"90% of university teachers disapprove the dating I give of the centuries of Nostradamus !" complains Jacques Halbronn, and deplores that "the ruses some booksellers used in the 16th century are still working nowadays…" Blindness ? Unconscious desire to mix up "history" and "legend" ? This interview with Paul Roland and Jacques Halbronn lays the delicate question of the attribution of these two major prophetic texts: the centuries of Nostradamus and the prophecies of Saint Malachie.
This exchange doesn't evaluate the prophetic "relevance" of these two texts, but questions the attribution of these texts to these authors.
An analysis method based on the anachronism of the writings also applies for a political or literary text, but it is about prophecies (which by definition predict the future)... it is another method Jacques Halbronn will use...
Thus, the pseudepigraphical tradition, which consist in giving the paternity of a text to another author is very old. According to our researchers, writings such as the Zohar, the Gospel of John would be concerned but Nostradamus' centuries as well, and the prophecies of Saint Malachie too.
What were these substitutions done for ? And by whom ? Replacing these texts in their historical context (especially the return of Henry IV to power) Jacques Halbronn explains in an original way the centuries.
The current Pope Benedict XVI, according to the prophecy of Saint Malachie, would be the last Pope of the Roman Church, if we follow "to the letter" that prophecy. Are we expecting the extinction of the Roman Church? Or a thousand years after the Byzantium schism, are we allowed to be glad about the reuniting of the Churches of the East and West... ?
Think about it in this 52-minutes interview filmed at the Forum 104.
