Who started the Jesus' little Kid Myth?
Ok, I finished 'The Widow's Son' by RAW, and enjoyed it a great deal. I hate to give it away but, for the sake of the discussion, I will reveal who is the 'Widow's Son'. Of course, in Freemasonry, the 'Widow's Son' is Hiram Abiff. But, then again, we are told that all is allegory and symbol and even this drama has parallels to other mythological figures.
In the book, near the end, the 'Widow's Son' is revealed as the son of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. This is all based on the simple observation that since Jesus Christ was a Rabbi then, logically speaking, he would have to be married. It has been suggested that the wedding where Jesus turns water into wine was, in fact, his own.
None of this interests me all that much. I have no particular investment in any of the Christ myths and I make very few assertions about any hypothetical 'historical Jesus'. I suspect a man did live, once a long time ago, who's life led to the mythology we have inherited over time. I can say very little, in fact extremely little, about him as a historical person at any particular point in time and space.
The history of it isn't really the issue. We don't have a time machine and we lack any kind of verifiable historical record that would lead us to any firm conclusions. I have no particular emotional investment in *any* Jesus Christ mythology.
What interests me, in particular, is the evolution of this new mythology about Jesus Christ having been married, had a child, and that child was protected, and the bloodline of Christ in turn, protected by various secret societies in history. And, how this got wound up in the graal myth and the mythology of the Knights Templar.
Of course we all know this nowaday's because of 'The DaVinci Code', but even it is just rehashing some much older tales. In 'The Widow's Son' RAW makes hundreds of references to 'The Holy Blood and Holy Grail' by Baigent and Leigh.
The question must be, then, did Baigent and Leigh invent this myth themselves out of whole cloth, or can we trace it back further than that?
This has nothing to do with what is, or is not, true historically. That is irrelevant and can never be proven anyway. What we can explore, however, is how this myth came to be born and promoted in our culture. How far back does it go? When did it start? Who started it?
It reminds me an awful lot of Roswell. Maybe it just goes back to Baigent and Leigh and no further. They came up with the wacky idea on their own, wrote the book, and everyone else loved the mythology so much they incorporated it into their own fiction.
I have always wondered about this point, if you actually beleived the bloodline of Christ had been preserved then why even care? What does it matter?
I mean, if a guy with the bloodline of Christ showed up, replete with documentation, I can see him doing David Letterman and Jay Leno for a week or two, but after that, unless he can pull some serious miracles out of the air, I don't think this character would draw many followers.
Can any of you trace this specific mythology prior to the Baigent and Leigh book? Is there any reason to promolugate it other than, apparently, it sells a lot of fiction?
Comments
i was never allowed my spiritual peace at home. it is through the work of robert anton wilson and others that i have found a voice that i needed when i was younger.
Yes, the most interesting part of HBHG is their speculation about Jesus's life, but the book and its sequel does present their research. I don't believe they cut the story of the marriage from whole cloth.
There are numerous paintings, including one by a friend of Da Vinci, showing a pregnant Mary Magdalene. The bloodline story may be a myth, but it isn't a modern one.
Widow's Son
The Burning Taper
People are hungry for something spiritually, and they'll bite at all most anything that promises something different, some kind of "rush" that few of us feel for life anymore. People practically worshipped Princess Diana, JFK, Jr., and countless celebrities. Imagine if a true celeb could also be a modern-day "savior."
People would buy it.
A funny thing about "begats," though, is that you only have to go back 40 generations or so and nearly EVERYONE who ever had progeny is EVERYONE's ancestor. Such is the binary nature of it taking two to co-mingle to make a baby.
So — a heretical truth would emerge if Jesus in fact DID sire children: We are ALL God's children! Or... we are all GODS.
Widow's Son
The Burning Taper
Yes, of course I have read Baigent and Leigh. I am afraid that it just sounds like they allowed themselves to be scammed by Plantard. It worked out well for them.
I see no more evidence for this particular mythology than any other.
I certianly don't buy the idea that some completely human ancestor removed from Jesus Christ by generations upon generation would have an particular meaning to anyone.
First of all, no one would believe the 'evidence'. That's to begin with.
Second of all, there could be no 'legal claims' from some ancient descendent. Are you suggesting any of us can sue the Vatican because our ancestor may have been molested by the inquisition?
I remain highly skepetical of all of these mythologies. I don't treat any of them as 'real', or even very effective models for th at matter.
I am, however, quite interested in how these mythologies come into being and are promoted in our culture.
Keep your local news tuned and don't expect your copy back.
I think some of their argurments resonate though. Why does a small village proclaim that Mary was there. Why were the Cathers slaughtered, and the Templers, what did they find, and why did the Pope let them be slaughtered?
All interesting questiosn, but???
I think the bigger picture here is that it presents Jesus as being more of a "normal" guy, not a water walking dead raising dude of ancient texts, but instead a direct earthly lineage of David human guy, given divine status.
to me, it changes the perspective of who God is, and who we worship.
And somewhere in there Freemasonry evolved. With all of our secrets, we just forgot where.
Very well spoken, and your comments match my sentiments exactly. Interesting, yeah, but hardly definitive.
John