The Da Vinci Code

[Kurgan]

Weeell.... yes and no. All were real institutions. Everything was based on some form of fact... its just that he took major liberties when interpreting their actions and motivations.

 

Not quite...

 

The "Priory of Sion" was a French housing reform club started in 1956 by Pierre Plantard and some friends. It had nothing to do with the Knights Templar, the Holy Grail, or Jesus, and certainly wasn't founded in 1099. It had no connection to the Order de Sion or Abbey of Sion from the middle ages, but was in fact named for a local mountain, "Mt. Sion."

 

The Priory described by Holy Blood Holy Grail and the Templar Revelation, that Brown assumes is an actual ancient organization, never existed.

[toms]

I noted that in the movie they inserted a line about how the Priory of Sion had been discredited as a hoax, and then added a "well, thats what they would want you to think". It was a nice way to get around the fact that one of the central elements of DBs research was completely discredited.

 

I do feel though that you can seperate out the basic "theme" of the novel and it has grains of truth... even if the specific storyline is daft.

 

The whole templar/priory/illuminati/daVinci/hiding jesus's bloodline thing is a fun but daft romp that has been done in numerous films and other artworks. Heck, Deus Ex and Tomb Raider both have a lot of the same illuminati/templar themes.

 

However the basic ideas that (a) Mary Magdalene was greatly downplayed by the christian church (b) Jesus may well have had offspring and © the church has created a lot of mythology by alteration or ommision are perfectly valid.

 

I'm not sure if the popularity of the book is down to people responing to the "fun but daft romp" or the underlying basic ideas...

...or more likely its because the extremist religious groups made such a fuss about it that many people, like me, read it to see what the fuss was about. The popularity can't be down to the quality of the writing.

 

I'd quite happily believe Jesus got married, or that MM was a disciple, or that at the very least a number of valid viewpoints may have been lost when the bible was compiled. Assuming Jesus was actually a god, its doubtful he could have kids with a mortal woman... but if he did then its much more likely that they are everywhere, mixed in with everyone else in the world... rather than a single bloodline that is in hiding and protected. That is obviously a daft idea fit only for a fictional story.

[edlib]

Assuming Jesus was actually a god, its doubtful he could have kids with a mortal woman...

Why not? His dad did... and they weren't even married.

[Kurgan]

Well that's the second time this library computer has eaten my reply to this thread, so I give up for now.

 

I guess it must be all the evil hype from the "Omen" remake mucking up the internet...

[Kurgan]

Okay, let me try this again...

 

I do feel though that you can seperate out the basic "theme" of the novel and it has grains of truth... even if the specific storyline is daft.

 

Without clarifying what you mean by "grains of truth" I think you've identified the majority view of the DVC by fans. Few probably believe the entire thing, but many believe significant portions and almost all fans believe it has "some grains of truth" though what specifically those are may vary with the person.

 

I think it is telling though that the more educated a person is about history, the less "grains of truth" they tend to see in the novel's backstory. In any case...

 

However the basic ideas that (a) Mary Magdalene was greatly downplayed by the christian church

 

I'm not arguing here that a person cannot accept things on faith (beliefs) or that things are "possible", only what things are likely based on the historical evidence available to us.

 

a) Doesn't seem likely, because the earliest records of her (the New Testament), though scanty, are entirely positive. She was a female disciple from Magdala who sponsored Jesus' ministry and was cured of "seven demons" by him. She was the first witness to the resurrection, and one of the few disciples who stayed for the crucifixion while the others ran away (Magdalane, Mary the Mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple John, according to the Gospel of John).

 

Brown alleges that Jesus really intended for Mary to be in charge of the church, but Peter, being a mysoginist jerk, was jealous and forced her out in favor of himself. There is no evidence for Mary being the foundation of the church.

 

What Brown interprets this from are late 2nd and 3rd century Gnostic texts which give Mary a privileged place among the disciples. However it does not imply they were lovers, and it certainly does not imply she was the "foundation of the church" or meant to be the leader. It should be pointed out that Brown seems to ignore the other Gnostic writings which imply similar privileged places for Thomas, or James, or Judas, etc. The Gnostics purposely tended to ally themselves with marginal figures (other than James of course, who had a prominent position in the early Church, according to Acts, unless of course it is meant a different James than "the brother of the Lord"), because they believed in direct revelation from God as opposed to Jewish or Apostolic tradition or heirarchy as the path the salvation (salvation was by "gnosis" which in the end was self knowledge, as Jesus was a divine teacher of esoteric wisdom that could be accessed by the few through knowledge of the divine spark within).

 

Anyway, the whole "Mary was discredited as a prostitute" is similarly misunderstood by Brown. The notion that she was a prostitute was never a doctrine of the Catholic church, but rather a folk belief that arose over a misunderstanding of a sermon given by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, in which he (wrongly, but perhaps not maliciously) conflated the "woman taken in adultery" with Mary of Bethany and the unnamed repetant woman who annointed the feet of Jesus and Mary Magdalane. He never called her a "prostitute." And in fact, his sermon was not meant to slander her, but rather to use her as a symbolic figure for the different stages of faith in a believer.

 

In any case, the notion that she was a repentant prostitute actually increased devotion and veneration of her in the medieval church. Her story is told in the Golden Legend, etc. Artists loved her because it gave them a change from painting the same chaste Christian women and the Virgin Mary over and over again. Here was a "fallen woman" who came back to the light, so they tended to portray her with long beautiful red hair, great figure, fine clothes, etc. For all we know, the real Mary Magdalane may have been a rich widow, and an old woman, but that's not the popular image that we get.

 

In any case, in the late 1960's, the Vatican officially disavowed any notion that Mary Magdalane was a "prostitute" or that she should be identified with the woman taken in adultery. But every Jesus movie I've seen since that time that mentions her at all, always portrays her as a former prostitute (that's Hollywood for you!).

 

(b) Jesus may well have had offspring and

 

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But we have no historical evidence of his marriage or offspring, and some evidence that he was not married (for example his praise of celibacy, Paul's lack of mention of Jesus' marriage when we would expect him to as he is defending the right of apostles to be married and has to resort to mentioning Peter, no mention of his marriage even in the "heretic" Gnostic texts or later polemical Jewish texts or any extra canonical ancient sources).

 

We also know that in the 1st century there were examples of Jewish holymen who were celibate, such as the mentor of Josephus (a man named Banus), the Theraputae (sp?), John the Baptist, Paul the apostle, and the Essene sect. Widows who did not remarry and virgins were often praised in the New Testament and the writings early Church Fathers. The Gnostics praised celibacy (which would seem only natural because by and large they believed that matter was evil and corrupt, thus sexual intercourse could only bring trouble in the form of attachment to the flesh and the creation of more fleshy bodies via procreation).

 

I'm not sure anyone even suggested that Jesus was married until the 19th century...

 

© the church has created a lot of mythology by alteration or ommision are perfectly valid.

 

While there are some scholars who would argue that there has been some "alteration" (historian and scholar Bart Ehrman argues this in two of his books, which I have not read, but I'm told that's what he argues), the fact remains that we have a plethora of evidence that Jesus was considered somehow divine as early as the first century within a few decades of Jesus' death, if not all the way to the beginning in his own lifetime.

 

Brown incorrectly alleges that "nobody" before the 325 CE believed that Jesus was anything more than a mere mortal prophet prior to the Emperor Constantine suddenly declaring him "a god" and it being approved by "a close vote," which is sheer nonsense of course. He also mistakenly claims the Gnostics rejected Jesus' divinity in favor of a "more human Jesus" when in fact quite the opposite (many doubted he ever had a human body) is true.

 

The New Testament writings (whether you believe they are true to what Jesus really said and did or not) are still our earliest records of the historical Jesus, and portray him in both human and divine terms. There is no historical evidence that Constantine "altered" the Gospels to suit some political agenda in the 4th century.

 

 

I guess my point is, believe what you want, study the stuff, but don't rely on Dan Brown to tell you what it's all about, because he's not a scholar and his research has proven to be quite laughable.

 

Obviously the average reader has no idea of course, but I think the truth is much more interesting than the fiction, so might as well point people to some scholarly sources instead.

 

Brown claims his primary wish is to "start a conversation" and get people to "seek the truth," which of course is noble. Sadly I've encountered numerous fans who feel that once they've read his book or seen the movie that they know "have the truth" and need look no further, refusing to question HIS sources and research, which is too bad.

 

I'm not sure if the popularity of the book is down to people responing to the "fun but daft romp" or the underlying basic ideas...

...or more likely its because the extremist religious groups made such a fuss about it that many people, like me, read it to see what the fuss was about. The popularity can't be down to the quality of the writing.

 

I think we can safely say it is definately due to the "ideas." Yes, it seems this book has had a great appeal to "non-readers" (people who don't read many books) and has spread via word of mouth. However, the notion that it's a great book is probably not the reason for its popularity. Literary snobs (self identified btw!) have shown that he's not a very talented writer of prose, and the cookie cutter nature of the DVC is apparent to anyone who's read his previous novels (especially "Angels & Demons" the Langdon thriller that was published before DVC came out). The characters and plot are rather bland, mediocre and full of cliches.

 

Even the conspiracy is borrowed wholesale (yes, he won the plagiarism lawsuit, so LEGALLY of course) from previous NON-FICTION (but rubbish) sources like Holy Blood Holy Grail, the Templar Revelation, and the (non-scholarly) works of Margaret Starbird.

 

So it's not particulary original OR well written. It is a page turner and sensational (Holy Blood Holy Grail and the Templar Revelation were both best sellers in their time but are much denser than an airport novel and didn't achieve quite the success).

 

Anyway, Brown's previous novels which are very similar to the DVC (but don't promote conspirices about Jesus and Mary Magdalane of course) did not achieve the great success that the DVC did. AFTER the DVC became popular they all sold a few million copies each, obviously because people were now interested to see what else the author had written. Many fans were clamoring for an "Angels & Demons" movie, even though, many others admitted, it would probably be too similar to the DVC to be worth making.

 

The thing about the "controversy" boosting sales is that we have no way of really knowing. However it is worth pointing out that the DVC was HEAVILY promoted with a huge PR campaign when it first came out. It was a best seller the first week and has continued so to this day. I don't know of any public criticism coming from the Christian churches about it until it sold at least 15-20 million copies.

 

Dan Brown went on an interviewing frenzy promoting it as based on fact and how he was "a believer" (in the conspiracy theories contained in it). If anything HE created the controversy himself.

 

I'd quite happily believe Jesus got married, or that MM was a disciple, or that at the very least a number of valid viewpoints may have been lost when the bible was compiled.

 

As I hope I've pointed out, everyone's got a right to their beliefs and opinions, it's just that we should admit some have more evidence for them than others. Jesus may have been married, but we have no historical evidence for it. MM was definately a disciple as the earliest records (the New Testament) declares, so this was hardly suppressed information. The Gnostic writings that seem to give her a more privileged place were written at least a century or more later, and were identified with marginal sects of Christianity like the Gnostics, and so were not up for serious consideration when the canon was compiled (incidentally, Constantine had nothing to do with the Canon, he simply gave Eusebius the resources to make 50 quality copies of "the Bible" as he [Eusebius] saw fit... the books of our modern day NT canon were largely agreed upon before Constantine came to power, with some books continuing to be disputed long after his death).

 

Assuming Jesus was actually a god, its doubtful he could have kids with a mortal woman...

 

Anything is possible. How do we know what he could or could not do? According to Gnosticism it's very unlikely that he could have had such a relationship. Most Christians I've talked to say they don't see a problem if he was married, even if it is unlikely (though sadly a great number I've talked to claim being married would "make him more human" as if somehow unmarried people are "less human" which I think is odd logic).

 

but if he did then its much more likely that they are everywhere, mixed in with everyone else in the world... rather than a single bloodline that is in hiding and protected. That is obviously a daft idea fit only for a fictional story.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. It seems extremely unlikely that there would be only ONE (or even two) living descendant(s) (and of course it would be a good looking woman) of somebody from 2,000 years ago.

 

Another thing that seems a bit silly about the whole deal is that, according to Brown, Jesus was nothing but an ordinary man (if a great moral teacher). If that's the case, why the big deal about his bloodline? Does anybody care if the descendents of Napolean or Attila the Hun are walking around today? How many people care about royal ancestry in our culture anymore, except as a point of trivia? If he's not divine, who CARES who his kids are?

 

Plus why would the "Priory" keep it a secret instead of just telling everyone? (and if they were trying to keep it a secret, why would Leonardo, a supposed "Grand Master" of the organization deliberately leave clues to the secret in public works of art, risking getting himself killed, since allegedly the Catholic church was out to kill anyone involved?). Revolutions in religion have been caused over seemingly petty issues (a King's divorce, the sale of indulgences, how much authority the Pope ought to have, etc.), this would seem a "sure bet."

 

 

 

Anyway, sorry for being long winded, those were the thoughts rattling around in my fevered brain, which I was unable to get out because of the board problems...

 

Seriously though, read the site, it explains a lot, and recommends some good scholarly sources if you're curious about these topics. It's hard to know the sheer lunacy of some of the claims until you've read the real history. But it really is fascinating stuff (but maybe I'm biased, heh).

[Kurgan]

Awesome, it posted!

 

Well, I won't spam the thread further with more links and info, even though I'd love to, I already have been doing that on the IMDB boards for over a month (and let me tell you, I really appreciate the intelligence of this place after being there that long!), so I'll spare you all unless you want to talk about it further... heh

 

Also sorry for any typos, I'm rather tired...

[rccar328]

I do feel though that you can seperate out the basic "theme" of the novel and it has grains of truth... even if the specific storyline is daft.

All good propaganda has 'grains of truth.' That's why so many religious people freaked out over the book & movie - it has just enough 'grains of truth' to seem credible, even though it's just a bunch of hokey.

[toms]

You are posting from a library? Thats not fair!! I haven't even been in one for years..

 

I'd just like to point out that dan brown's book has had no effect whatsoever on my beliefs* about mary magdalene, jesus, the "truth" of the bible or the actions of the catholic church.

 

*I've never studied history, and don't have the time or even care that much about the religion to do so.. i just have a view general views formed over a lifetime of experiences with the thing.

 

Everything "controversial" claimed in the DaVinci code i'd already heard many times over, years before, in numerous newspaper and magazine articles and tv documentaries presented by much more credible sounding historians then Dan Brown.

 

It is quite possible that history has moved on since some of those views were popular, but frankly i'm not a historian and i can't keep track of whatever the latest prevaling view is at all times. However the historians and the facts they presented seemed credible enough to me at the time.

 

Whatever the merits of any historical view, its usualy only an educated guess based on incomplete evidence... so anything is always possible. The gaps in what we know about even our recent past always amaze me.. and historians analysing almost any period of history often seem to have fundamental disagreements about how to interpret evidence. I can merely pick up fragments of their opinions where i can and make uninformed decisions about what feels right to me.

 

The basic core of the DVC is that the bible isn't the "word of god" and is merely a collection of non-infallable writings assembled by non-infallable priests... and as such everything in it is subject to the natural human tendancy to apply one's own spin to the account.

Thats something i've felt long before a bad book came out about it.

 

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? I'm not up to date on whether they are currently considered real or not. (or are they the gnostic bibles? i get confused).

[rccar328]

The basic core of the DVC is that the bible isn't the "word of god" and is merely a collection of non-infallable writings assembled by non-infallable priests... and as such everything in it is subject to the natural human tendancy to apply one's own spin to the account.

Thats something i've felt long before a bad book came out about it.

No, the basic core of DVC is that the Bible was assembled as some sort of misogynistic conspiracy at the Council of Nicea (where they also voted to decide whether Jesus would be divine or not). If it were as benign as you let on, no one would care.

 

And that DVC didn't change your perceptions of Jesus or Mary Magdalene really is irrelevant because, like you said, you don't care. There are lots of people out there who do care, and that's why the book is controversial.

 

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? I'm not up to date on whether they are currently considered real or not. (or are they the gnostic bibles? i get confused).

The only Biblical documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls were from the Old Testament of the Bible - books from the Jewish Torah. There were no gospels among the Dead Sea Scrolls, gnostic or otherwise.

[Kurgan]

All good propaganda has 'grains of truth.' That's why so many religious people freaked out over the book & movie - it has just enough 'grains of truth' to seem credible, even though it's just a bunch of hokey.

 

At first I thought maybe you were implying some element of the conspiracy was factual. Fair enough.

[Kurgan]

Everything "controversial" claimed in the DaVinci code i'd already heard many times over, years before, in numerous newspaper and magazine articles and tv documentaries presented by much more credible sounding historians then Dan Brown.

 

It's true, the ideas were developed between 1956 and 2000, basically (from Pierre Plantard to Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince) before Dan Brown. The thing is, none of the people proposing the conspiracy elements about Leonardo, Jesus, Mary M, the Templars, the Merovingians, the Priory, etc. were scholars in the relevant fields with any credible degree or standing. These were just amateur researchers and kooks. Of course a lot of people speculated, until Plantard was exposed as a fraud and admitted it in court. That was in the late 1970's. By that time any scholar worth his/her salt was laughing at the whole mess. The only reason anybody gives it attention now is the sheer popularity and hype surrounding the DVC for the past three years with the novel and now the movie (which was a critical flop but a financial success, especially internationally).

 

It is quite possible that history has moved on since some of those views were popular, but frankly i'm not a historian and i can't keep track of whatever the latest prevaling view is at all times. However the historians and the facts they presented seemed credible enough to me at the time.

 

The thing is, there was never any evidence for it, except the Dossiers Secrets. All those documents "proved" was that there was some organization called the Priory of Sion, purportedly protecting a secret bloodline of the Merovingians. They never said anything about Jesus or Mary Magdalane or proved anything about the Holy Grail. Okay, so maybe the documents were real, but then they were proved to be forgeries planted in the library by Plantard and his cronies, so there's no way the Priory (which nobody had ever heard of until the con started) could be real, and thus the wild assertion by Baigent and company that it supported some bloodline of Jesus couldn't be true either. So the house of cards collapses right there.

 

So it's not as if the bloodline myth at one time was believed by the scholarly community. Like any new discovery, it'll be met with enthusiasm by some and skepticism by a great many, until it's been well documented and picked apart.

But from my understanding, the Priory hoax was met with as much scholarly acceptance as the reaction by genetic scientists to the recent claim by the Raelians that they'd cloned a human child and implanted it into the womb of a Virgin to be born on December 25th.

 

Whatever the merits of any historical view, its usualy only an educated guess based on incomplete evidence... so anything is always possible. The gaps in what we know about even our recent past always amaze me.. and historians analysing almost any period of history often seem to have fundamental disagreements about how to interpret evidence.

 

True, but perhaps it's easier to keep an open mind IF one has never looked at the evidence. That's probably why a lot of people continue to believe the Priory hoax. They haven't looked at the evidence, they just look at the writings of people who BELIEVE it to be true (despite the lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary). Baigent in positively pathetic. In an interview he was asked by Tony Robinson point blank about the documents being proven forgeries and how De Sede tried to warn him and his co-authors before the book went to print that it was all fake and was ignored, and what he (Baigent) thought about that, and all he could say is that he'd seen the documents and was "satisfied" that they had to be real!

 

The key here is "educated guess." People can only make "guesses" based on their knowledge. The conspiracy theorists weren't that educated to begin with, and neither are the people who believe them, that's the trouble.

 

When we don't know the facts, we can believe anything we like. But that's a sloppy way to do research. It's one thing to admit you don't know it all and therefore just have a hunch something is true. It's another thing to assert your hunch IS the factual truth above all else. That's why the conspiracy theorists come under scrutiny by experts (who normally probably wouldn't waste their time with unfounded theories by laymen, except when they are this popular).

 

But, to the truly curious, the info is out there. You can look up all the relevant documents, records, paintings, translations, etc. without too much trouble. You could do most of it in an afternoon.

 

I can merely pick up fragments of their opinions where i can and make uninformed decisions about what feels right to me.

 

That's key for understanding how the conspiracy theorists went about their "research." For example Margaret Starbird determined that Sarah was Mary Magdalane's daughter from Jesus by "praying about it."

 

The basic core of the DVC is that the bible isn't the "word of god" and is merely a collection of non-infallable writings assembled by non-infallable priests... and as such everything in it is subject to the natural human tendancy to apply one's own spin to the account.

 

Ah, but the DVC claims that the Gnostic writings are "original unaltered Gospels" that portray a very human Jesus, that were suppressed by Constantine and the "Vatican." (the Vatican wasn't yet the headquarters of the Catholic church, but nevermind)

 

Claiming Christianity is not quite true is one thing, but their reasons why are phony, their evidence is phony and their alternate explanation is rubbish.

 

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? I'm not up to date on whether they are currently considered real or not. (or are they the gnostic bibles? i get confused).

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are real. They're believed by the majority of scholars to have been penned and collected by the Essene sect at a place called Qumran. They were basically a monastic style Jewish community that believed the apocalypse was coming soon, a climactic battle between the "sons of darkness" (probably apostate Jews and Romans) and the "sons of light" (members of their community and their supporters). They wanted to practice pure Judaism away from the corruption of the Jerusalem Temple and corrupt priesthood. They practiced celibacy and purity, and copied texts, which included many of their own writings, but also almost all the texts of the "Old Testament," thereby giving us some of the earliest and best preserved copies of the OT books we have today. It is believed they were composed before and contempory with Jesus, but make no mention of Jesus or Christianity. They are not Christian documents, and have nothing to do with the Gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.

 

Dan Brown mentions both sets of texts and apparently confuses them. He tries to claim that the Gnostic texts are "the real deal" while the New Testament is false, when in fact the NT texts predate the Gnostic writings and there is no evidence that Constantine tampered with them. And that's the opinion of non-Christian scholars as well.

[toms]

When i talked about the controversial parts of the novel i wasn't talking about the prioryof scion or the bloodline or any of that hokum. I was tlakingabout the fact i have numerous well respected history professors (as far as i can tell) write articles or present tv shows that gave similar views about mary magdalene and the early church.

 

Whether they wer true or not I can't say... and i doubt i could even find references to them now. But the mary magdalene = wife/disciple thing is something i've seen in lots of places over the year. I've always thought that was interesting, and much more interesting than the possiblity of kids... which is pretty irrelevant imho.

 

Jesus having human decendents that have long since become absorbed into the mass of humanity has no real impact on anything. I never thought it was much of a "shock ending" or anything.

 

Jesus having wife/female disciples has much more of an impact in that it overrides all the stupid arguments about men only priests, celibacy, women staying at home etc.. (the celibacy thing being something that cropped up in some strange extremist offshoot and then migrated to the main church if i remember rightly).

Most importantly it might actually be a good indication that jesus was what he claimed. Because for a son of god who theoretically would have known all about the past and future and not been bound by the expected social standards of the time he sure does seem to have been a pretty old fashioned, stuck in the past kind of guy.

 

If you want to believe in jesus in a modern age its much better to be able to believe that he actually was a more enlightened god... and that his image has been altered over the years by his contempraries aplying their own social standards and issues. Its sure better than the alternative..

[jon_hill987]

I hate to sound arrogant, but I guess I'll never get much out of religious thrillers... I just know too much! Ha... Gotta turn the ol' brain off sometimes I guess!

Have you seen "Stigmata"?

 

Anyways, My opinion on DVC:

It is a story, a work of fiction, much like all the christian fanatics overreacted to Harry Potter, they are doing the same thing here. Calling for the film/book to be banned as blasphemy says that they take it seriously, almost like they believe it could be true and that it is a threat to them in some way.

[Kurgan]

Have you seen "Stigmata"?

 

Anyways, My opinion on DVC:

It is a story, a work of fiction, much like all the christian fanatics overreacted to Harry Potter, they are doing the same thing here. Calling for the film/book to be banned as blasphemy says that they take it seriously, almost like they believe it could be true and that it is a threat to them in some way.

 

Yes, and boy was it awful! A bad remake of the Exorcist married to a Madonna video.

 

I agree some people are overreacting, however simply because people are overreacting has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the historical claims made in the fiction of course.

[SkinWalker]

I think its ironic that it cannot even be demonstrated that Jesus was an actual, historical figure and not simply pure myth (of which there is a bit of evidence to suggest), but there are people who think there's "evidence" of a "bloodline" of Jesus.

 

For that to be true, it would imply that the Jesus myth is, indeed, a myth to begin with! A "bloodline" implies the correct number of chromosomes, etc. If J was born of a virgin, he only had 23 chromosomes (a feat that isn't possible in human genetics) or he was an exact clone of his mother (making him a woman and unable to have married M. Magdaline) with copies of her 46. -Where did he get his Y chromosome?

[Kurgan]

When i talked about the controversial parts of the novel i wasn't talking about the prioryof scion or the bloodline or any of that hokum. I was tlakingabout the fact i have numerous well respected history professors (as far as i can tell) write articles or present tv shows that gave similar views about mary magdalene and the early church.

 

It would be helpful to know who these folks are that are claiming support for Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalane being historically likely. Or that Mary Magdalane was intended by Jesus to be the leader of the early church (over Simon Peter, for example). A lot of tv programs about the DVC and Holy Blood Holy Grail have been made, and I've seen a lot of them, but I don't know of any that showed credible scholars agreeing with the theory, except to say "well he could have been..." as in, he could have been a lot of things, but we don't have any evidence to back that up. Without names or references I really can't look into that...

 

It's sort of like in the DVC itself. The main characters articulating the conspiracy theory typically say "scholars agree" and "this is historical fact" "all the experts say" etc. but never name or cite these sources (except on one occasion they mention the list of conspiracy sources that began based on the Priory hoax in the 1980's with Holy Blood Holy Grail, non of which of course are scholarly).

 

 

But the mary magdalene = wife/disciple thing is something i've seen in lots of places over the year.

 

Doubtless, considering the popularity of the DVC since 2003 has produced a plethora of tv specials, articles, books, etc. Before that it was the Templar Revelation that produced all the supposed connections to Leonardo da Vinci's paintings, and before that it was Margaret Starbird, and before that it was Baigent and company's writings. But it's really taken off in the last three years due to Dan Brown.

 

That she was a disciple was never in doubt, that's virtually spelled out in our earliest records, the New Testament, so nothing new there. It's the "wife of Jesus" thing that we have no support for. Lots of wishful thinking and speculation in the latter half of the 20th century to the present of course...

 

 

I've always thought that was interesting, and much more interesting than the possiblity of kids... which is pretty irrelevant imho.

 

It certainly is, the trouble is it has no historical credibility, so it's just one of countless "possibilities" of the imagination...

 

Jesus having human decendents that have long since become absorbed into the mass of humanity has no real impact on anything. I never thought it was much of a "shock ending" or anything.

 

Agreed.

 

Jesus having wife/female disciples has much more of an impact in that it overrides all the stupid arguments about men only priests, celibacy, women staying at home etc.. (the celibacy thing being something that cropped up in some strange extremist offshoot and then migrated to the main church if i remember rightly).

 

We have first century Jewish examples of celibacy such as the Essenes. The Gnostics were more extreme in that they actually "forbid marriage" (and thus some scholars believe the apostle Paul is actually referring to some early version of them in his writings) as something evil.

 

Celibacy in the Catholic church was always an ideal, one that came to a head in the middle ages as a way to counteract secular control of the clergy (nobles tended to be married, but monks were celibate, so by requiring celibacy in the West, Kings couldn't easily sneak their friends into ecclesial office) and also had other practical benefits like preventing the complications of inheritance and the distractions of family life away from insitutional loyalty. To this day it remains a discipline, rather than a doctrine, so it could be changed if the Vatican decided to. Deacons are married, priests are not.

 

However in the Eastern Rite Catholic churches (in full communion with Rome), celibacy is optional for clergy (it may be required for bishops though now that I think of it, just not priests). The Orthodox church similarly does not require celibacy of its clergy (and since they split with the Roman Catholic church in 1054, this is pretty close to that time of reform in the West anyway).

 

Anyway, if Jesus' words in the gospels are accurate, he is endorsing celibacy "for those who can accept it." It's a debate anyway, but that Jesus himself was married at all remains speculation at best.

 

Most importantly it might actually be a good indication that jesus was what he claimed. Because for a son of god who theoretically would have known all about the past and future and not been bound by the expected social standards of the time he sure does seem to have been a pretty old fashioned, stuck in the past kind of guy.

 

Many scholars believe Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet (which seems reasonable enough an assumption from many passages in the Gospels). Its well known by scholars that many of the apocalyptic teachers of the first centuries promoted celibacy or were celibate. If the present age is soon coming to an end, why bother starting a family? Jesus promoted the idea that in "the Kingdom" there is no marriage like we have on earth, so no point in starting one now if it will be irrelevant. And if Jesus knew the future, why get married when he knew he'd be widowing his wife and orphaning any children (which was a lot more serious in those days than it is today for us in the 1st world) when he died on the cross?

 

Sure you could come up with ways why he'd be married and to explain why the Gospels seem to contradict this idea, etc, but again, it's speculation, not anything based on historical evidence. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that he, like other apocalyptic prophets, deemed marriage something unnecessary to his mission.

 

If you want to believe in jesus in a modern age its much better to be able to believe that he actually was a more enlightened god... and that his image has been altered over the years by his contempraries aplying their own social standards and issues. Its sure better than the alternative..

 

Well, but aren't we thus modifying Jesus based on our social standards and issues as well in doing this? We can't concieve of a sane person willingly giving up sex, so we assume Jesus wouldn't do that either. That's actually been a major criticism of the various quests for the Historical Jesus, that it's far too easy to tinker with the figure of Jesus until we conclude with one that ends up looking almost exactly like us (or how we'd wish ourselves to be). So we have Jesus looking like a 21st century liberal academic, for example.

 

Anyway, to sum up, we just don't have any evidence in favor of his marriage, and much against. So this type of thing remains speculation. If we want to argue the merits of clerical celibacy, or women's roles in the churches today that's another matter entirely, but doing responsible history is its own discipline.

[manoman81]

The thing that got me in the movie was Langdon's (Hanks') line : "It's not impossible."

 

I know that the story is fiction. I read somewhere that Brown said it was fiction as everyone has said. I took this movie as a big "what if". Again, could Christ have had a family? Possibly. It doesn't really matter to me if the Christ of the Bible was or wasn't fully a human. What made Christ important were, as with any prophet, his teachings. As a student of history (student, not expert), I gave up on organized religions a long time ago. I have seen too many examples of contradictions i.e. "Thou shalt not kill" --> "To kill an infidel is not murder, it is the path to Heaven". These are just my thoughts and opinions, take them as there are.

 

The movie/book...

 

Brown got somethings right in his "research". If anyone is interested in the Knights Templar, I reccomend The History of the Knights Templar by Charles G. Addison w/ the intro by David Hatcher Childress. Addison claims to be a member of the remaing Knights Templar. There is no mention of the Priory of Scion, however, Childress does metion that the KTs were might have been "part of a secret movement to restore the Merovingian kings" (the bloodline of Christ). Childress does not back it up but I haven't finished reading the book yet either to see if Addison confirms/denies this.

 

Fact: KTs did become wealthy during the Crusades. They basically ended up financing the Kingdom of Jerusalem through trade.

 

Fact: The KTs were "hunted" by the King of France Philip IV with the permission of the Pope in the early 1300s. While the Grand Master (Jaques de Molay) and many of the members were killed, almost all of the KTs possesions disappeared before the King's troops could find them.

 

Childress also continues to say that while the KTs had a massive fleet at sea, they all disappeared after the KTs were outlawed in France. Childress says that others have done the research and say that the KTs could have found safe hiding in Scotland. This has ties to Braveheart but it's more than I can post at the moment.

 

The point is that Brown did do some "research" and does use some historical fact. However, I put research in quotes because I question how much of the research he actually did compared to others that might have done it. I think he pulled a Hollywood, got a bunch of ideas, threw in a few historical facts, added a few explosion and guns, and came out with a book/movie.

[jon_hill987]

For that to be true, it would imply that the Jesus myth is, indeed, a myth to begin with! A "bloodline" implies the correct number of chromosomes, etc. If J was born of a virgin, he only had 23 chromosomes (a feat that isn't possible in human genetics) or he was an exact clone of his mother (making him a woman and unable to have married M. Magdaline) with copies of her 46. -Where did he get his Y chromosome?

 

Or his mother lied to Joseph in order to not be caught out about her affair.

[Kurgan]

Dagnabbit, again, post deleted (stupid library computer).

 

I'll try to reconstruct what I was saying:

 

 

Skinwalker, the "Jesus myth" (theory that Jesus of Nazareth never existed) is advocated by a tiny minority of scholars (Price, Doherty, Carrier). Most historians accept the historical existence of the man, as he's as well attested as any ancient figure who was not an Emperor or other world leader would expect to be.

 

So assuming these fringe theorists know something that the vast majority of scholars (including non-religious scholars) don't is quite an assumption. I was able to locate one scholar who allegedly believes Mary Magdalane and Jesus were married, Barbara Thiering. She's considered a fringe theorist as well and her controversial interpretative method (known as "pesher") has been heavily criticized by Geza Vermes (a prominent and respected Dead Sea Scrolls scholar).

 

Of course these folks have way more credibility than the Priory conspiracy theorists, none of whom are scholars in the relevant fields.

 

Anyway, the bloodline thing wouldn't necessarily prove anything about a "Jesus myth." If he's capable of miracles, he could have miraculous children too, couldn't he? Anything is possible, but historians don't deal in supernatural claims, so it's irrelevant.

[Kurgan]

The thing that got me in the movie was Langdon's (Hanks') line : "It's not impossible."

 

I know that the story is fiction. I read somewhere that Brown said it was fiction as everyone has said.

 

He said the thriller plot and characters were fiction (which is obvious to any sane person), it's the "historical background" which he claims is factual. He claims to believe it is accurate. I can post the interview quotes, video, etc if you really want me to...

 

I took this movie as a big "what if". Again, could Christ have had a family? Possibly. It doesn't really matter to me if the Christ of the Bible was or wasn't fully a human. What made Christ important were, as with any prophet, his teachings.

 

Well, accoring to Brown the Bible doesn't represent Jesus' teachings, since it was written by Constantine for political purposes, 300+ years after Jesus died. He claims Jesus' real teachings were suppressed and hidden, but can be found in the Gnostic writings and Dead Sea Scrolls (of course, the DSS have nothing to do with Jesus, and the Nag Hammadi writings were written much later than the New Testament writings and contain Gnostic theology, which Brown clearly does not understand).

 

 

The movie/book...

 

Brown got somethings right in his "research".

 

Proof that miracles exist.

 

If anyone is interested in the Knights Templar, I reccomend The History of the Knights Templar by Charles G. Addison w/ the intro by David Hatcher Childress. Addison claims to be a member of the remaing Knights Templar. There is no mention of the Priory of Scion, however, Childress does metion that the KTs were might have been "part of a secret movement to restore the Merovingian kings" (the bloodline of Christ). Childress does not back it up but I haven't finished reading the book yet either to see if Addison confirms/denies this.

 

I don't know about the book you're describing, but Peter Partner's "The Knights Templar and their Myth" comes recommended to me as a fine debunking of many of the conspiracy theories and legends about the Templars.

 

Fact: KTs did become wealthy during the Crusades. They basically ended up financing the Kingdom of Jerusalem through trade.

 

Sounds right.

 

Fact: The KTs were "hunted" by the King of France Philip IV with the permission of the Pope in the early 1300s. While the Grand Master (Jaques de Molay) and many of the members were killed, almost all of the KTs possesions disappeared before the King's troops could find them.

 

Apparently the Pope objected, but was forced to agree. Not that the ailing Pope could have done much to stop the King anyway. As far as their "possessions disappearing" I don't know about that. Does that imply they were hiding the secret "grail documents"? Sounds fishy to me, if that's the claim being made.

 

Childress also continues to say that while the KTs had a massive fleet at sea, they all disappeared after the KTs were outlawed in France. Childress says that others have done the research and say that the KTs could have found safe hiding in Scotland. This has ties to Braveheart but it's more than I can post at the moment.

 

I thought the remaining Templars were absorbed into other orders. They weren't ALL murdered/tortured obviously, only the leaders and anyone who resisted. When the order was dissolved the remainder were absorbed into other orders or went back into civilian life. Of course the claimed ties of the modern day Freemasons to the Templars are apparently purely legendary.

 

The point is that Brown did do some "research" and does use some historical fact. However, I put research in quotes because I question how much of the research he actually did compared to others that might have done it. I think he pulled a Hollywood, got a bunch of ideas, threw in a few historical facts, added a few explosion and guns, and came out with a book/movie.

 

His research seems to have consisted largely of reading conspiracy books and then adding to them out of his own imagination. That's fine, but then he comes in public and claims it's fact. Millions of fans believe him, and that's why you have a controversy.

[SkinWalker]

Skinwalker, the "Jesus myth" (theory that Jesus of Nazareth never existed) is advocated by a tiny minority of scholars (Price, Doherty, Carrier). Most historians accept the historical existence of the man, as he's as well attested as any ancient figure who was not an Emperor or other world leader would expect to be.

 

So assuming these fringe theorists know something that the vast majority of scholars (including non-religious scholars) don't is quite an assumption.

 

[...]

 

Anyway, the bloodline thing wouldn't necessarily prove anything about a "Jesus myth." If he's capable of miracles, he could have miraculous children too, couldn't he? Anything is possible, but historians don't deal in supernatural claims, so it's irrelevant.

 

Archaeologically speaking, Jesus didn't exist. Not one single artifact exists that can be attributed to him: no buttons from his clothes; no writings by him; no pottery created by him; not one single, measurable or weighable item. But that, in itself, isn't evidence that an individual named Jesus did not exist. It seems reasonable to me, even as an atheist, that a person named Jesus may have existed. Indeed, there may have been many named Jesus. One or more may have been a "teacher." It seems likely that there may even have been a cult leader that the Jesus myth is built off of. But there exists evidence that the myth that exists as Jesus was completely invented!

 

One thing that was very popular among prehistoric and proto-historic peoples of the Near East and Aegean/Mediterranean regions (as well as cultures everywhere, really) was hero worship and the borrowing of hero icons and deities of other cultures. There are analogs in the deities of Near Eastern cultures that match up to Greek gods and deities (and vice versa). One such example is the iconography of Aphrodite has which has its origins in Ishtar and Astarte of Near Eastern cultures. The Roman goddess Venus has her origin in the history of Aphrodite.

 

While there are many, many other examples of this borrowing (and by "borrowing," it has to be recognized that if such themes of modern literature were borrowed to such extent –accusations of plagiarism would ensue), I'll focus on one that is relevant to the topic.

 

Take this theme: a handsome young man in long hair and a beard that brings a new religion to the people; he's doubted by many and is alleged to be born of a mother who was a virgin and a father who was a god; he claims to bring salvation to the people and his followers are offered the opportunity to be "reborn" through baptism; he is slain but finds himself resurrected and his followers celebrate their salvation by eating his body and blood in the form of bread and wine; and his name means "the twice-born."

 

The deity described above isn't Jesus –its Dionysus, who first appears on Linear B tablets that date to 1700-1100 BCE. Dionysus is adopted by the Romans around 200 BCE as Bacchus. The deity is then adopted by Christians, so it would seem, at around the first few centuries CE. Interestingly enough, there was another culture that shares characteristics with the Dionysus deity: the Egyptian god Horus. Horus was worshiped thousands of years before the alleged time of Jesus and its alleged that the followers of Jesus "borrowed" from the Horus myth in creating their own Jesus version.

 

The foster father of Horus was Seb (Jo-Seph) and his mother was Meri, but was the sun of the god Osiris. His foster father's ancestry was of royal descent and ancient Egyptians were known to have reenacted the birth of Horus at a winter solstice festival where a manger containing a child was paraded through the streets. Witnesses of the birth were shepherds and three solar gods (perhaps they were wise gods?). Horus was baptized (as was Dionysus) by Anup the baptizer. Horus was slain by crucifixion, accompanied by two thieves, descended into hell and was resurrected 3 days later. Horus had 12 followers (ReligiousTolerance).

 

But let us not forget Buddha, who was born of the virgin Maya; or Krishna who was born of a chaste virgin. And so on. Many of the same similarities exist with each of these deities of man that were worshipped as gods long before the Jesus myth was created.

 

Sure, there are some points that can be quibbled about a given interpretation of one bit of iconography or another. Tekton Apologetics Ministries gives a treatment to each of these and more. Their motives are understandable, but their results are less than convincing.

 

Most of this I typed from my memory of the gods and iconography involved. Where I've used dates, I've also gone from memory, so if I'm off a bit I'm happy to accept correction. I used Wikipedia to provide ready places of information available to anyone that reads this thread, but I can recommend some academic sources in the way of archaeological texts should anyone request a more in-depth look. The one exception to the themes I wasn't completely familiar with and don't currently have access to primary sources for is the Horus analog to Jesus. That Religious Tolerance placed it on their website is meaningful, since they've been relatively objective in much of their information to date. I just haven't poured through enough Egyptian mythology as yet and cannot offer more than what is alleged. I know Horus had a core group of followers akin to aposltes, but I couldn't tell you where it's mentioned that there are 12, for instance.

 

 

References

 

Parallels between Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God.

Greek Mythology – Wikipedia

Dionysus – Wikipedia

Horus - Wikipedia

[Sigundr]

i haven't seen the movie, or read the book, but it all sounds like a load of **** to me. i mean, i don't even know what the friggin book is about, much less the plot. friends of mine at skol read it and say it's good but i dunnno. the basing the elements of the story on "factual" happenings kinda says something about what the author is writing. i mean, if he has to write in there "everthing in this book is based on Historical Events", then it's probably a load of monkey's.

[manoman81]

He said the thriller plot and characters were fiction (which is obvious to any sane person), it's the "historical background" which he claims is factual. He claims to believe it is accurate. I can post the interview quotes, video, etc if you really want me to...

 

That's ok. I've read enough of what he has said.

 

Well, accoring to Brown the Bible doesn't represent Jesus' teachings, since it was written by Constantine for political purposes, 300+ years after Jesus died. He claims Jesus' real teachings were suppressed and hidden, but can be found in the Gnostic writings and Dead Sea Scrolls (of course, the DSS have nothing to do with Jesus, and the Nag Hammadi writings were written much later than the New Testament writings and contain Gnostic theology, which Brown clearly does not understand).

 

Agree with 100%. However, with the advent of the Gospels of Judas, new ideas about that era are always refreshing thoughts and debates (still waiting to see if the G of J are officially real or not. Have my doubts).

 

Proof that miracles exist.

 

Meh, maybe.

 

I don't know about the book you're describing, but Peter Partner's "The Knights Templar and their Myth" comes recommended to me as a fine debunking of many of the conspiracy theories and legends about the Templars.

 

I'll have to look into that book. The only real reason why I mentioned the one I have is because Addison claims to be a KT. His portion was written in 1842. Childress did the intro in 1997 and revised it in 2001. Something tells me that there may be another revision due to DVC. Guess we'll have to see.

 

Apparently the Pope objected, but was forced to agree. Not that the ailing Pope could have done much to stop the King anyway. As far as their "possessions disappearing" I don't know about that. Does that imply they were hiding the secret "grail documents"? Sounds fishy to me, if that's the claim being made.

 

I've heard that too. There's so much interpretation of what actually happened that I think no one knows for sure if the Pope was forced or readily agreed. As for the possesions disappearing, I meant that everything that was in their domiciles were gone when the French troops showed up to arrest/capture the KTs. The KTs seemed to have disappeared like ninja the night before.

 

I thought the remaining Templars were absorbed into other orders. They weren't ALL murdered/tortured obviously, only the leaders and anyone who resisted. When the order was dissolved the remainder were absorbed into other orders or went back into civilian life. Of course the claimed ties of the modern day Freemasons to the Templars are apparently purely legendary.

 

Who honestly knows for sure? If you look back in history, there has been so much destruction of places that may have held archives or records of info that could answer the question of "where did they go?" I mean here in the US we still have the mystery of the colony at Roanoke, NC I believe. People were there, and then the next time a ship stopped, the whole colony was completely gone. From what I have read, what the KTs eventually began to believe in was similar to the Freemasons ideas (I haven't sat down and tried to research much of it though). Don't quote me on it though.

 

 

His research seems to have consisted largely of reading conspiracy books and then adding to them out of his own imagination. That's fine, but then he comes in public and claims it's fact. Millions of fans believe him, and that's why you have a controversy.

 

Again, fully agree with you. I did a semester long research paper on the movie Kingdom of Heaven last fall (which is what really got me interested in the Crusades and pre-renaissance mid-east, thus the KTs). I came to the conclusion that, if KoH is taken for what it is (a movie, thus entertainment), it's an ok movie. But if taken for historical fact, it is nearly completely wrong aside from a basic timeline. Taking the DVC for fact is a mistake and an insult to every historian that has done real research for the real facts about what happened in ancient times.

 

i haven't seen the movie, or read the book, but it all sounds like a load of **** to me. i mean, i don't even know what the friggin book is about, much less the plot. friends of mine at skol read it and say it's good but i dunnno. the basing the elements of the story on "factual" happenings kinda says something about what the author is writing. i mean, if he has to write in there "everthing in this book is based on Historical Events", then it's probably a load of monkey's.

 

If you haven't seen the movie or read the book, then what is your point of refernce?

 

@Skinwalker: Beware of Wikipedia But you bring up good points about how a person may or may not have existed according to archeologists. And I agree with on the borrowing of other religious ideas between cultures. Just look at what the Romans took from the Greeks.

[SkinWalker]

@Skinwalker: Beware of Wikipedia But you bring up good points about how a person may or may not have existed according to archeologists. And I agree with on the borrowing of other religious ideas between cultures.

 

Agreed, but the points I made -with exception to the reiteration of the Horus explanation on Religious Tolerance- I can back up through other, primary sources. I linked to the Wiki articles because they concurred and I have verified their veracity for your convenience. Should anyone wish another source -a primary source from peer-reviewed literature, I'll be happy to oblige.

[Kurgan]

Archaeologically speaking, Jesus didn't exist. Not one single artifact exists that can be attributed to him: no buttons from his clothes; no writings by him; no pottery created by him; not one single, measurable or weighable item. But that, in itself, isn't evidence that an individual named Jesus did not exist. It seems reasonable to me, even as an atheist, that a person named Jesus may have existed. Indeed, there may have been many named Jesus. One or more may have been a "teacher." It seems likely that there may even have been a cult leader that the Jesus myth is built off of.

 

Okay, you start off well here. Not letting polemic get in the way of facts, good.

 

I should say up front that I dislike the term "Jesus Myth" because to me a myth is a sacred story full of symbolism to teach a lesson about life. But a lot of people use "myth" to mean "deception" or "lie." What is commonly called the "Jesus Myth" is the belief by a small group of scholars (and a small, but dedicated following of non-scholars) that Jesus of Nazareth (or Yeshua bar Yosef, if you prefer) was not a historical person, but concocted whole cloth as an amalgamation of various pagan "savior" figures and legends. Similarly, the Christian religion itself is an amalgamation of religions pieced together (usually the "Mystery Cults" are blamed). Its primary "life" on the internet has been as a polemical tool by non-believers to use "against" Christianity, to say that their religion is based on a lie.

 

Unlike the DVC conspiracy, there are actually a few scholars who propose it is truthful, though they are few.

 

Of course it should be pointed out that this has nothing to do with proving the supernatural, since history doesn't deal in that, we're only dealing with claims and beliefs, where they may have originated and whole believed them, based on documentation or other evidence. Of course proving the historicity of a person of antiquity is also a bit of a trick. But you know that, I'm just setting up some more of that sort of thing to preface my comments.

 

But there exists evidence that the myth that exists as Jesus was completely invented!

 

Well, this should get interesting...

 

One thing that was very popular among prehistoric and proto-historic peoples of the Near East and Aegean/Mediterranean regions (as well as cultures everywhere, really) was hero worship and the borrowing of hero icons and deities of other cultures. There are analogs in the deities of Near Eastern cultures that match up to Greek gods and deities (and vice versa). One such example is the iconography of Aphrodite has which has its origins in Ishtar and Astarte of Near Eastern cultures. The Roman goddess Venus has her origin in the history of Aphrodite.

 

Fair enough, some "borrowing" did happen in the realm of religion, in history.

 

While there are many, many other examples of this borrowing (and by "borrowing," it has to be recognized that if such themes of modern literature were borrowed to such extent –accusations of plagiarism would ensue), I'll focus on one that is relevant to the topic.

 

Of course it is assumed by Jesus Mythers that evidence of borrowing in terms of Christianity refutes its validity as a religion (or at least that is how it is polemically used by its proponents). But I won't dwell on that, because let's face it, it's an appeal to motive. The truth of falsity of the theories claims don't rest on the beliefs (or lack of belief) on those using them or claiming them. Again, just wanted to preface a bit more.

 

Take this theme: a handsome young man in long hair and a beard that brings a new religion to the people; he's doubted by many and is alleged to be born of a mother who was a virgin and a father who was a god; he claims to bring salvation to the people and his followers are offered the opportunity to be "reborn" through baptism; he is slain but finds himself resurrected and his followers celebrate their salvation by eating his body and blood in the form of bread and wine; and his name means "the twice-born."

 

The deity described above isn't Jesus –its Dionysus, who first appears on Linear B tablets that date to 1700-1100 BCE. Dionysus is adopted by the Romans around 200 BCE as Bacchus. The deity is then adopted by Christians, so it would seem, at around the first few centuries CE.

 

Except portrayals of Jesus as a handsome bearded young man don't appear until many centuries later (unless you buy the "veil of Veronica" legend as historical, that would be about the 7th century). Christians associated Jesus with the "prophecies" of second Isaiah, and a passage like Isaiah 50:6 is probably where the idea that Jesus had a beard came from, of course it isn't so amazing to assume he had one, in those times.

 

As far as the "pagan convert theory" I would first point out that ReligiousTolerance.org is hardly a scholarly site. Their stated goal is to promote "tolerance" and that includes portraying multiple sides of an issue, and alternate viewpoints, quoting lots of people, regardless of the veracity of the things the different people are saying. Interestingly enough, the very page you quote (which is often quoted in "Jesus Myth" discussions I've found) itself contains a this passage:

 

Reactions of Egyptologists:

 

Ward Gasque, a volunteer book reviewer for Amazon.com surveyed twenty contemporary Egyptologists. He asked them about the origins of Jesus' name, the relationship between Horus and Jesus, whether both experienced a virgin birth, and whether the Egyptian religion considered Hourus to be an incarnation of God.

 

Ten responded, They agreed:

 

-Jesus' name is a Greek form of a very common Semitic name Jeshu'a, which is normally translated into English as Joshua.

 

-There is no evidence that Horus was born of a virgin, that he had twelve disciples, or that he was considered incarnation of God. 2

 

I'm assuming they meant this Ward Gasque, a theologian, also here, here, and

.

 

As far as the wiki pages are concerned, it's probably safer to quote the links they provide to check the sources, since the factual accuracy of some of those pages, especially on such a controversial topic, is often problematic, but you knew that.

 

Some articles on the subject:

 

Bruce Metzger Methodology In The Study Of The Mystery Religions and Early Christianity

 

An interesting page from Richard Carrier (himself a sympathetic Jesus Myther) points out the flaws in Kersey Graves' The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors

 

Bede.org's index of articles on the 'Jesus Myth'

 

See section on "Pagan Borrowing" (from "History Vs. the Da Vinci Code")

 

Sure, there are some points that can be quibbled about a given interpretation of one bit of iconography or another. Tekton Apologetics Ministries gives a treatment to each of these and more. Their motives are understandable, but their results are less than convincing.

 

According to whom, the fringe theorists who buy into the "Jesus Myth"? (or did you just mean in your own opinion)

 

Most of this I typed from my memory of the gods and iconography involved. Where I've used dates, I've also gone from memory, so if I'm off a bit I'm happy to accept correction. I used Wikipedia to provide ready places of information available to anyone that reads this thread, but I can recommend some academic sources in the way of archaeological texts should anyone request a more in-depth look. The one exception to the themes I wasn't completely familiar with and don't currently have access to primary sources for is the Horus analog to Jesus. That Religious Tolerance placed it on their website is meaningful, since they've been relatively objective in much of their information to date.

 

It would be good to have those scholarly sources, yes.

 

I'd contend that Jesus' teachings and beliefs about Jesus emerged out of the Hellenistic Jewish mileiu of the first centuries (Nickelsburg, Boyarin, Vermes). At least that seems evident from my studies thus far (admittedly, I'm only 1/3rd done with my masters, so I'm appealing to scholarly authority).

 

Since we're spiralling rapidly away from the Da Vinci Code, if you like we can split this off... I didn't originally intend to "Defend Christianity from All Comers", I only meant to post some educational material about the DVC for anyone interested, but thanks for the discussion anyway.

 

 

Time to hit the submit button before the computer eats this one... apologies for clutter!

 

Edit: Links fixed.

 

Looking back, I also shouldn't have referred to Earl Doherty as a "Scholar" as in fact he is apparently not qualified in any relevant field, but is merely another independent writer who was inspired by G.A. Wells, a german teacher who was one of the popularizers of the Jesus Myth theory in the modern era (who has since modified his views somewhat).