which a scribe miscopies text due to inadvertently looking to the side while copying. (sometimes misspelled as Periblepsis, which would mean “the wild look that accompanies delirium or looking around.”)
  • If youve ever tried to prepare a ‘verbatim’ record from audio tapes of discussions conducted during a meeting YES!
  • It seems reasonable to me that if a lot of words on the page have the same ending, that the eye might unintentionally skip over one to the next. Of course, anyone using words like “homoeoteleuton” and “periblepsis” is obviously trying to make up for percieved difficiencies. Much like the short guy driving the huge SUV, or the poorly-endowed guy acting overly macho about things.
  • My astrologer says absolutely, espescially for Geminis on Wednesdays.
  • My word, yes indeedy. Or somebody was a bit brahms when they were translating from the Greek. hic.
  • No, because periblepsis (when a scribe skips from the similar ending of one word in the sequence to another) often causes homoeoteleuton (when a scribe omits what is between the two similar words).
  • No, it is the cure. I saw it on TV. . .Tired of suffering with the embarrassment of periblepsis?Homoeoteleuton can help! Possible side affects include headache, nausea, holy visions, death and in rare instances ressurection.
  • No, should be parablopsis
  • No, this creates a split class of people and people don’t like to be split
  • No. Parablepsis might arguably be… but Periblepsis is a medical condition involving a spasm of the peritoneal artery.
  • Not according to the Judge, he still got 14 years for it.
  • Not really, its a conspiracy that science has put together to fill in the gaps. Nothing more.
  • Of course it isn’t, we all know that!
  • Of course. Except in the case of my wife. She’s a data entry clerk. Get it right or else.
  • Only if homophobia explains peristalsis
  • Only if you subscribe, scribe, to the theory, Dearie, the transfunglobulation is not floccinaucinhilipilificatory.
  • Only when the parapatoleum has inadvertantly slipped up the rectolografful.
  • Slenchaloblically yes.
  • Sure. It gives people who waste their entire life over-analysing a work of fiction things to argue over.
  • That depends; do you think its OK to explain something that you cant pronounce with something that you cant pronounce?
  • These words are ancient Greek for “Gays putting a tele on the ute” and “Almost being pissed”. So the answer is, “No, it’s usually the other way round.”
  • These words sound like dirty perversions! No reasonable explantions for them will be permitted!
  • This is where sentences have similar endings. Before the invention of the word processor or the printing press sentences had similar endings. Scribes would copy books with similar endings. They would make mistakes and copy some passages incorrectly leading to similar endings.
  • Too right.
  • WTF?
  • Yeah, but it’s still bloody slack.
  • Yes
  • Yes because respulfituion is applicable when wuntibullion is daskactionarific.
  • Yes, as it would be a natural error for a scribe to make when he copies a text and substitutes what is expected with what is actually written
  • Yes. In fact, I think it is probably the only good reason to skip a line.When your eyes get tired……. you want to read ahead. If a line ends similarly (homoeoteleuton), then skipping the first line (or even the second line) could easily happen (periblepsis is accidental skipping of lines).
  • Yes. See John 17:15 in Greek text translated into English with the same format. Why is this important, Dr Bob?
  • You’ve been watching too much Dr. Who.

Question 4

The apostle Paul mentions a man named Junias (in Romans 16) – a name that never occurs anywhere else in history. What is the hidden agenda here?


The original text mentioned a woman called Junia, as of equal status to the men; this was not acceptable, therefore a mistake in copying was assumed and a man’s name was created.

Additional Answers

  • A dark evil cult that works with the Illuminati even today. Junias was the founder. The cult was called the cirle of the 8th realm. Paul had to keep his identity secret until that time.
  • A satanic plot to make people lose their faith!
  • A simple Google search shows that it was in fact Junia, a woman. It was unthinkable to have a woman apostle.
  • And Lo, an apostle was sent forth to search amongst the heathens in the wastelands for his missing meat and two vege for verrily, she was a woman.
  • As with all fanatics, he just made it up!
  • Cameo appearance. The Disciples’ Guild decided they’d strike unless they slipped in a woman (hopefully out of affirmative action rather than just to see a bit of action). So, enter Junias, Stage right. But they discovered it was just bloke in a frock. The whole thing was such an embarrassment, they just left the one reference there and hoped a. it would satisfy the guild, and b. no-one else would notice.
  • Circa 1000CE, the bloody Catholics changed Paul’s female apostle Junia into ‘Junias’ to better suit their male dominated universe. Germaine Greer should get on to this one.
  • For the far left paranoid among us, this is clearly the work of the early church subjugating women and hiding the fact that Paul encouraged female leaders in the church. For the middle-of-the-road reasonable folks among us, someone goofed on the Greek symbol over the name and turned a female name into a male name. For the far right “true believers”, there was only one man ever in the history of mankind with the name Junias and that’s just the way it is.
  • Haven’t got a clue!
  • He doesn’t really, but the printer’s son was a bit of a pretentious lad & demanded his name be in there somewhere.
  • He was a she.
  • He was quoting Judas, but was momentarily distracted by ni.
  • Hey, that’s my middle name! [You’re Richard Hey Saunders?]
  • His beloved toyboy perhaps?
  • Homosexuality
  • I know a few girls with derivatives of that name (Julia etc). But I suppose they aren’t in History. One was in Computer Science though and I suspect there will be some in the library from time to time.
  • If you ever have to chose between a conspiracy and a cock up go for the cock up every time – see Bill of Ockham
  • Is it code for Jesus?
  • It COULD mean there was a female apostle and that it is not mentioned elsewhere because of males suppressing the fact.
  • It’s a sneaky reference to the ordination of female clerics.
  • Julius with a speech impediment maybe? He was abducted by aliens and they put him into witness protection and changed his name.
  • Junias may be taken as a feminine name, maybe he was talking about his missus.
  • Junias was a man in hiding; Paul just wants it to be known that he knew him because he was in with the devil and Paul wanted to have a bet each way (for when he died that is)
  • Junias was a transvestite.
  • Junias was apostle Pauls imaginary “friend” and he didnt want anyone to think that he was “crazy”
  • Junias was in fact a Junia, the first female apostle and naturally the hidden agenda was to keep women out of the priesthood
  • Junias was not a man but a woman. Most records of Junias were removed along with other significant and influential woman (with one notable exception) from the Bible. This was to reduce their role to the appointed one in society.
  • Junias was really a figment of Paul’s schizophrenic mind and the pot made him go away and in his place was Jesus
  • Junias was the name shown in later manuscripts because it is possible the original name was Junia, implying that the apostle was a woman. Given that the assumption is that apostles must be men, the spelling was changed to Junias.
  • Junius is wearing a pair of concrete gumboots at the bottom of the dead sea– the hidden agenda is that paul can be a bad enemy
  • Misogyny! Junia was a she.
  • Nobody wants to call their kid Junias
  • Paul attempted to get on the good side of the Romans.
  • Product placement. Bit of silver crossing palms here and there and Junias’s Life Insurance business trebled overnight.
  • She wasn’t a tart like that Magdalene chick.
  • She’s a chick
  • Somebody’s spelling was not too good.
  • That damned glass ceiling again.
  • That the Apostle Paul was gay and usually pissed.
  • The hidden agenda would be whether Junia was a male or female. Those despicable translators trying to keep women from their rightful place in mythology.
  • The name Junias is actually associated with an ancient Egyptian curse, anyone who writes, types or speaks that name will suffer a horrible death and all their work will be doomed to be forgotten by the human race. This applies to all historians since Paul, you, and now, sadly, me.
  • The verse is usually translated by using a fabricated masculine form of the name (Junias) to avoid allowing Paul to endorse a woman apostle. Ehrman suggests that some of the New Testament texts that refer to the role of women were changed early in the history of the church, and in nearly all cases they were changed in the direction of restricting the role of women.
  • To introduce a new man into history.
  • Um, it occurs here. You wrote this prior to Jan.1 so it is history, isn’t it? Haven’t you just contradicted yourself? I am writing about it below. When you read it, it will be the future, so technically it will be occurring elsewhere in history. What about the other thousands of slaves who attempt your questions? Do we not count for anything?!!!!! Paul mentions a PERSON named Junia or Junias in Romans 16:7. Perhaps the hidden agenda is some feel he refers to them as Apostles and then it turns out that it may be a woman. Most conservative theologians don’t doubt it is a female but most versions translate that they are ‘known’ to the apostles and not apostles themselves. I don’t think it matters as technically, Christians in general can be known as apostles. [Or several postles, if there’s a group of them]. Now, only those who had a powerful miraculous transformation face to face with Jesus can be called Apostles (note the capital).
  • Welll… you know what they said about Paul…..!!
  • You are exploiting our competitive nature and Wikipedia’s respect of copyright to get us to buy a book in order to answer obscure trivia. Oh that- Saul was probably trying to run out the Romans.
  • Your hidden agenda is to undermine the truth of the bible. Heathen!

Question 5

Why did Lobegott Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf’s mother give him the first name “Lobegott” (=Praise God) ?


While pregnant, his mother had seen a blind man and had a superstitious fear that this would cause the baby to be born blind.

Additional Answers

  • If you have undergone the experience of birth, Dr Bob, which I doubt, then you would know the intense feeling of relief when it is over. [Well I have undergone it, but strictly speaking not as the mother. And I cannot recall any feeling of relief – more like blind panic mixed with a very strong desire to creep back into the womb]
  • 1) It was a difficult birth and she called out in relief after he was born. 2) She cried out the statement at the point of conception. 3) She wanted him to become a priest.
  • And exactly what’s wrong with ‘Lobegott’, Dr Bob? Eh? I detect more than a whiff of condescension in your question and, on behalf of all the Lobegotts in the world, take grave exception to your slight. In fact I am very bloody angry. I shall sally forth and tip over a table at my local Westpac as soon as it opens tomorrow morning. So there. [And the Westpac staff will say, Lo, be gone]
  • As a constant reminder.
  • Because before Tischendorf was born, his mother had seen a blind man and surrendered to the superstition that this would cause her child to be born blind. When he was born healthy, she dedicated him to God by calling him Lobegott.
  • Because he was off to a bad start, commiting several crimes before he was born.
  • Because his Dad didn’t get a look in.
  • Because she experienced her first orgasm, through coitus, on the night he was conceived.
  • Because she thought she was infertile,but then still had a son. Hallelujah!
  • Because she was a nutcase and believed what people told her. Then when it didn’t happen she figured that must be God’s doing. Well it sort of makes sense, to a nutcase.
  • Because she was all out of ideas
  • Because that’s what she said when he was born. He was a big lump of a baby, 10 pounder. Phew. Lucky he wasn’t called thank fcuk that’s over already alright.
  • Because thats what she said when he was born; the midwife picked up on it and mother was too weary to argue
  • Before he was born his mother saw a blind man, and being superstitious believed her child would be born blind. When he was not, she dedicated him to god by giving him the name Lobegott.
  • Before he was born, his mother had seen a blind man and surrendered to the superstition that this would cause her child to be born blind. When he was born healthy, she dedicated him to God by calling him Lobegott Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf.
  • Buggered if i know, im guessing he was a big baby and mother was grateful that it was over with.
  • Cruelty, sheer cruelty.
  • Entrenched in the science of the day, his pregnant mother saw a blind man and believed her child would be born blind. When the kid was born fine, she was so relieved she named him “Lobegott” to praise the Lord who had delivered her child into the world healthy. This goes a long way towards explaining why his mother served time for peeking in the windows of the good looking, rich guy with the huge…uhm…endowment. She was just trying to make up for having seen the blind guy!
  • He was born with two penises.
  • He was her ninth child, so who wouldn’t say after delivery, ‘thank god THAT’s over!’ [But two more, and they could have a soccer team!]
  • He was the nineth. They were running out of names. He was lucky he didn’t get ‘Anvil’.
  • Her first choice, Sweetjesusonapushbike, just didn’t roll off the tongue as well.
  • His mother feared he would be born blind after she saw a blind man whilst pregnant.
  • I don’t know, but according to his greatgreatgrandnephew, “Tischendorf died on the 7th of december 1874 at Leipzig, due to an insult he suffered some eighteen months earlier.” That must have been an insult the Australian Cricket team would have been proud of…
  • It was a delicious pun. Her husband was called Terry, but the child was not his. She actually had an affair with a paraplegic limbo dancer called “Lo”; the child’s name gave away the name of the father: “Lo begot”.
  • It was better than Junias
  • Lobeflyingschpagettimonster was too long.
  • Not sure… but that’s my other middle name.
  • Schier Sarkasmus.
  • She actually prefered Helga, but it just didn’t work for a boy.
  • She couldnt come up with anything better. There were too many williams, pauls and johns at the time.
  • She had a poor retentive memory and killed two birds with one stone when calling him in for meals.
  • She had had miscarriages so thanked God for actually making one live to term.
  • She had seen a blind man, saw this as an evil portent and dedicated her unborn son to God to forestall any evil consequences.
  • She thought it would build character if he got teased at school.
  • She was a vicars wife.
  • So that when he became a biblical scholar, he would have more street cred.
  • Supposedly because he wasn’t blind. Now, how she knew that when he came out is beyond me. Maybe she waited a week and tested his eyes with a hot poker (coming close, but not touching). At any rate, he was born healthy and she had an omen before thinking something would be wrong. Nothing wrong = praise God.
  • Thats what she said when he was going in and she never wanted to forget that moment
  • The name suddenly came to mind after her labor with young Friedrich took more than 45 hours, which, in 1815, was a rather uncomfortable experience for Mrs von Tischendorf, given the lack of adequate available anaesthesia. She also considered “Jesus-God” and “Aboutfarkenteim” but these were thought too hard to spell and they were worried Fred might be picked on by other children at school.
  • To hide that she was a dirty satanist!
  • Well, he was a love-child, and his father was named Aram, and their 14th-century Gospel said…
  • What about the poor blokes second third and fifth names? the first one looks pretty low key to me
  • Why indeed.
  • You have to wonder how some people make it through their lives with all this baggage. Leibie-boy was lucky he just got named funny.

Question 6

Who are these people?


Bill & Hillary Clinton, circa 1970

Additional Answers

  • “Ah could do with a stogie.” “What’s this on the front of my dress?”
  • Ack! I actually recognise that guy without googling anything. It’s Bill Clinton. Before he ran for Governor, judging by the hair. I suppose the other one is Hillary. Before they got married. I wonder if they are looking into a cigar shop window?
  • Believe it or not, a former president and perhaps the new president of the most powerful nation of this world (Bill & Hillary Clinton).
  • Bill & Hillary Clinton.
  • Bill and Hilary Clinton – not at all stoned
  • Bill and Hill
  • Bill Clinton and Hiliary Rodham before election to public office.
  • Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham at Yale Law School. Actually the left hand on Hillary’s right shoulder belongs to Bill’s friend Professor Edward Barber, who was standing on his right in a suit and tie, but was cut out of the photo by white house staffers in 1996 for looking somewhat ‘unacceptable’.
  • Bill Clinton and Hillary. Nah. John Lennon and Yoko{before she dyed her hair black}.
  • Bill Clinton and some intern or other.
  • Bill Clinton. Not sure who the dude in the beard is.
  • Bloody hippies…
  • Charlie Manson and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme?
  • Evangelicals from 1974.
  • Former PotUS Bill Clinton going to a party dressed as JC, and Hilary dressed as …. inspiration fails me.
  • Formerly the most powerful woman in the world, and Hilary Clinton.
  • Founders of the Moonies
  • Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kindersley
  • Now that’s scary – the one on the left looks familiar. I reckon they’re the little known folk singing duo Dave and Shirley. They were of course best known in textual criticism circles for their songs “I Got Them Old Homoeoteleuton Blues Again Mama” and “Pariblepsis Made a Loser Out of Me”. They were never very successful since all their verses had the same endings and they’d often skip great chunks of them, rendering them (even more) unintelligible.
  • Oh MY GOD!! its Hill and Bilary Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Ok, I actually think I have seen this pic before. Funny thing is, when I google who I think it is, I get a darker haired gal. I think it is Keith and Melody Green. If not them, then certainly someone else from the 1970s Christian ‘hippie’ music movement (Glen & Wendi Kaiser perhaps?). And Bob, if that is you on your latest vacation, I think we should tell you that styles have changed a little in the last 35 years and you need a personal consultant.
  • On the right is Kli Pong-Bo Tai, who was at the time campaigning for East Korean democracy by very democratically dai-ying her hair blond, wearing a clip-on bow tie and playig table tennis illegally on the roof of the parliament. On the left is Sandstonian democracy campaigner Mikk-Juhann Sandistonemine, who showed all thosed Russianed communistiked dickheanad who on the BOSS aroundheresse, and who now conspires with Kli as to how to maximise his company’s profits by selling fluoro-green-dyed cement for sandstone.
  • One is a vain windbag of a politician with unusual sexual habits. The other is a former president.
  • One of those Gibb brothers and some little sheila who wanted her picture taken with him. He’s a bit cute in a feraly sort of way whoever he is.
  • Pot smoking hippies that were abducted by the Calemarians in 1976. This is the first proven case of extra terrestrial anal probing. Their names are Brian Loweyequeue and Sandra Nowit.
  • President and Mrs Clinton after the Oslo peace talks.
  • Santa and Mrs Claus, by day
  • Sigh! A Canuck has no chance at this one. From the age of the photo, two Aussie icons in the 70’s? They look nice and smart, so here’s hoping they’re not sociopaths and/or spoon-benders. [O ye of little stamina!   A Canuck should look, er, south of the border. ]
  • Someone who’s idea of a good time would involve a fondue, Demis Roussos music and a bottle of Blue Nun. [Actually, a cigar]
  • SPACE ZOMBIES!!!!…RUN!!!!!!
  • St. Bille* and St. Hillard*, who famously converted on the road to Damascus, Arkansas.* Sex may have been changed by clerical error.
  • That would be Bob and his wife Barbara, circa 1978 or so? [Crikey no. We looked much more normal]
  • The authors of Misquoting Jesus (Last question from the last page of the book?)
  • The one on the left is Shane Warne after a particularly successful hair tranplant, so the one on the right is probably the managing director of Fray Bentos.
  • These people are two people in a photograph, thats what they do, they have their photo taken, they are the photo people
  • They are Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes after 20 years of scientology preaching
  • They look familiar [? in the sense that medieval witches were thought to have a “familiar”, in the form of a black cat or other small animal, to expedite their dealings with Satan]
  • This picture displays two people in the sixties living the “high” life. They are unaware of who they are to this day so its a bit unreasonable that I would know who they are, were and might be thinking they are
  • Tricky question, Dr. Bob! I almost didn’t recognize Hillary because she’s not wearing a pants suit. I almost didn’t recognize Bill because he’s not wearing an intern.
  • Very famous people indeed.
  • Wha, it’s William Jefferson Clitoris and his wife Hilarious, past and putative presidents of a country a long way from here. (BTW, it’s Christmas in Arkansas and young Bill has stopped the photographer to ask directions to California. Hilly is not amused – she thinks Santa Monica sucks.)
  • Whay I do declare – looks like Hill and Bilary in the free love era (Looks like they’re not inhaling here)
  • When all else fails let us resort to the random stupid answer. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard when they had more hair getting ready to have a big discussion at bible camp on how to bash the libs with their bibles.


  • All my answers are from my book that you can buy from my website If the website does not load properly please send $20 US to me c/o the Australian Skeptics.(I’m not really upset Dr. Bob – I just thought this comment and my answer to #4 were funny. . . unless you include this parenthetical, in which case the comment loses its edge and isn’t really funny at all.)
  • Another great round of questions, cant wait for the answers to these!!!
  • Bah Humbug
  • Bless you Dr.Bob.
  • Bloody Jesus questions? Struth! I forgive you. Happy New Year Dr Bob. The fireworks cursor is cute but a pain in the arse.
  • Dear Bobby, my Tarot card reader, Palmist, Feng Shui reader, and that cute chick in the Magic Crystal shop all think you’re a party pooper. Evidence based indeed – surely they can’t all be wrong!
  • Dr Bob, how many people enter each quiz? [I think a better question would be: how many come out unscathed?]
  • First two questions have a serious researched answer for you, the rest i got bored so i got comical. have a good one.
  • Generic answers for you this time, Bob 🙂
  • Good work. Dr. Bob.
  • Had Richard Saunders do a speech for the Walwa Jingellic Lions club I thought it was fascinating and am converted as are quite a few more of us
  • Happy Australia Day
  • Having read the book would probably have helped.
  • Hi Dr Bob – greetings again from sunny Bolton. Sorry it’s been so long, but even though I’ve not taken part for about 6 months, I think it’s time for another win. You know it makes sense.
  • Hi Dr Bob!
  • How disappointing to find many answers by googling rather than inventing crap as I usually do. Happy New Year!
  • I em seeck of hau mahni peepil faind eet so hart tu untersdand miy exxent. Vahn dey I veel goo tu Praim Meeneesteer Keveen Radd and tell heem vuot I seenk of heem breedeenk a kahntri of icknorent ceeteezeens. Boot zen, hi mey nort untersdand mi. Vuot shell I du?!?!
  • I guess you can guess I guessed
  • I guessed. Sorry.
  • I know nothing about toilets, but Bible and translation is a different story. Ok, so I still had to look things up. If I got the pic question correct, I think I deserve to win.
  • I wish that my room had a floor. I don’t care so much for a door. But this walking around without touching the ground is getting to be quite a bore.
  • Is question 3 a medical question? Some disease?
  • Lots of fun with this one Doc.
  • My personal definition of the bible:perhaps correct interpretated and translated words that perhaps were spoken from a Jesus who perhaps ever lived as a son of a Christian God who perhaps exist as the one and only true supernatural being among many others if such beings exists at all.
  • My scripture teacher was right when she said I shouldn’t turn my Bible into a paper aeroplane.
  • Please ask your bookshop to be more circumspect in its offerings. The following review questions the veracity of some parts of this book.
  • Thank you. My brain feels suitably stretched.
  • Thanks Dr Bob, not sure where your going with these ones but fun either way
  • That is this first and last time I ever do this quiz sober.
  • That’s a first. I think I actually got the picture question right without searching fruitlessly for hours. I suppose that means everyone else will get it right as well. I’m just guessing about the cigar shop but if you look carefully and think about it.
  • The answer has something to do with Pirates 🙂
  • Very Difficult
  • Very good quiz, Dr. Bob, keep it up!
  • What is this Dr. Bob? Buy the book and win the quiz – next thing we’ll have a theme park being set up called Skepticland (c) – actually that’s a good idea. We could have the UFO experience ride and the evolution ride (might be a longish ride though)
  • Will you also run a picture of Illinois U.S. Senator, USA presidential candidate, Barak Obama, in his street hustler days?
  • You didn’t buy the book “off” the website, you bought it “from” the website. A little bit of grammar, please, Dr Bob. Also, with that Matthew 21:12, an Eastern European saying for a place that is very untidy is that “you have made a Jewish Market out of this”. Doesn’t quite have the punch in English, though, does it?