The antiquity and genealogy have been preserved in greater entirety than no others, except those of the Messiah, of which I do not speak, for it is not my business.
François Rabelais, Gargantua
Through the previous chapters we arrived at the idea of a ‘body of evidence’, in both senses, buried in the region of Rennes-le-Château. This body, according to the signs we have followed, is likely to be that of Mary Magdalene. The importance of this is heightened by a renewed understanding of what Mary was and what she means today, as set out in the previous chapter. Researchers are beginning to re-evaluate her place in New Testament history and what is emerging has the potential to instigate a fundamental shift in Christian belief. But there is a problem; the body of Mary Magdalene alone is not a sufficiently unique item to underpin the heresy that has grown up in this little region of France. Relics of Mary can be found in the basilica of Mary Magdalene in Vézelay and elsewhere, and so far these have failed to have any great impact on the world.
The body of evidence may certainly include Mary Magdalene’s corpse but there would need to be something even more convincing to trigger such a powerful change in belief. The only body that would undeniably challenge the dogma of the church would be that of Jesus himself. The corpse would need to be readily identifiable (from the scars or marks of the crucifixion), possibly mummified or uncorrupted. However, the body of Jesus should not exist at all in an earthly form as this would contradict the New Testament reports that he died on the cross, was resurrected on the third day, and ascended to heaven soon after (40 days later according to Acts 1.3).
Jesus’ death by crucifixion and his subsequent return to life are the two most important events in the gospel story and the cross is the prime Christian symbol of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection. The problem is: they may not have happened.
While researching The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Henry Lincoln received a letter from an English priest, a Reverend Bartlett. He claimed to have received information directly from his mentor, the theologian Canon Alfred Lilley, who had made a discovery at Saint-Sulpice in Paris. This is the same church that features heavily in Le Serpent Rouge. The letter informed the authors that, according to Canon Lilley, the secret of Rennes-le-Château was that Jesus had survived the crucifixion and that there was ‘incontrovertible proof that Jesus was alive in 45AD’. Lilley claimed that the documents he had examined were later relocated to the Vatican. Lincoln’s co-author, Michael Baigent, explores this letter extensively in his book The Jesus Papers. The Priory of Sion confirms that they believe this information to be correct.
The idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion is nothing new. An account of this can be found in the writings of early Christianity such as the Pistis Sophia and in other sacred texts. The Qur’an states:
‘Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa [Jesus] son of Mariam, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.’
(Surah 4, ‘The Woman’, 157)
Of course, if this was the case and either Jesus did survive the crucifixion or a substitution was made, this would have been recorded in the gospels. Here is what the gospels report:
‘And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.’ (Matthew 27.32)
‘And they compel one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.’ (Mark 15.21–25)
‘And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.’ (Luke 23.26)
It is worth noting that none of these descriptions mention the cross actually being returned to Jesus. The replacement of Jesus is but one possibility. There is also the issue that the man on the cross was not there long enough to die. To speed this process the Roman soldiers would break the legs and, unsupported, the prisoner would swiftly suffocate. But the Roman soldier chooses not to break the legs of Jesus, believing him to be already dead (John 19.33). If Jesus had been merely unconscious, this would have ensured that he survived. The gospels also tell us that Joseph of Arimathea ‘went in boldly unto Pilate and craved the body of Jesus’, pleading to bury it before sunset, the start of the Sabbath, as Jewish law required. Pilate is surprised that Jesus should be ‘already dead’ until a centurion confirms what Joseph says (Mark 15.42–45). Joseph ensures that the ‘body’ is taken to an empty tomb on his own private property.
Then there is the curious fact that the three women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome) went to anoint Jesus on the morning after the Sabbath. This is odd first because they could have gone the previous evening, immediately after sunset, when the Sabbath ended; and also because the anointing of a corpse normally took place before burial. But what if the ointment of ‘sweet spices’ (Mark 16.2) was not funereal but medicinal?
The fact of Jesus’ death on the cross seemingly went unchallenged until in 1947 a collection of texts were found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt that became known as the Nag Hammadi Library. They consist mainly of early Christian and Gnostic writings including a fascinating scripture called The Second Treatise of the Great Seth.
This text appears to be an account of the crucifixion as narrated by Jesus himself. If authentic it affords a radical new insight into the personality of Jesus. The first section is of the most interest to us (the extract is from The Nag Hammadi Library, edited James M. Robinson):
‘It was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.’
Although the evidence above would point to the crucifixion as not having happened there were a number of reasons for maintaining that the crucifixion itself was a fact.
If Jesus survived the crucifixion he would not have been able to stay in Judea. He had been condemned by the Roman authorities, others were beginning to recognize him, and rumours would have spread that he was still at large. What is seen now as a miracle, the moment when ‘Doubting’ Thomas the apostle touches the physical wound in the side of Jesus, can simply be seen as further evidence that Jesus survived the crucifixion. The flesh and blood still walked and talked, but naturally still bore the injuries of his ordeal. Stripped of its fantastic elements, it would seem that Jesus not so much ascended as absconded.
Following the reappearance of Jesus, Mary Magdalene also had to flee Judea in the company of Joseph of Arimathea. At the time of the crucifixion she stood at the foot of the cross in full view of the Roman soldiers while the other disciples hid and denied knowing Jesus.
The New Testament tells us that Jesus ascended into heaven to be received by heaven but it is more likely that he was smuggled out of Judea by Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea in order to avoid rearrest and re-execution – and the Romans would have made certain he did not survive a second time.
So did Jesus accompany Mary to a remote part of Gaul, to live out his last days and be buried near what is now Rennes-le-Château in the Languedoc? The altar painting at Rennes-le-Château church suggests that this was the case, with its depiction of Mary kneeling beside a grave in a setting that includes numerous local landmarks.
To discover that Jesus did not die on the cross does not detract from the importance of crucifixion as an image of self-sacrifice and liberation. Just as the seasonal death of nature in winter allows for the new life of spring, all the cycles of life, death and rebirth can be seen in the image of the crucified saviour and Jesus was by no means the first figure to illustrate this. The self-sacrifice of the priest-king for the good of the people is an important image in many mythologies, from Quetzalcoatl in Mesoamerica to Osiris in ancient Egypt. There are also numerous gods who were sacrificed and resurrected. Mithras, Tammuz, Baal and Orpheus feature in the cultures of Jesus’ time and region, and other examples include Odin in Norse myth and Vishnu in Hinduism.
The tradition of the crucified saviour is lodged in the collective unconscious as both a fundamental experience of nature and an archetype of psychological progression. It enacts the sacrifice of the individual ego to allow for a more spiritual way of life. Once it is understood as a symbolic act there is no need for Jesus actually to die in the drama that unfolded on Golgotha.
Another version of this ritual appears earlier in the life of Jesus in the ‘miracle of the raising of Lazarus’. In the gospels Jesus, the Son of God, raises Lazarus from the dead in the town of Bethany. This is a Christianized version of an old Egyptian initiation ritual in which Horus, son of the Egyptian god Ra, raises Osiris from the dead in the Beth of Anu. ‘Beth’ means house. The raising is re-enacted by the Freemasons in their third degree, which symbolizes the archetypal death and revival of nature as the Masonic candidate is laid out upon a tomb, blindfolded in symbolic death and raised by the hand to see the light of the world again and enter a ‘new life’.
If the death and resurrection of Jesus are seen to be mythological other stages of his life must also be reconsidered. Notable among these is the idea of the virgin birth.
Like the crucifixion, the virgin birth has its roots in many other traditions and may not have actually taken place. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip denies it:
‘Some say Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. They are in error, when did a woman ever conceive by another woman?’
The Gospel of Philip, along with the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas were among the Nag Hammadi Library. These documents have transformed scholarly understanding of the depth of meaning that Christianity had at its inception.
The beginning, like the end of the life of Jesus, can also be read in a different historic context. The story of how he was conceived by a divinity and born to a virgin is in no way unique to him. These traditions also predate Christianity and are attributed to numerous ‘chosen ones’ and heroes throughout the pagan world. It is likely that this attribute was grafted on to the story of Jesus to increase his appeal to pagan Gentiles, especially Greeks. Greek myth has many examples of gods fathering children on mortal women, and most of the great heroes were conceived in this way. Thus Perseus was the son of Zeus by Danaë, and Herakles was the son of Zeus by Alkmene. There are Babylonian precursors and the Persian Zoroaster was also described as being born of a virgin birth with semidivine origins some two thousand years prior to Jesus. Zoroastrianism is particularly interesting as some of its tenets found their way, via contemporary Judaism, into Christianity, such as the strands of dualism and the angelic hierarchy. Figures with divine parentage also abound in other cultures, such as the Buddha and Krishna.
The tradition of the coupling, and sometimes marriage, of a human with a God is termed the hieros gamos or holy marriage. This term is described in detail by Margaret Starbird in her books beginning with The Woman with the Alabaster Jar.
Arguments are sometimes raised that although these figures are divinely conceived only a few are described as ‘virgin births’ (or rather, virgin conceptions). It has long since been understood that the term ‘virgin’, translated from the Greek parthenos actually means ‘young woman of marriageable age’ so Mary was not necessarily also a virgin. However, the gospels are pretty clear that this was the intended sense (see page 219).
If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit descending into Mary, as the gospels of Matthew and Luke state, then without a natural father he had only a matriarchal lineage. This fact was only accepted as doctrine by the Roman Church as late as 325CE at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Jesus lived. The Church also subscribed to the view that Jesus’ royal line ended with his death (he died, as far as they were concerned, childless). This served to remove Jesus from the political milieu he was born into. By discounting his royal heritage the Roman Church was free to choose who ruled the Church instead of acknowledging the succession of priest-kings that had come before.
In the psychology of archetypes this relationship can be interpreted as the joining of sexuality and spirituality, intertwined like the two serpents on the staff of Hermes. Tantra is the Eastern manifestation of this phenomenon.
We are beginning to see a pattern here. Was the life of Jesus a collection of anecdotes distilled from earlier sources to make him look more important than he was? The more that the words, actions and events of the life of Jesus are found to be symbolic or to have their origins or precedents in earlier stories the less he becomes a person and the more an idea. But stripped of divinity and the virgin birth Jesus takes his proper historical place among his tribe. He becomes an heir to the throne of Israel.
If we dispense with the supernatural embellishments when considering a true historical background for Jesus we are left with the humble possibility that Joseph, the husband of Mary, actually fathered Jesus. Evidence of this exists in the New Testament in the form of genealogies:
‘Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph.’ (Luke 3.23)
‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ (John 1.45)
Other passages establish Joseph’s position in society at that time.
‘A virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.’ (Luke 1.27)
‘So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.’ (Luke 2.4)
While the first two are explicit about the natural fathering of Jesus (if we accept the words ‘so it was thought’ as a later interpolation), the latter two establish Joseph as a descendent of the royal line of David. Joseph’s son would have been eligible to claim the title of ‘King of Israel’ were it not for the fact that the land was under Roman occupation at the time.
The gospel of Matthew has a complete genealogy that traces Jesus back through Joseph to Abraham (Matt.1.1–17). The gospel of Luke has a complete genealogy back to Adam. Both Noah and Enoch are also included in this list (Luke 3.23–37):
‘Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.’
Note that Adam is described as the Son of God, a title that Jesus inherits through his lineage. With an established genealogy going back to King David and beyond Jesus becomes a very important political figure for his time. As rightful king he is in a position to instigate an uprising against Roman rule by claiming the throne of Israel. Later, it would be necessary for the Roman Church to maintain that the Davidic line had ended with Jesus’ death in order to protect the position of the emerging papacy.
By viewing the virgin birth, the crucifixion, miracles and the divinity of Jesus as symbolic we are left with a Jesus who was still an important political and spiritual figure during his time, but one who was entirely human, and an example of how to lead a good spiritual life that is attainable by anyone. However, there is one final falsehood to be removed. No longer beholden to a Church that claims to act in Jesus’ name, we can discard its final layer of mystification.
The New Testament provides some evidence that Jesus was married. For example, Mary Magdalene addresses Jesus as ‘rabbi’ (teacher) after the crucifixion. According to Jewish law at the time ‘rabbi’ was a title that could only be conferred upon married men.
There are also references in historical texts and in apocryphal scripture such as the Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Philip that identify Mary as having an intimate relationship with Jesus. Even The Golden Legend says:
‘And this is she, that same Mary Magdalene to whom our Lord gave so many great gifts. And showed so great signs of love, that he took from her seven devils. He embraced her all in his love, and made her right familiar with him.’
According to the Gospel of Philip,
‘The companion of the Son is Miriam of Magdala. The Teacher loved her more than all the disciples; he often kissed her.’
The Greek word taken to mean ‘companion’ is koinonia, a noun that can also be used to mean ‘intercourse’. From this we can ascertain that the companion of Jesus was intimate with him.
The Gospel of Philip only came to light in 1947 yet in the Languedoc the belief that Jesus and Mary were married has endured publicly for at least a thousand years and still exists today.
In the church of St Martin in the town of Limoux, just north of Rennes-le-Château, is a stained glass window depicting Jesus and Mary Magdalene standing side by side as a church elder administers the rite of marriage. The interior of this church is said by researcher Gérard Thome to have been funded by Father Henri Boudet from Rennes-les-Bains in the early 20th century. Boudet, as you will recall, was the mentor of Father Saunière in neighbouring Rennes-le-Château.
This is evidence that at least some Catholic priests in the Languedoc believe that Jesus and Mary were married, so while the Vatican may go to great lengths to dismiss any such notions as fabrication, the idea has some support even within the Church’s own ranks. This region is home to a heresy and has been so since the Middle Ages. Let us look once again at the Cathars.
The belief in the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was held by the Cathars, a heretical Gnostic sect that was so popular in the Languedoc region by the 13th century that Pope Innocent III decreed the Albigensian Crusade in order to destroy them. The Cathar faith had spread from Eastern Europe as far as England, but it was only in this region that its adherents upheld the belief in the marriage.
Evidence of this belief and many other important Cathar texts are collected in Heresies of the High Middle Ages by Wakefield and Evans (Columbia Press). They include An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian Heresies, an early 13th-century document that contains evidence against the Cathars compiled by the monk Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay. According to Peter, ‘they teach in their secret meetings that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Christ.’
The Cathars practised a form a dualism which, as the word suggests, emphasized the struggle between good and evil. They are also notable for their sense of equality, as they allowed women to become priests.
But why has this belief occurred both in the High Middle Ages among the Cathars and in the 20th century in the environs of Rennes-le-Château? What convinced devout Catholics to convert to a heretical belief that included the tenet that Jesus was married? The Priory of Sion has a clear answer: ‘The marriage of Jesus and Mary is recorded on stone tablets’.
The idea of stone records of the marriage also fits in with the rumour that the Cathars were, as Sion claims, ‘the custodians of a book of tablets or plates’ that contained an important teaching and ‘were subsequently relocated or hidden’.
These may be part of the underground temple near Rennes-le-Château or it is possible that they were placed in one of the two crypts in the church of Mary Magdalene sealed around the turn of the 20th century by its incumbent, Father Bérenger Saunière.
To convince devout Catholic priests that Jesus was married, the evidence would need to be overwhelming. At least the body of Mary Magdalene, along with stone tablets and relics associated with her wedding to Jesus would build toward an undeniable physical proof that this interpretation of Christianity was the correct one.
After the first Council of Nicaea in 325CE had decided that Jesus was God incarnate, links to his royal ancestry would have been suppressed. It was a decision made not by God but by people with a political interest.
It is worth noting that Nicaea did not determine that Jesus was only divine, simply that his divinity was identical with God. This was to counter the belief of Bishop Arius of Alexandria, who claimed that Christ was not fully God but the most exalted of God’s creations. Nicaea did not deny Christ’s human nature. The Church subsequently came to the view (still orthodox today) that Christ was both fully divine and fully human in the same ‘person’, a view expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity. The paradox was accepted as a divine ‘mystery’. That Christ was fully human was important because this showed that the resurrection of the body was open to all believers.
For Arius, ‘Son of God’ was a status akin to Enlightened One, a reward for making supreme progress in spiritually advancing toward God. What is of interest here is that Arius was probably influenced by the Gnostics of Egypt, and that the Visigoths – who ended up in the region of Rennes-le-Château – were followers of Arian Christianity, which the Roman Church took a long time to stamp out – if it ever did fully.
For his divinity to be accepted as dogma, any references to Jesus having a family of his own had to be removed from the canon of biblical texts. It is that simple – a few hundred years after he died, a group of men got together and decided that Jesus was fully divine, and over the next 1,600 years he became God incarnate to millions of people via that unquestioning, irrational function called faith.
It is worth remembering that there are people in the Vatican who know the truth. As Pope Pius X said, ‘this myth of Jesus has served us well’. But the myth is now under attack from many directions owing to the discovery of alternative scriptures and our ability to research the contradictions of the Bible for ourselves.
The Vatican, and all Christian constructs, can either remain entrenched in trying to uphold the myth, or accept the coming revolution of faith and support the transition of the congregation toward a less encumbered, more genuinely spiritual future.
And somewhere, excluded from the gospels, are the names of those who were said to be descended from Jesus. Since that time, despite the power of Christianity spreading across the globe, the tribe of Judah has continued to crown kings and attract many to its cause.