On a separate note, I can't wait to read Whitley's book about Jesus.
I am amazed you didn't hit him with the old Jo Atwill left hook that you frequently throw at unsuspecting guests venturing into the Jesus territory
.
When Whitley mentioned both the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, AND then the Turin shroud, he really peaked my interest.
As I have mentioned before on this forum (some time ago), I have listened with great interest to your episodes with Jo Atwill, and found them truly compelling. What Jo has found demands we re-examine the canonical Gospels and their authorship. I however, unlike you, do not take Atwill's remarkable findings to be the nail in the coffin for a historical Jesus.
The power of the Gnostic Gospels, their mystical instruction and implications move well beyond a purely political manipulation tool, and right into the extended consciousness realms. They impart powerful and intrinsically empowering truths that tantalise one with the notion that liberation from the injustices and sufferings of the world are achievable, and the path toward that destination is illumined. The path has the same essential paving stones as all the great paths, with love and truth being the cement without which such a path would crack and crumble.
Such a liberating teaching cannot merely be a device utilised by the Flavians and Josephus for the purposes of political control as Jo Atwill asserts, as it arguably would work against them in creating an uncontrollable group of independent people.
While the canonical Gospels in the new testament do put tremendous emphasis on love and truth, there is an underlying tone implied that accepting Jesus is the only real way to salvation - which is an obviously very useful political tool.
However, the Gnostic Gospels do not present Jesus in this light. Rather, the figure of Jesus is presented more as the lamp holder illuminating the path that we each must walk. It is the walking of the path that is the way to liberation, not the accepting of a creed or a person. Such a teaching creates an independent and confident group of souls who do not need an outside agency to guarantee their salvation, which would arguably make it virtually impossible to exercise political or any other control over such a group.
If the canonical Gospels were expertly authored either in part or completely by the Flavians, I could see how this might suit their ends. I would have a much harder time seeing how the Gnostic gospels could also have been a product of their goal of political domination in Judea, and my understanding is that they date back (archeologically speaking) to around the same time as the earliest canonical texts.
Could it be that two parallel Jesus myths but with vastly different political ramifications were authored by the same group for the same agenda?
Or could it be that there is some historical truth upon which both have been built, but by two different groups for two completely different outcomes? One perhaps for political control and subjugation of a people, and the other for their liberation along personal and spiritual dimensions?
Regardless of the Gospels, the shroud of Turin, as Whitley briefly asserted, is one of the most remarkable objects in human history, and really does present a powerful mystery surrounding the Jesus myth we are all so familiar with. The fuel for this mystery is not led by faith or belief, but the startling results of scientific inquiry which is what makes it so compelling.
It tells the story of a real person who must have undergone crucifixion, and has a clear and undubious photographic imprint of whoever this was (not some vague image that in the right light, if one squints enough, kinda looks like, maybe etc). It is all but impossible for modern science to come up with an explanation as to how such a detailed image was impressed upon the shroud. It is also very difficult to explain why the very clear image only shows up in the negative of a photograph (something medieval man, nor any man before that time could have fabricated), and wasn't discovered until the invention of photography.
The light (or whatever was responsible for the imprint the image) had to emanate from the body onto the cloth whose fibers were radioactively altered in such a way that paints or singeing, or any variation of methods medieval or ancient man might have had at their disposal can be ruled out.
It has 3 dimensional information encoded into it (which is highly unusual, but the science on this is quite complex and too difficult for me to condense by way of an explanation).
The thing really is an historical and scientific anomaly in the truest sense of the word. Whatever it is - whether the burial cloth of Jesus, or a forgery by some unknown master - it is one of the most perplexing mysteries one will ever engage with. But like with all mysteries, their secrets and implications only start to come to light with investigation. Many people think they know the shroud is forgery, or they think it is real without looking for themselves in any depth at the scientific work that has been done upon it, and in both cases this is a crying shame. The work is extensive and truly compelling.
I really would urge all those who think they know the shroud is a forgery or anything else about it, to look again at the scientific work. Only after that, can we have a discussion about what it might mean. It is incredibly challenging.
I mention all this here because my impression is that Alex seems to have filed the Jesus myth in the total fabrication drawer, and I have long felt this may be an unfortunate and premature conclusion to draw. It may actually be a total fabrication, but I for one don't yet feel that Jo Atwill has conclusively showed this from the compelling arguments he has presented.
All the above makes me wonder if there isn't a little, or probably quite a lot more to the story, and while I have a few interesting theories and many musings on what on earth happened with all this, I have no real idea. I do feel though that something remarkable is hidden in all this.
I am hoping Whitley's new book will be compelling enough to make people who think they know something about the story of Jesus to re examine their conclusions, myself included.
I also hope others will dig into it. It is utterly fascinating, and a total mindspin.
Thanks for reading all those that did.
