In this article, the Indian writer Venkat hits the bull's eye several other times in regard to the gospel tale, as found in the New Testament. For example, that the gospel writers are not familiar with Palestine and not expert in the Hebrew language is factual--and highly significant in that it demonstrates that the gospel writers were not "eyewitnesses" to the purported events. Venkat's timeline of biblical chronology placing the emergence of the gospels at the end of the second century is surprisingly accurate and goes firmly against the tide, even with my fellow Jesus mythicists, despite the fact that all the evidence points to such an assertion. Without having read my books The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God, Venkat has managed to put together several of the most germane points found therein, which demonstrates that the picture painted of the New Testament representing fiction is both obvious and reasonably factual.
Now, here's where knowing my work would come in handy: The part about the flowing locks of Jesus being a later addition to the Christian tradition. Early images do depict Jesus with short, light hair, much like a Greek god. That the locks were not fashionable until Hadrian is useful information, as is knowing comparative mythology, in that the pre-Christian Greek healing god Aesclepius--called "Iasios," "Iesios," or Jason/Jesus, which means "savior"--had long, curly black hair, as did the very popular Greco-Egyptian god Serapis. As we also know, the "Jewish hero" Samson, in reality a sun god, also had long locks, which were shorn by the moon goddess Delilah. Importantly, I do not concur with Venkat that Christ is the first god who was created in the image of man, as all personified gods and goddesses are made in the image of their creator, i.e., man.
As concerns Venkat's remarks designed to disprove that the crucifixion account was an early theme in Christian mythology, the early Christian writer Minucius Felix's comments could be understood that Christians do not worship a criminal, not that they do not worship a man on a cross. The fact that Felix is addressing the crucifixion image at all--by saying that Romans themselves worship a god on a cross--would indicate that it was fashionable, in oral and literary tradition at least, to depict Jesus has having been crucified. That the human sacrifice/scapegoat ritual was popular and certainly being emulated in the gospel tale is true, as is that the Gnostic writings depict a crucifixion in the clouds that is purely symbolic. Whether or not the Gnostics actually practiced such a crucifixion on earth I do not know, but certainly proxies of God or a god were killed all over the Mediterranean and elsewhere for centuries and millennia in such scapegoat rituals.
In attempting to date the emergence of the Gnostic literature, Venkat cites the New Testament villain "Simon Magus" as having lived during the reign of Claudius. It is my contention that Simon Magus is not a "historical" person either but a composite of either the ancient Samaritan gods "Saman" and "Maga" or of the epithets of the one "Canaanite" god. It is my further contention that the reason the story was told by "Christians" (Gnostics) was in order to demote this popular Samaritan god under the new Christos.
Moreover, the motif of the woman wiping the feet of the anointed god is straight out of Egyptian mythology--and here is also where my work (and especially that of Massey) would have been useful. In Egyptian mythology, the soli-lunar god Osiris's feet are wiped with the hair of a goddess, Hathor-Meri. This is an important point, as it seems to be the linchpin of the claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were "married."
The god having sex with one or more priestess or proxy for the goddess is likewise a common theme, so I am not surprised to see it within Christianity, although I did not know about this specific text Genna Marias that Venkat mentions. It was common in ancient times for priests to tell the tall tale when a sacred harlot got knocked up that the fecundation had been by a god. Thus, there were many such "immaculate conceptions." (And an appalling amount of babies tossed into ponds near nunneries, in the Christian era as well.)
All in all, well done. And the point is well taken that the Gospel fable is no less fictional than the Da Vinci Code and hence deserves a similar disclaimer.
Silencing The Da Vinci Code
By Kalavai Venkat
Christian groups want The Da Vinci Code banned. A pliant Censor Board of India insists on a disclaimer at the beginning and end saying the film is "a work of pure fiction and has no correspondence to historical facts of the Christian religion." The Censor Board did not insist on any such disclaimer when Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, with its vividly anti-Semitic libels, was released. So, the Censor Board considers the story the Christian Bible peddles as historically accurate, and Dan Brown's story as a fiction. For either version of the Jesus story to be true or false, there must be historical evidence that Jesus existed. As Professor G. A. Wells demonstrates, there is none. Historians of that period have recorded events in detail, yet they are unaware of Jesus Christ, who remains an elusive and shadowy figure.