Ah, Schonfield, he received much criticism in his time, partly, i think, due to the fact that he was of the Hebrew faith. Yet, he wrote nothing that was offensive, and did not question the divinity of jesus. in fact, schonfield made it clear that his proposition was that whether or not jesus believed himself to be divine, jesus believed himself to be needed at that time, hence the idea that he made preparations to make himself appear divine. this is an important distinction.
i have not read the jesus papers, alas, i have not read much lately, however, i do seem to recall reading a news article in the late 70's regarding the shroud being produced with photographic chemicals [?] and the little furor that the article created because mainstream scientists agreed with the findings.
i remember being somewhat taken aback, however, that someone would bother to create a hoax about so obscure an item. to what end?
indeed, the only reason the possibilities encountered in alternative history studies are interesting, is because the side with the biggest sword usually writes mainstream history. i marvel at the thought of how much history has actually been lost.
what intrigues me the most is the idea of history itself, and how is comprised of what are basically, stories told by people, stories that may be true or not.
there is an old navajo saying, "that story may not be true, but it is real."
my current interest is the "paradise lost" idea, the kind of story that has a version in almost all cultures: humanity lived in a paradise, but then "fell" and was cast out of paradise.
the one "explanation" that i am currently studying involves the whole tigris, euphrates river delta as the possible birthplace of agriculture.
i'm beginning to wander...
