No, I don’t mean the Kennedys, and I sure as hell am not talking about First Knight or any other Arthurian based schlock that Hollywood has put out over the last 60 years or so. I mean the real Arthur Pendragon. Many of you may say he doesn’t exist, and even more would agree. But I want to point out that we have just as much, if not more evidence of one, historical Arthur Pendragon as we do one, historical Jesus of Nazareth.
First I’m going to re-iterate the arguments against one singular man called Jesus who performed all these alleged miracles. First, Yeshua, the Hebrew of Jesus, was a very popular name at the time. To use the old cliché, one could not swing a cat without hitting one called Yeshua. My theory is this. IF these miracles happened, it was not ONE singular bearer of the name Yeshua who was able to do them. Looking at the evidence we have from the gospels, no one really agrees on any of the details, each of the BIG 4 tells a slightly different story. So I feel that this image of the biblical Yeshua was a composite of several different men. Just like one could say that a man was six feet tall, 210 lbs, brown eyes, and had a high pitched voice with a cupid’s bow mouth, this could be any one of several hundred men. If we narrowed it down to saying they were all fishermen, we would still have nearly 100, at least. Hopefully you get what I’m driving at here.
We have no physical evidence that THE Yeshua of Nazareth existed. Everything that diehard Christians point at as proof has been proven by science to be a fraud. The statues don’t really cry blood, its iron oxide mixed in the condensation that falls from the ceiling onto the face of the statue. Mother Theresa’s (as much as I respect the woman) face did not appear in a pancake, it was a rorschack test. I personally see butterflies in the pour side of my flapjacks. You see what you expect to see. That has been proven again and again, but there is no proof of Yeshua.
Now we’re gonna switch gears a little. Lets look at Arthur Pendragon. Legend says he was king of the Britains, son of Uther and Igraine, half-brother to Morgan Lefaye, father of the abomination Mordred whose mother was Arthur’s sister (I\’m My Own Grampa!) He fought the Saxons and their Christian invasion. He fought for Britain, and Camelot, He fought for the Celts, though he himself is shown in the legends to be Christian. He, like so many countries today, allowed his people to worship as they would when so many rulers made religion a part of the law of the land. You followed the King’s religion or were put to death. Look at the Crusades! Again, the only physical evidence we have of Arthur is…. wait… there isn’t any.
So let me pose this theory. Early Christians were bloodthirsty (what am I saying “early”??) brutally killing any who opposed them. And to make it easier for the conquered people to assimilate, placed holidays over holidays. Yule became Christ’s mass, or Christmas. Oster, a fertility festival became Easter. It just happened to coincide with the Jewish Passover. Many of the Gentile people who were new Christians refused to follow the unleavened bread thing, and so it was done away with. The same new Christians remembered with longing the coloring of eggs red and giving them to young women to increase their fertility. Up to this point people were bound to each other in a handfasting ceremony, and it wasn’t just two people, sometimes it was three or more, we have this much from anthropological evidence.
Then the Christian Saxons fought battle after battle, wearing down the newly freed Britons. And finally they won. But the Britons are a proud people. They do not take well to the yoke of a master, just ask Ceasar. So the Saxon rulers did what they always did, whatever it took to have complete control over the conquered people. They invented a savior. There was a king here, once called Arthur, and he led your people against ours… and so the story goes on. At the end of this story, we are told that Arthur was taken to Avalon to be buried where he would rest until he was reincarnated into a new king that would again unite Briton and lead the people away from the Saxons.
Sounds kinda familiar doesn’t it? Born for a purpose, fought for his people, died in their service, with a woman who, according to cannon legend failed to bear either a child , would return to liberate them… see I think this was a way for the Saxons to make their Jesus acceptable. The Britons were fighters, and a pacifist for a symbol would have rankled, so the conquering people fashioned a warrior who was Christ-like, to make Christianity more acceptable. A Spoonful of Sugar… But it also could have been the conquered people themselves, making up fairy stories to help their children learn what they must, and not to forget who they are, where they come from. To know that you are a warrior, and you fight for you people. One day, someone will come to help you fight.
Who knows, maybe this is how we came to the Yeshua myth in the first place. Oppressed Jews praying for one who would liberate them from foreign rule…
I have no real evidence to prove one or the other, but as there is more physical evidence that the Buddha lived than there is of either Yeshua or Arthur, can it really hurt to think about it, after all, history is always re-written by the victors…
(Quick footnote on Guinevere: She had a choice. Don’t blame love. To paraphrase a Willy Nelson song, “Mamas don’t let your daughters grow up to be Guinevere, I would rather a Morgan everytime”)