When I was in college, Dan Brown introduced his controversial book, The Da Vinci Code. What made the book especially notorious was the introduction of an alternative history about Jesus Christ radically different from what the Catholic Church has maintained.
In the book, it is "revealed" that Jesus Christ fathered a child, through Mary Magdalene, and thus a lineage had formed, out of which, a descendant shall rise and rule the world.
To this theory, I. Howard Marshall, a well-known theologian, had this to say in his book, I Believe In The Historical Jesus:
On Saturday, 16th November, 1996, the Daily Mail began a serialized article based on a book called The Holy Grail by Laurence Gardner, which was introduced as follows:
A new book claims that Jesus, far from being a meek religious martyr, was a revolutionary politician who faked his own death, married Mary Magdalene and fathered three children by her, starting a bloodline which carries down to the present day...
The introduction surprisingly went on to say 'Committed Christians will justifiably reject its conclusions'! However, you do not need to be a Christian, but simply a historical scholar committed to the impartial weighing of evidence, to see that much of what is said here about Jesus is a tissue of unsubstantiated conjecture.
Indeed, as Mr. Marshall had argued in his book, much of the emergent portraits of Jesus which have somehow found itself into mainstream culture are purely sensational at best. Although he is quick to admit that, yes, historians can reliably work on only a small, meager set of historical evidence detailing Jesus' life and ministry, we do "have good grounds for affirming the possibility of researching the Jesus-tradition and establishing many historical facts about his life and teaching."
Thus, any alternative interpretation of Jesus' life must be weighed against premises clearly grounded on historical fact for it to be judged as plausible.
In the book, it is "revealed" that Jesus Christ fathered a child, through Mary Magdalene, and thus a lineage had formed, out of which, a descendant shall rise and rule the world.
To this theory, I. Howard Marshall, a well-known theologian, had this to say in his book, I Believe In The Historical Jesus:
On Saturday, 16th November, 1996, the Daily Mail began a serialized article based on a book called The Holy Grail by Laurence Gardner, which was introduced as follows:
A new book claims that Jesus, far from being a meek religious martyr, was a revolutionary politician who faked his own death, married Mary Magdalene and fathered three children by her, starting a bloodline which carries down to the present day...
The introduction surprisingly went on to say 'Committed Christians will justifiably reject its conclusions'! However, you do not need to be a Christian, but simply a historical scholar committed to the impartial weighing of evidence, to see that much of what is said here about Jesus is a tissue of unsubstantiated conjecture.
Indeed, as Mr. Marshall had argued in his book, much of the emergent portraits of Jesus which have somehow found itself into mainstream culture are purely sensational at best. Although he is quick to admit that, yes, historians can reliably work on only a small, meager set of historical evidence detailing Jesus' life and ministry, we do "have good grounds for affirming the possibility of researching the Jesus-tradition and establishing many historical facts about his life and teaching."
Thus, any alternative interpretation of Jesus' life must be weighed against premises clearly grounded on historical fact for it to be judged as plausible.
1 comment:
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض
شركة مكافحة حشرات
شركة تنظيف خزانات
Post a Comment