Zeitgeist, Part 1 Refuted

Nick Sandberg, 2008

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist, but I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus." - Bart D. Ehrman, December 2007.

Having heard about Zeitgeist in July 2007 from a friend, I checked out the movie on Google Video and was very impressed. I thought the film's creator, Peter Joseph, had done an admirable job of stringing together an assortment of "conspiracy" scenarios and had created a very convincing presentation. I was convinced. I bought several copies of the movie on DVD and handed then out to people I knew who were into the conspiracy scene. I showed the film at the community I help to run in Dorset, England. People were turned on to it. I won't give a synopsis of the film here as I'm assuming that anyone reading this will already be familiar with it.

About a month or so after first viewing, doubts started to arise in my mind. I'd been checking out some of the "anti-conspiracy" websites, growing in number online, and it was clear to me that Parts 2 and 3 of the movie were suspect. They presented one side of the picture, but did not include any of the opposing arguments. But what about Part 1, a tale of the supposed creation of orthodox Christianity? There didn't appear to be so much material covering this area. What there was seemed to consist of Christian apologetics, and academic and pseudo-academic debate on certain points the movie used to back-up its claims.

Having spent quite a lot of time earlier in my life being into both mysticism and conspiracy theories I felt drawn to research early Christianity for myself, and to look more deeply into the movie's claims. After a good few months reading books on the subject and discussing with others it became clear to me that Zeitgeist Part 1 was equally a con as the other parts and that the movie's creator had used the same technique to convince people he had in the other sections.

In a nutshell, he presents only evidence that corroborates his conclusion and completely ignores anything which does not agree with it. This is the technique of propaganda movies, and Zeitgeist is, in actuality, a stunningly good propaganda movie. It appears to present evidence from many sides, but in reality, it completely ignores many counter-viewpoints and evidence which does not support its conclusion. There is no attempt whatsoever to discover the truth of the situation, rather the intention is to compel the viewer to believe the version of events portrayed. When the movie has "slam-dunked" the viewer with "the truth" about Christianity, and they're disorientated and open, then it zaps them with "the truth" about 9/11, the Federal Reserve, and the rest of it.

As I see it the core contentions of Zeitgeist Part 1 may be summed up as follows...

that the story of Jesus is simply a astrotheological myth, recycled from antiquity

that Jesus is symbolically identical to many Messiah figures of old, notably the Egyptian God, Horus

and thus that it's fair to say that Jesus never existed and the Christian religion was cooked up by evil people at the 4th century Council of Nicaea for the purpose of social control

The movie presents a seemingly overwhelming case that this is true. However, what it does not inform you about is the evidence that opposes these notions. Here are the issues I have with the movie's conclusions...

There is astrotheology in the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels, no doubt about it. But it's limited. The bulk of these writings are not astrotheological in basis.
When considering whether astrotheology can be used to relate the concepts of specifically mystical Christianity there is immediately an issue. Astrotheological symbolism is inevitably cyclical and deterministic in nature. Everything goes around and around and it just happens by itself. Yet the bulk of mystical Christian belief, as found in the Gnostic Gospels, is not cyclical and where it's trying to take you does not simply happen without you raising a finger! Thus, to those who grasp a little of this material, it is clear that the symbols of astrotheology are largely unsuitable for the task of relating it. It's there, but it's application is limited.
In the New Testament and Gnostic Gospels there are a lot of the "sayings of Jesus." They're present pretty much everywhere and especially so in the Gospel of Thomas. What's significant about these sayings is that they are highly original, they are not philosophy, and they do have considerable mystical depth. The sayings do not articulate a philosophy, thus they do not relate to a system of symbols (as does astrotheology), rather they are questions given to the reader, the answering of which on a personal basis can allow a deepening of self-awareness. To me it's clear that these sayings are the work of a considerable spiritual master. If that person wasn't Jesus, then who was it?
We shall probably never know, with any degree of real certainty, whether Jesus actually did live or not. This is because of the degree of time between his recorded life and the emergence of writings claiming him as source, and also because of the lack of record of him at the purported actual time of his life. However, if Jesus did not live then one is left with explaining the considerable mystical, apostolic tradition that succeeded him. Many of the Gospels and other writings were written as though they were the creation of the original apostles, yet it is clear that they were written pseudonymously. However, this does little to diminish the considerable mystical wisdom and insight present in virtually all of the early Christian material. What caused the emergence of all these diverse mystical philosophies in his name, many of which were completely at odds with one another, if not the original presence of an authentic spiritual master who inspired them?
The claim in the movie that the orthodox Christians themselves created Christianity in the early centuries CE is known to be fallacious. What happened was that a multitude of schools of wisdom arose and one, which became orthodox Christianity, achieved dominance, finally obliterating all the others. See the work of Pagels, Ehrman and other scholars for further discussion of this.

I've been on the forums of both Dorothy Murdock, the principle writer who Zeitgeist Pt 1 sources, and Jan Irvin, a staunch supporter of hers, and neither will discuss the issues above. Those who support Murdock's work have only one riposte to anyone who challenges it - you must read more! I'm now barred from these forums (!) but am very happy to discuss these issues further with anyone who has information to give me.

I don't know whether Jesus lived or not, and not being into Christianity it doesn't so much bother me. But I do know that Zeitgeist is propaganda. By immersing the viewer in only one perspective, and studiously ignoring all others, the illusion is created that "this is how it is."

For those interested there are some great books on early Christianity by authors such as Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels.

Nick

You are visitor number 329 since June 2008