|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 5:54:32 GMT -1
I have posted a review of the above on the website of the author, Dennis Price, www.eternalidol.com/, and reproduce it here..... As someone not from an academic background, and also not being Christian too, my decision to purchase this book may, on the face of it, appear to be a strange choice. My primary interest in this was not to judge the case for the historical (or not) figure of Jesus, but more to do with the case for the possible migration of peoples in the early years around or just after the birth of Jesus. This period in time holds some fascination for me and to get the chance to read and evaluate the material presented by someone with the obvious background and resources of Dennis Price was too good a chance to pass by. It would appear to me, as someone who places himself outside the sphere of Christianity, that the years between the ages of 12 and 30 would, in the vast majority of cases, be the most influential period in forming frames of references that would guide an individual through the rest of their lives. For these figurative years to be missing from the recorded history of an individual whose influence directly interacts with a third of the entire planet’s population, would at best, appear to be an oversight of gigantic proportions, or at worst, poor judgment or a deliberate omission. When we consider that the current bible consists of four gospels and the fact that it is speculated that it originally may have contained over 40 such gospels, one may speculate if these formative years may have been discussed or revealed in more detail elsewhere. The fact remains, however, that this omission has not been dealt with in any meaningful way, and as such, is suitable for a serious attempt at speculation. Establishing the conditions of living around the time of the subject’s formative years is, in my opinion, a good basis from which to start to form some sort of framework with which to demonstrate how these conditions may influence the thought patterns and subsequent actions of any one individual. This is probably the major strength of this piece of work, as the archaeology provides us with some demonstrable facts with which to base our speculation. As to the human aspect of Jesus based upon the writings of the bible, Dennis’s speculations are consistent, though for me not convincing. His assertions about the possible motives of someone of middle eastern descent wanting to visit Britain would appear to be plausible, and as such, the possible actions required to achieve these motives would appear to be entirely reasonable. As someone who fundamentally suspects that a lot of folklore is based around some aspect of fact, the amount of material available relating Jesus to Britain, is of a volume that one would suspect, to be significant. I found this to be both a fascinating, though not entirely convincing, attempt to broach a subject strangely passed over by the ecclesiastical authorities. As such, I would recommend it for both individuals with an interest in this particular period of history, and for any open minded person to consider this “missing” formative period in the life of Jesus. RR |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 8:10:07 GMT -1
Good Lord....
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 4, 2009 10:28:25 GMT -1
Jesus comes to spread the word of god to the britons who are entirely polytheistic at this point?
im sure a convincing case cold be made for just about country on the planet with the "evidence"
|
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Dec 4, 2009 10:57:34 GMT -1
There's a large Catholic body of non-canonical church tradition about several trips by Jesus to Britain. Of course this lore was 'missed' by good decent protestant Victorian 'investigators' who wrote the current popular British map for this sort of thing.
Glastonbury and Wearyall Hill? - every good Catholic knows the early visit of Jesus and Joseph, and later return of Joseph of Arimathea, was actually to the Wirral.
The heretical doctrine of the Assumption of Our Lady (papal infallibility my arse!) can easily be dismissed as her last years were spent and final earthly resting place is on Anglesey!
If you need some cash from pilgrims it's a perfect ruse. The relic of a saint can be lost - either theft or church hierarchy demanding its presence elsewhere. The footsteps of our Saviour or the Queen of Heaven though are harder to lose...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Dec 4, 2009 12:25:45 GMT -1
if Jesus came to Brittania, is was when he was younger, and not yet a preacher, so he wouldn't have been "spreading ye word of God". I think its rubbish, when did this idea surface? Not during the age of saints, or they would have been shouting it from the rooftops. I smell medieval frippery
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 14:43:05 GMT -1
Yes, it is, of course, bollocks historically: the idea that a historical truth about the most important figure in all of western culture survived in folklore from the 20's AD invisibly only to pop up again in the 1700s is just ridiculous. (Next bulletin from Christian legend: Vanessa Feltz revealed to be the Wandering Jew!)
The legend of Joseph of Arimathea coming to Britain is first found in the 9th century; the variant version of the legend according to which the boy Jesus accompanied him becomes popular in the Romantic period, but not before, to my knowledge---the Joseph legend was used in protestant pamphlets during the Reformation to argue that the 'Church of England' was in a sense directly founded by a disciple of Christ, and had never truly been subject to Rome. If the legend that Jesus himself had visited Britain was known, these fearsome reformists surely would have used it for propaganda purposes!
I think taking the line that folklore tends to have some grain of truth, though tempting, is probably extremely unwise, and crucially underestimates the difficulties inherent in the material. Oral tradition tends to be eclectic, reactive, and inventive: it changes with social conditions and cultural changes, responding creatively to the demands of new situations. As such it is profoundly unreliable. (Hutton is good on this in 'Pagan Religions', pp. 325ff, and especially pp. 137-8 which gives a very salutary warning about over-credulity as regards the unchanging 'truthfulness' of folklore and legend.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Dec 4, 2009 16:04:20 GMT -1
reminds me exactly of the "Arthur" grave at Glastonbury Abbey, which turns out to have been a money-making scam by the monks
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 16:38:22 GMT -1
Jesus comes to spread the word of god to the britons who are entirely polytheistic at this point? Wrong, this has piss all to do with evangelizing. im sure a convincing case cold be made for just about country on the planet with the "evidence" The book is written as speculation attempting to use both archaelogical and written records to create some sort of framework. For that, IMO, it is to be applauded, even though I personally have major doubts as to whether such a thing happened. If you actually read my opening statement, I was more interested in Dennis's information or theories about life around 2000 years ago than the historical (or not) Jesus, who for me is an irrelevant side issue. RR |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 16:41:11 GMT -1
There's a large Catholic body of non-canonical church tradition about several trips by Jesus to Britain. Of course this lore was 'missed' by good decent protestant Victorian 'investigators' who wrote the current popular British map for this sort of thing. Glastonbury and Wearyall Hill? - every good Catholic knows the early visit of Jesus and Joseph, and later return of Joseph of Arimathea, was actually to the Wirral. The heretical doctrine of the Assumption of Our Lady (papal infallibility my arse!) can easily be dismissed as her last years were spent and final earthly resting place is on Anglesey! If you need some cash from pilgrims it's a perfect ruse. The relic of a saint can be lost - either theft or church hierarchy demanding its presence elsewhere. The footsteps of our Saviour or the Queen of Heaven though are harder to lose... Do you consider this book to be no more than an exercise in tourist propaganda? (I assume you haven't read it? Or maybe you have?) RR |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 16:47:58 GMT -1
The legend of Joseph of Arimathea coming to Britain is first found in the 9th century; Non academic ignorance here, but would that be from Gildas? I think taking the line that folklore tends to have some grain of truth, though tempting, is probably extremely unwise, and crucially underestimates the difficulties inherent in the material. Oral tradition tends to be eclectic, reactive, and inventive: it changes with social conditions and cultural changes, responding creatively to the demands of new situations. As such it is profoundly unreliable. (Hutton is good on this in 'Pagan Religions', pp. 325ff, and especially pp. 137-8 which gives a very salutary warning about over-credulity as regards the unchanging 'truthfulness' of folklore and legend.) So, therefore, the origin of these myths although now lost, don't have any basis whatsoever in any facet of truth or fact, because of the nature of humanity changing the framework to suit the current understanding? RR |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 16:52:07 GMT -1
I don't see what the point of speculation or the making of a 'framewhork' based on no evidence is: there are no written records of this supposed event of any historical value. Yes, of course there was a tin-trade; but there's no evidence that the historical Joseph of Arimathea---if he existed, and there's no particular reason to think he didn't---was involved in it. That nutter Gordon Strachan's just brought out a book about it all---Jesus was taught by druids, doncherknow!
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 17:00:16 GMT -1
The legend of Joseph of Arimathea coming to Britain is first found in the 9th century; Non academic ignorance here, but would that be from Gildas? Nope, gildas is 6th century---it's actually Rhabanus, a Benedictine and archbishop of Mainz. I think taking the line that folklore tends to have some grain of truth, though tempting, is probably extremely unwise, and crucially underestimates the difficulties inherent in the material. Oral tradition tends to be eclectic, reactive, and inventive: it changes with social conditions and cultural changes, responding creatively to the demands of new situations. As such it is profoundly unreliable. (Hutton is good on this in 'Pagan Religions', pp. 325ff, and especially pp. 137-8 which gives a very salutary warning about over-credulity as regards the unchanging 'truthfulness' of folklore and legend.) So, therefore, the origin of these myths although now lost, don't have any basis whatsoever in any facet of truth or fact, because of the nature of humanity changing the framework to suit the current understanding? RR[/quote] No, it's simpler than that: people just make things up. There is no necessity for there to be a original 'grain' of truth about which the oyster of history can form the pearl of legend (!). People alter, invent, or revive inherited stories to have contemporary relevance for them, and according to 'fashion' too (20th century crazes for alien abduction stories and 'little green men' caused the revival of William of Malmesbury's story of the Green Children of Woolpit, for example, so that they are now on the village sign!) |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 17:09:12 GMT -1
I don't see what the point of speculation or the making of a 'framewhork' based on no evidence is: Seeing as, I presume, you haven't read the book, how can you qualify this statement? It's like the statement "I haven't read the book, but...." . Let me clarify a few things here. I have read the book. It raises some interesting ideas, however, I find it disturbing that people here regard the idea that it's all bollocks because of the title or some other predetermined attitudes that indicate that only "certain" individuals deserve any sort of respect to be rather shortsighted. I haven't gone into any specifics so how can anyone form an opinion without reading the material? RR |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 17:34:55 GMT -1
Because I'm a medievalist who's familiar with the available sources and attestations of this legend (because my work is especially concerned with Christian apocrypha), as well as with the uses to which it was put in the early modern material, and because you have provided a description of the book's methodology, and because I have looked at some detailed reviews. If the latter are anywhere close to being accurate descriptions of the book, then I find it all completely barking. That's how!
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 17:47:13 GMT -1
The reason for the question about Gildas is that it is claimed that the description Gildas uses of the "holy precepts of Christ" places the establishment of christianity in Britain as early AD38. Is there any basis for this?
RR
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 17:57:15 GMT -1
Because I'm a medievalist who's familiar with the available sources and attestations of this legend (because my work is especially concerned with Christian apocrypha), as well as with the uses to which it was put in the early modern material, and because you have provided a description of the book's methodology, and because I have looked at some detailed reviews. If the latter are anywhere close to being accurate descriptions of the book, then I find it all completely barking. That's how! I'm not doubting any of this, but you have to remember that some of us may not have had academic or particularily religious upbringings or backgrounds with which to better understand the nuances of what you or some of the others write. I left school at 16 without a certificate of education, so pissed off was I with the academic system, so in the eyes of academia, I am a non descript. To paraphrase someone here, Bovvered? The only thing I have that is representative, of sorts, of my intelligence is the certified IQ rating supplied by MENSA when I paid for and sat their supervised IQ tests in the early 1990's. To see nothing but negativity pointed at these, and other, posts indicates to me entrenched positions. RR |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 18:10:12 GMT -1
Erm---how you feel about your education, or how I feel about mine, has nothing to do with the logic or evidence for a historical proposition in a book, which stands or falls on its own merits: which is a) is there a case to answer about this issue? (in my 'entrenched' opinion, no); b) what is the nature of the sources in their context? Can they be used to yield answers to the case? (No.)
You've reacted as though I've called you thick, which I haven't and wouldn't for the plain reason that it's perfectly obvious you're a highly intelligent man. Nevertheless, I think the arguments on which this book is based---if your account of it and that of the reviews I have read is accurate---is rubbish. That's not an 'entrenched position': it arises from knowing the material and spending my life teaching it. The author may say very true and valid things about the tin industry in pre-Roman Cornwall, or make apparently learned references to William of Malmesbury or Gildas or Blake; it doesn't change the fact, again in my opinion, that the whole argument is fundamentally misconceived.
Where was Jesus during the missing years? Why are they not in the Gospels?
Answer (of all reputable New Testament scholars): in galilee. He may well have been studying: scholars who have worked to uncover the 'Jewish jesus' have shown that the figure we see in the gospels has a great deal in common with a number of groups active in the area, including the Essenes, but also--unexpectedly---with the pharisees. He is clearly deeply steeped in Torah: in this connection it may be relevant that the word normally rendered 'carpenter' in English (tekton in the Greek) may be a mistranslation: the Aramaic word for carpenter or craftsman was naggar, and this was in fact a common idiom for 'scholar, learned man'. The use of tekton may well be an attempt to translate this Aramaic idiom, Aramaic being Jesus' mother tongue. So Mark (the earliest of the Gospel writers) may well not have intended to make us think of Jesus toiling with saw and plane: but rather as one learned in Jewish Law, which he may well have spent his twenties studying. This is consistent with his sayings (or those likely to be authentic) in which he makes learned allusions to the biblical text all the time. (Geza Vermes is the great scholar on this btw.)
Why are these years not mentioned in the Gospels? Answer: because the Gospels are not biographies, intent on giving us a full 'Life of Jesus'; it's just not what the writers are interested in. Mark in particular (the earliest) starts with John the Baptist and only Matthew and Luke give us infancy narratives. Mark even stops (probably) before the Resurrection! (Mark 16 9-20 are agreed to be a later addition.)
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Dec 4, 2009 18:14:50 GMT -1
The reason for the question about Gildas is that it is claimed that the description Gildas uses of the "holy precepts of Christ" places the establishment of christianity in Britain as early AD38. Is there any basis for this? RR Improbable, if not impossible; the later 2nd century is probably nearer the mark. (Gildas is not a historian in the sense than a modern historian is: modern scientific history didn't really begin untill the 16th century! When G. tells us something, that tells us what Gildas thought when he wrote. It doesn't necessarily tell us what actually happened: the historian would assume that he was likely to be accurately informed about events close to him in time and place, which is why we can use him as evidence for 6th century britain; but as evidence for the events of five hundred years before?!! Not a chance. Taking a wide variety of disparate sources without really thinking about their context, the education of their writers, their location, their perspective, and their purpose in writing is a classic mistake of the new age or pagan would-be historian, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 4, 2009 18:31:44 GMT -1
Nevertheless, I think the arguments on which this book is based---if your account of it and that of the reviews I have read is accurate---is rubbish. That's not an 'entrenched position': it arises from knowing the material and spending my life teaching it. I hold your opinions and knowledge very highly, I am just a little disappointed with some of the implications of the sweeping statements made, not necessarily from you. I was hoping to raise a series of points from this book for the discussion of our forum here, but I am left wondering if this would meet any productive purpose if "bollocks" would be the stock answer. RR |
|
