Continuing on from part one, we pick up with point number five.
5. ‘Jesus Married’. “For those of you that don’t remember Dan Brown’s 2003 religious thriller, it centers on the idea that Jesus had secretly married Mary Magdalene and had children with her, something that the church were desperate to cover up. Well it turns out that Mr. Brown’s plot was actually more factually grounded than he would ever have believed. In 2016, researchers discovered an obscure text hidden away in the British library; an ancient manuscript that dated back to Jesus’ lifetime. The document fills in the gaps between Jesus’ childhood and his religious career. It claimed that in His 20s, Jesus married Mary Magdalene. What’s more, He went on to have two children with her too. It also bears comment that there’s no evidence from this time period that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, a theory that only began in the middle ages.” We’ve seen the quoting of non-canonical writings as authoritative and we’ve seen non-myths being exaggerated but this is where the video starts to ramp up the sensationalism and get egregious. The manuscript is considered to be fraudulent due to significant typographical errors, which are extensively covered in the article that is likely the source of the information in this video, which makes it abundantly clear the manuscript is probably a forgery. [1] Also, as far as I can see, no scholar of any related field to historical Christianity holds that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, giving us insight into the perceived legitimacy. To call the view fringe would be an overstatement. The origins of the manuscript are also telling and Dan Brown actually could and probably did imagine how historically grounded his book was because it was based on a narrative in a book called ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’, which claims Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had one or more children, those children or their descendants emigrated to what is now France and intermarried with the noble families that would eventually become the Merovingian dynasty, whose special claim to the throne of France is championed today by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. The book was itself based on a book from 1967 called ‘L’Or de Rennes’ by French author Gérard de Sède. This would be the source where Brown’s story would get any historical backing if there was any to be found. The historicity involved with these books is highly speculative, conspiratorial and baseless. Additionally, it also disputes historical certainties such as Jesus’ resurrection, which we will cover later. The authors of ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ often disregard the most likely possibilities, suggest improbable theories and unconfirmed facts are possible then build on those facts to finish with a hugely unstable conclusion. [2] There is absolutely no historical evidence to suggest any of this narrative is remotely factual. Additionally, it is likely that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and asserting that the ‘belief’ started in the middle ages presupposes both that it is just a belief and that this wasn’t what the text meant. The idea that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute is also presented in ‘The Da Vinci Code’, which, at present, seems to be the primary source of theology for Alltime 10s alongside non-canonical literature. There is a longstanding tradition that identifies Mary Magdalene as the prostitute who dried Jesus’ tears in Luke 7:36-50. Further biblical evidence to support this idea is that it was Mary Magdalene had seven demons exorcised from her in Luke 9:1-3. [3] It is interesting that Sam said "there’s no evidence from this time period that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, a theory that only began in the middle ages" because when we apply that sentence to what he presented immediately prior, there is no evidence for Jesus getting married from the time period and that theory only began way after the middle ages even. 4. ‘The Nativity’. “[This is] the tale of Jesus’ birth in a manger on the 25th of December [and] His visitation by three kings. It turns out that most of that image in your head is dead wrong. Firstly, the Gospel of Matthew says Jesus was born in a house. The animals watching over Him were added by Christmas carol songwriters and while the Bible does mention a visit by Magi from the east, there’s no mention of kings or that there were three of them but most wrong of all is the date. The reason why we celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December is because the Romans adopted Christianity as a state religion. To make this switch over to the new religion easier, the Romans kept the date the same as the pre-existing pagan festival Saturnalia.” This is the first one where it is a myth… until he absolutely ruins it with a stupid theory about the date of Jesus’ birth. It is correct that the regular images of the three kings and animals isn’t original scripture but this isn’t a Biblical myth, it’s more of a cultural myth pertaining to Christianity so isn’t relevant for me to address. Nothing related to Christmas is remotely pagan and this includes Jesus’ birth date, which is not linked to Saturnalia. Saturnalia was on December 17th according to the Roman provincial Macrobius in ‘Saturnalia’, book 1, chapter 10, as he says it was 14 days before January and based on their dating, that puts Saturnalia on the 17th. There are no sources which suggest it took place on December 25th. There was dispute among Christian sources over what the date was but this was seen as inconsequential dispute and not of particular important. Church fathers such as Theophilus, prior to A.D. 181, Hippolytus, between A.D. 270 and A.D. 235, and Julius Africanus, at the same time as Hippolytus, place His birth on the 25th while later fathers such as Clement of Alexandria around A.D. 200 and writings such as ‘De paschæ computus’ in 243 suggest varying different dates. Jesus birth is often said to be the 25th of December because it was the widest held view by Christians as we can see in writings in the 4th and 5th century stating the celebration of His birth on the 25th was an ancient belief and tradition and this majority view, including among the aforementioned church fathers, resulted in the church determining the 25th as the date. 3. ‘White Jesus’. “Jesus was from the middle east, He’s unlikely to have had pale skin and blue eyes. There are very few descriptions in the Bible of Jesus’ physical appearance. Actually, one of the only times it’s mentioned is to imply that Jesus is kind of ugly: “He had no stately form or majesty to attract us, no beauty that we should desire Him” from Isaiah 53:2, by the way. Think about it logically. His family were Jewish and at that time and especially at that location, the majority of Jews were dark-skinned. …Our modern image of Jesus most likely grew increasingly fair-skinned as Christianity became a more Eurocentric religion.” While the final line about Christianity becoming a Eurocentric religion is palpably false, the rest of the point is true, or at least probably is. However, as Sam showed in the video, Christianity as a belief system is not at fault for this myth. 2. ‘Resurrection’. “The most famous miracle of all is His resurrection three days after His brutal crucifixion. I mean, there is a reason that the cruciform is the universal symbol of Christianity; a guy who gets nailed to a cross and only needs the equivalent of a long weekend to get back in action? That’s a guy worth following. Many Christians see Jesus’ resurrection as the final proof of His divinity; an absolute ironclad evidence that He was the Son of God. Thing is, even if you believe Jesus rose from the dead, according to the Bible it’s not that special. The Bible itself records 12 separate cases of people rising from the dead so even if Jesus did wake Himself back up, resurrection is kind of like the biblical equivalent of being able to roll your tongue; it’s neat sure but it’s far from unique.” I was extremely surprised that Sam didn’t offer an alternative to the resurrection evidence and even granted it could have happened in order to make his point. Even if we take him as complete correct on this point, it still wouldn’t falsify the resurrection as myth and he doesn’t even attempt to address the resurrection evidence. Looking at his point, it isn’t just Christians who use the resurrection as ‘final proof’ of Jesus’ divinity; it was the Bible and Jesus’ own method to proclaim and prove His divinity. The other instances in the Bible are more appropriately called resuscitations, not resurrections in the sense of the word the Christian authors and Jews of the time understood it where you receive a glorified body and eternal life, hence His ascension. The confusion of terms might be explained by Sam’s use of the phrase “wake Himself back up”, which implies He is unaware of the resurrection process in comparison to what would essentially be a resuscitation. According to the Bible, it certainly is special; it is the only instance of such an occurrence and for the specific reason that Jesus has defeated death and is Lord so Sam’s point is facile. 1. ‘The Whole Story?’ “Most historians agree that a couple of thousand years ago there probably was a man called Jesus in the middle east but turn to the specifics of the story and there are a number of striking similarities to a number of other religious figures. Take Mithras, a pagan god born with a miraculous birth known as “the light” who offered followers salvation through worship or the Egyptian god Osiris for example, who came down to earth to live as a man before being brutally murdered. He then resurrected and ascended into the heavens and Egyptians would appeal to him for access to the afterlife. Or, you could look to Krishna from Hinduism who was part of a trinity, was born as man to a carpenter, performed miracles like curing the blind, celebrated a last supper, died and resurrected and then ascended into heaven. Now, this isn’t to say that the story of Jesus is just stolen from other religions. There are three possible reasons for these similarities. Number one: they are just a coincidence. Number two: these religions mingled as they spread with Christianity lifting certain details from local faiths as it gained prominence or number three; some sort of a Jungian collective unconscious that allows humans in completely distinct circumstances to invent pathologies with striking similarities. Maybe the first one.” NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. They saved the absolute worst for last and that is saying something given what we have seen so far. I’ll posit a fourth possible explanation that the claims involved in the alleged similarities are just totally false but before we get to the shockingly silly claims, we must first start by clarifying that “most” historians believing Jesus “probably” existed is an vast understatement. There isn’t a single in any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity or any related field who doubts that Jesus existed. To believe Jesus didn’t exist would entail believing a whole host of different people from different areas who never met or interacted with each other or each other’s writing in any way all managed to think up the same story which damages their worldview that they have and want to falsify. There are at least 11 independent attestations of Jesus’ crucifixion alone and these include Tacitus, who is regarded as the greatest Roman historian and was the proconsul of Asia from A.D. 112-113, wrote around A.D. 100 regarding the great fire of A.D. 64 when Nero was emperor. He documented: “Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius”. Tacitus’ explains the means by which Jesus was put to death was “the most extreme penalty”, which was crucifixion. [4] There are also sources such as the Greek satirist and cynic Lucian, [5] Stoic philosopher Mara bar-Serapion and the Talmud. [6] The consensus of all historical scholars who teach in the field of teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity or other such areas is totally unanimous. Some of the most prominent non-Christian scholars in such fields who say this fact is indisputable include atheists Gerd Lüdemann, [7] John Dominic Crossan, [8] Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide, [9] and Bart Ehrman, who is the most renowned scholar in related fields and the most recognisable and authoritative skeptical New Testament scholar in the world at present. He writes: “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” [10] Having so many independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus is exemplary for ancient history. We can clearly see there is no question among historians of Jesus’ death by crucifixion. When it comes to the claims of comparison, sadly, but predictably, they did not cite any sources for this claim which is a feature of this video as a whole. It’s also strange how they can allege Jesus, or parts of the story, were based on one yet claim it was also based on another. It’s like they are hedging their bets and aren’t able to commit to one, picking and choosing any vague alleged similarities that will match from all the other gods they can find yet even doing this, they fail to find a single similarity. Mithras did not have a miraculous birth in the same sense as Jesus, not even remotely, because all sources claim he was born of a rock, not of a virgin. [11] In other versions, he was born as an adult. [12] Even in Persian versions, he was never born of a virgin. He was never called “the light”. There is absolutely no record of this or any evidence suggesting this. Where this claim originates past ‘Zeitgeist: The Movie’. The claim is a complete fabrication and no scholar holds this to be true. Jesus didn’t offer salvation through worship but this is by the by because neither did Mithras and he certainly didn’t sacrifice himself so that we would be saved the same as Jesus. When you are only comparing two figures, it is pretty embarrassing to inaccurately represent one, invalidating the entire comparison, but to inaccurately represent both? This is sheer ignorance. Finally, all of the sources about the Mithras cult come from after the time of Jesus, so any parallels would more likely be the other way round. One example of stealing from Christianity was cult use of Sunday, which post dates the New Testament. Osiris didn’t change in his becoming a man on earth and simply living on earth isn’t really a compelling comparison or even a similarity when their existence on earth wasn’t similar. Osiris was murdered but not in the same way as Jesus and if Sam is suggesting documenting someone was murdered suggests the later account is made up or is even a parallel, then they are clutching at straws. He was not resurrected. After being dismembered, he didn’t then return to his former mode of existence, he journeyed to the underworld, where he became lord of the dead. In no sense can he be said to have ‘risen’. Egyptian resurrections signal a permanent life in the realm of the dead. [13] Osiris’ ascension is a complete fabrication. As we have seen, once he became lord of the dead, he stayed there. It is true that Egyptians would ‘appeal’ to him for access to the afterlife but there is a reason Sam is vague here; it was because he was lord of the dead but they don’t get to the underworld through him while Christians get eternal life through Jesus and His atonement. Krishna was not part of a trinity and to compare the Hindu Trimutri to the Trinity is already a huge stretch. Nevertheless, Krishna wasn’t a person of the Trimutri; he was one of the ten avatars of Vishnu, which makes it more modalistic. Krishna was born but he was always seen as a god, he wasn’t a man. There is absolutely no evidence that could be remotely perceived as telling us Krishna was born to a carpenter although earlier, Alltime 10s claimed this fact about Jesus was a myth so they managed to refute their own comparison themselves. Congratulations. While he did perform some miracles, this is far too general to be considered a comparison because almost all deities perform miracles and very few of the miracles are even remotely similar. There are so many stories and sources about Krishna that there are bound to be odd similarities but there is no reason to assuming copying. There is absolutely no evidence that Krishna partook in a last supper. He died at 125 years old and wasn’t aware of an imminent death and such a final meal before his death is not documented. When he died, Krishna’s spirit ascended into heaven [14] but it is absolutely false that he resurrected first. He simply died then his spirit went to heaven. There was no physical resurrection, not even resuscitation. Furthermore, if there are any legitimate parallels, it is likely the Hindus taking from Christianity, as scholars suggest that Hindus were borrowing from Christian sources. [15] Scholar Edwin Bryant place these stories of Krishna at the 4th or 5th century, while others such as David V. Mason say they may be as early as the 2nd century, which even then is too late for the Gospels to be a copy. Finally, what do comparisons matter when we can ground the events in history? We cannot assert Jesus’ death by crucifixion is copied from Osiris for example (even though Osiris did not die this way, but for the sake of argument) when we know historically that Jesus did die on the cross for certain as we established earlier. This means is literally impossible it could have been a copy so even valid comparisons, which they aren't anyway, are facile. These comparisons are as silly as saying Abraham Lincoln was a myth, or at least some of his story was a myth, based on Alexander the Great because Alexander the Great signed a proclamation to abolish slavery, was known as ‘honest Abe’, had the same distinct style beard and was born on the same day despite having no evidence of any of that being true and loads of evidence that Lincoln existed and each fact is true. It is absolute lunacy. This is an embarrassment and incredibly damaging to the credibility of the channel and the researchers. As a point of concession to be fair, Sam does say “maybe the first one” as a possible explanation at the end, suggesting the similarities are all just coincidence, which is charitable, but as there are actually no similarities here, the theories of why there are similarities are irrelevant. They asserted them all with absolutely no evidence for good reason, because there isn’t any. This top 10 video was an absolute train wreck and any amount of study can completely blow apart the narrative of 9 out of 10 of these points This wasn't an all time 10, it was more like an all time fail. I have no idea why almost 3,000 people approved of the video as oppose to just over 1,000 disapproving of the 126,000 audience as of June 2021. References. [1] Ariel Sabar, ‘The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife’, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/. [2] ‘Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World: The Real Da Vinci Code? (Holy Blood, Holy Grail)’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_TYqVXxUn4. [3] Fr. William Saunders, ‘Who was Mary Magdalene? Was she a prostitute who repented?’, https://catholicstraightanswers.com/who-was-mary-magdalene-was-she-a-prostitute-who-repented/. [4] Publius Cornelius Tacitus, ‘Annals’, 15.44. [5] Lucian of Samosata, ‘Passing of Peregrinus’, 11, 13. [6] ‘Babylonian Talmud’, Sanhedrin 43a. [7] Gerd Lüdemann, ‘What Really Happened To Jesus?’, page 17. [8] John Dominic Crossan, ‘Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography’, page 145. [9] Pinchas Lapide, ‘The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective’, page 32. [10] Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Misquoting Jesus’, page 162. [11] David Ulansey, ‘The Origins of Mithraic Mysteries’, page 36; Commodianus, ‘Instructions’, 13. [12] ‘Avesta: Khorda Avesta’, 6-7. [13] Mircea Eliade, ‘Encyclopedia of Religion’, pages 524-525. [14] ‘Srimaad Bhagavatam’, 10.30.25-43. [15] Sushil Mittal, Gene Thursby, ‘The Hindu World’, page 240.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Links To My Work
Thanks to Robert Spencer, the founder of Jihad Watch, I have the opportunity to write some articles for his esteemed website. All articles on Jihad Watch will be linked on the blog of this website. Visit Jihad Watch via this link. See my articles on Jihad Watch via this link. |