If the Bible Is as Much Fable as Fact, Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God?

By Peter Seiler

If the Bible is as Much Fable as Fact, Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? searches for a reasonable and reasoned foundation upon which to speak of the relationship between God and humanity. The author, Peter Seiler, marshals his education in both science and history in his exploration of the Bibles claims of faith, shedding the light of scientific findings and historical analysis on the biblical texts.
Spanning ten parts, the text begins with an extended introduction to the author and his method before conducting a four-part examination of the history of faith from the ancient past through the Enlightenment. Then the author examines, in three parts, the case for the involvement of alien life in human history. Finally, he turns to the future before summarizing his conclusions.
If the Bible is as Much Fable as Fact, Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? will satisfy the hunger of readers who desire to shed the light of reason, bolstered by verifiable facts, upon the claims of faith. It also will intrigue people with deeply held beliefs who desire to know the yearnings of their friends and family members who find those same claims of faith on the far side of a chasm they cannot traverse by a leap of faith. In either case, If the Bible is as Much Fable as Fact, Did God Create Man or Did Man Create God? makes a powerful case for its perspective on the titles question.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Jul 10, 2015
• ISBN: 9781504921466

Peter Seiler

Peter Seiler, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, served three tours of duty in Vietnam. He holds a master’s degree and completed pre-doctoral course in education with concentrations in biology and history. He led seminars for USAF officers, traveling globally in the course of his work.

Book preview

CHAPTER 2

The Book

The Task:

A s the title would indicate, we are presented with a choice between two rather contentious options. Historical precedence seems to support one choice, while the evolving body of evidence tends to question—and possibly refute—that historical precedence. Although there appears to be some seemingly hard facts in the case, much of the information is circumstantial. It is circumstantial, in part, because humans have intentionally manipulated past events and information to suit their personal, institutional, and religious agenda. Libraries, with their accumulated knowledge—have been destroyed—both intentionally and at times accidentally; books have been burned or the information they contain otherwise defamed, and still other information is locked away from public scrutiny by governments and some religions.

When presenting information via an auditorium lecture, as a guest speaker at a luncheon, or simply as part of a classroom instruction, it should be structured in three basic parts: (1) an overview, (2) the body of the presentation, and (3) the summary or conclusion. If this were an hour-long presentation, the overview would normally take about four minutes, the body about fifty-two minutes, and the conclusion about four minutes. In the introduction I would inform the listener/reader of roughly what we were going to cover during that presentation—in the body I would go into detail about the topic—and in the conclusion I would summarize what I just told them. Basically you tell them what you plan to tell them, then tell them, and then tell them what you just told them. Although that sounds rather redundant and simplistic, it is an effective approach.

With that in mind, I plan to go back in time since many of the religious concepts we have today originated many thousands of years ago in the Middle East and Africa—where humans first evolved and radiated throughout the world. Some review of history as we currently know it will be necessary, but I will attempt to keep it simple for two reasons. First, I am like you—an average individual searching for my own answers and carrying you along for the ride. I am not a scholar of either history or religion. Second, you probably don’t have the patience to sort through all the material if I did present it to you. Although history attempts to present a coherent sequence of events with their related cause-and-effect consequences, much information has been swept under the proverbial rug or has been viewed with blinders, narrowing our field of view. I am sure bias, both cultural as well as historic, comes into play.

Archeologists, anthropologists, biologists and astrophysicists are all discovering new information, almost on a daily basis, which is forcing humanity to reevaluate previous historical thoughts and hypotheses. DNA(m), carbon-14 dating techniques and plate tectonics are altering previously held relationships among species and their/our world-wide distribution.

As we proceed, I will attempt to define God, our observance of this deity through organized religion, and man’s role in this equation. Since all three major western religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—trace much of their beliefs and written heritage back to Abraham, and since most of these traditions started thousands of years earlier in the Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations, I will attempt to briefly discuss the foundations of these beliefs.

Finally, like the camel poking his head under the flap of the speculation tent, I will attempt to determine any possible role played by a more advanced extraterrestrial species on our biological, cultural and technological development over the past many millennia. Since this is such a controversial topic, and not unlike the camel, I may get my nose smacked by a myriad of Nay Sayers inside. However, if just some of what appears logical from my personal observations and ancient written records is true, we need to completely rethink some of Earth’s history. Although I have never seen either a UFO or an ET, I am totally convinced that they have been observing our war-like nature and are quite alarmed at our nuclear capability and aggressive behavior. I am equally convinced that the governments of the world are withholding information regarding this situation, fearful of the public’s reaction at both the religious and societal levels.

Not unlike a court room trial, where you and I are metaphorically jury members, we must review and attempt to evaluate the veracity of the material and testimony presented by both sides of the argument in a relatively unbiased manner. However, since I have raised that point, I must have some biases favoring one point of view over the other, which I will delineate shortly. Five thousand plus years of media exposure, all the religious training and indoctrination, cultural predisposition and habit, clearly favors the status quo. Not only does historic precedence exacerbate the evaluation process, but the huge gap in time and limited reliable information are co-conspirators. However, unlike the prosecutor or defense counsel in the trial stage who must present only their side of the argument, as jury members you and I must attempt to be open minded and base our final judgment on the preponderance of facts, both old and new. Who is lying and who is telling the truth? Although I will attempt to be an unbiased juror, I will also be selectively presenting information much the way a prosecutor would. I can’t rehash all of past events as it would put both of us to sleep. However, this ambiguity is arguably a factor you must consider as you read along. Am I inadvertently or subconsciously pursuing a self-fulfilling prophesy?

If lacking facts, we both must consider the preponderance of circumstances and decide if any conclusion one way or the other, is beyond reasonable doubt." This situation is not unlike that facing the various members in the jury pool. We all heard the same evidence, but many factors come to bear: our individual biases, our intelligence, our sex, our communicative skills, our race, our religion, our individual belief system, our malleability or stubbornness, our personal life experiences, etc.

As a former chairman of a jury, the first thing I did was poll the other members in an effort to see where consensus lay. From then on, members representing both opinions presented facts which supported their position. Counter arguments would ensue and arbitration was often needed to prevent conflict and bulling by domineering Type A personalities. Periodically we would poll the group to see how things were progressing: for or against. As stated earlier, in cases like the one you and I will be involved with over the following pages, most evidence will be circumstantial; where one side has had thousands of years to embellish, alter, hide, or otherwise present information which supports, rather than refutes, their economic, cultural, political, religious or personal agenda.

In arriving at an answer—if one can be ascertained—calm reason should prevail over emotion, fact over unsupported or unquestioned beliefs. However, it is possible that—not unlike some trials—we will be unable to achieve consensus in spite of the arguments presented. In that case, we may choose to revisit the question at a later time when more information becomes available.

Regarding the previous statement, nearly every year archeologists around the world uncover more information on Earth and History’s murky past. Information from the cuneiform tablets extracted from the ruins of the Royal Library of Nineveh, the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the caves of Qumran and the Books and other writings of the Apocrypha from Nag Hammadi, Egypt, have already altered our previously held views of religion, the origin of life on Earth, and a myriad of other things.

The landing of an alien spacecraft on the White House lawn, in front of the world-wide media, and/or the various governments finally revealing crucial information withheld for decades from the public for its own good, will also alter events and possibly answer our question. I predict that the last two things I just mentioned will happen in this century, along with more astounding leaps in our knowledge, technology and interstellar exploration.

CHAPTER 3

The Reader

Keep an Open Mind:

T he provocative nature of the title, Did God Create Man, or Did Man Create God , may have enticed you to read this book. This means you are either inquisitive yet open to investigating new ideas, or possibly steadfast in your fundamental’s religious beliefs and reading this in an attempt to refute any perceived contradictory assertions. If you are the former, you will not find a conclusive answer provided by this searching author. Your answer will have to come from within, as you evaluate the preponderance of circumstantial information I will present. During our search, I will intentionally elaborate on some things, while exercising brevity with others.

This quest may introduce you to many facts, people, ideas and theories with which you may not be familiar or have forgotten. As you can tell by reading the personal biases I have already listed, I am struggling for objectivity and personal answers. If you are a person willing to entertain new ideas—those which may run contrary to conventional wisdom—while withholding judgment as you read, then you may find your answer to the question posed by the title. Daniel J. Boorstin once said, The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge. I also remember a similar quote one of my professors said over fifty years ago, A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing! As I proceed, I mention these here, not really sure if it is for your benefit, or mine.

Of necessity, I will discuss current scientific views of certain topics, ancient history, early cultures, western religious texts, and any potential role played by historic or contemporary extraterrestrials. I will not delve into these to any great extent, but rather with only sufficient depth to provoke further research on your part. The libraries and internet are tremendous sources of information—as well as disinformation—within easy access to most readers. Admittedly, sorting out fact from fiction is often a daunting task, especially when dealing with ancient myths. With this in mind, however, and as one of a large diverse population of potential readers, your intellect, knowledge, and beliefs will vary considerably. My purpose is not to convert you to one view or the other, but merely to expose you to new ideas and ways of looking at events: events that you may have taken for granted as correct. Again, Boorstin also once said, Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change. Do you, or I for that matter, possess that ability?

Over the ages, science and religion have coexisted in a potentially contentious environment. Where science depends on verifiable and repeatable facts, religion relies more on a system of authoritative beliefs. In an effort to explain frightening and inexplicable natural phenomena, religions have used supernatural or spiritual rationale to plug the holes in scientific knowledge. As scientific hypothesizes and theories are replaced with facts, those facts build upon one another and myth, superstition and supernatural beliefs are replaced with verifiable and reasonable explanations. Albert Einstein once said, If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts. Neil de Grasse Tyson, American astrophysicist and Director of New York’s Haden Planetarium, was quoted as saying, The good thing about science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it.

As we proceed, although it may seem like we are discussing things which don’t seem to have any immediate relevance to the topic, it is somewhat analogous to assembling a picture puzzle. When disassembled—and the pieces are scattered on the kitchen table—there seems to be no recognizable order and each piece is rather obscure. But then you start separating the straight edge bordering pieces and assembling them. Working from the border inward, you assemble those pieces which are most recognizable. Lastly, you assemble the more obscure pieces. During this process, most of us tend to refer to a picture of the finished puzzle for guidance. Regrettably, we have no tangible picture. As the last pieces are placed, we can finally make sense of the whole. Hopefully this analogy will hold true for you and I in our search for answers.

At this point, and before proceeding, I encourage you to review the following definitions and associated expanded commentary so we are looking at events with a common core of readiness. You may be very knowledgeable in some things, and woefully unprepared with regard to others. Consequently, I have placed a few key words up front rather than in an appendix at the end, hopeful that most readers will review them. Reviewing these terms and any expanded commentary associated with them, should facilitate enhanced comprehension later on. For the most part, definitions of the terms/words which follow, were extracted directly from the 2nd College Edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary.

CHAPTER 4

Words

God and Religion are not synonymous terms:

G od and religion are often inextricably linked—one to the other. However, I see them as unequal partners in a business relationship. Make no mistake, religion is a business. Perhaps its goals are noble—or at least they started out that way—but there are structures to buy and maintain, utilities, salaries, vehicles, supplies, retirement, health insurance, charities to manage, outreach and growth programs to fund; not to mention there are tithes, weekly donations, and other sources of income to manage. Some religions/churches even maintain day care or full-time schools, universities, and hospitals. In the United States—and I suspect elsewhere in the world—religions are viewed as tax-free, nonprofit businesses. There is some truth to both of those categorizations; however, where some religions are concerned, I question the claim of their being non-profit.

I liken the relationship between you, a congregation member, and religion to a horse and buggy in 1860, just prior to the Civil War. You are a horse in a large but fenced pasture through which a small stream empties into a pond providing plenty of water. There are leaf-covered trees here and there, and there is plenty of fresh green grass to eat. When the sun gets too hot or when the rain becomes too bothersome, you can stand or lie-down in the shade of one of the trees. Life is good. You have free will and can go just about anywhere you want within the confines of the fenced pasture. The farmer has a house and barn adjacent to the pasture, but you can’t get into the barn when its door is shut.

Now, there is a large white horse at the far end of the pasture who commands a large tree under which the farmer has placed a roll of hay and a watering trough. This horse’s name is God. God looks like you because you were presumably made in his image and likeness. He encourages you to drink from the trough or eat from the hay under his large, shaded tree whenever you want. However, it is spring, the grass is fresh and tender, the other trees provide shade and shelter, and the stream is clear and cool. Why should you drink warm water from a trough or eat dry hay? So you ignore his bidding and frolic with the other animals enjoying the warm spring weather while it lasts.

Late fall, perhaps early winter, comes along. You have either eaten down the pasture grass, it has dried up, or it has been covered with some early snow. All the trees have lost their umbrella of leaves except God’s tree. It still offers an abundance of shelter from the rain and snow. Then, and only then, when a personal need arises, you go to his end of the pasture for food, drink and shelter.

At this point the farmer opens the door to the barn and bangs on a bucket that typically contains oats. You hear the offer and gallop to the farmer who takes hold of your halter and leads you into the barn. While you are busy eating your oats, he harnesses you to the buckboard wagon that he calls religion so he and his family can go to town for their weekly supplies. He slides a bridle over your head and places the bit in your mouth. The bridle has side eye blinders that restrict your vision to only what is straight ahead. To see to the left and right you must turn your head, which the farmer can restrict with the reins. The bit in your mouth isn’t very comfortable, but it only hurts when the farmer pulls back on the reins; you have learned that this means you should stop moving forward.

By now you have eaten all your oats, you are securely harnessed into position between the buckboard’s traces, and the farmer and his family members have seated themselves. With a long switch in hand he commands you to gitty-up, and you feel the gentle but insistent sting of his switch on your rump that means go forward. Through the reins he steers you onto the dirt road toward town. He controls your direction and speed and won’t let you be tempted to veer off the road in order to visit other horses or eat the grass you encounter along the way. The trip to town is a weekly routine and once there, you get to visit with other horses parked near the store. All is peaceful for the moment.

In this little scenario, the farmer is analogous to the clergy. He guides you and his religious wagon toward their goal. In exchange, you receive food, shelter, and the offer of eternal salvation. But in this exchange, you must yield to some loss of liberty and subject your free will to his expectations. There is a quid pro quo involved. Life was fine before the farmer coaxed you into his world with the bucket of oats. Although it wasn’t a continuous relationship, whenever you needed hay, water, and shelter, God at the other end of the pasture was there to provide it. He satisfied your physical needs when necessary. You really didn’t need the wagon nor the labors associated with it in order to survive. Eternal salvation was something else, however. What was it? You can’t see, feel, touch, smell or taste it, so it must be imaginary—if it exists at all.

A year later, the military commandeers you and the wagon called ‘religion’ to carry war material and soldiers. Contrary to the original peaceful purpose of the wagon, it all too frequently participates in wars with other religions, wars of liberation, or wars for territorial, monetary or political gain. But you are a simple horse and not mad at any of your neighbors. Making war on them makes no sense. But, because you are tethered to the wagon, you are obliged to go with the group. You—and the laborious wagon you pull—experience bloody conflict resulting in the death of thousands of your fellow horses.

You begin to wonder why you are here on the battlefield when you could be in that peaceful pasture. Jesus is reported to have taught that you didn’t need to pull that wagon of organized religion with its constant demands for money, services and your labors; rather you could establish your own relationship with God. Organized religion has morphed into big business and it needs your continuous contribution of time, money and effort. Although you enjoy your brief weekly visit with your friends at the country store, is that enough? Is the carrot of that intangible and mystical salvation that the farmer dangles in front of your nose, a faulty dilemma, propaganda or an illusion? You have choices.

You can return to the pasture and establish your own relationship with the horse named God. That being the case, you ask yourself if the associated burdens of religion justify its advertised benefits. Do you really need the farmer to guide and control you and his wagon? Or have you been talked into believing you need them? These are some controversial questions and perhaps my metaphor is unfair; also ask yourself, have I presented you with a faulty dilemma? Religion does provide its members with an organized and homogeneous approach to reach God, and some even provide their services as essential to that communication pathway. But none of this is necessary according to the teachings of Jesus. Just remember, religion and God are not synonymous entities.

Albert Einstein once said - Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. He went on to say - Learn from yesterday, live for today, [and] hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning

Definitions with Elaboration:

Demigods:

A demigod is the offspring of a God who mated with an earthling, and is part God and part human. As such, mythology indicates they are deified and have some, but not all, the magical powers of a god. Although they live much longer than a normal human, they are not immortal as are Gods. Gilgamesh, a Sumerian King, who I will mention later, was a demigod. Some feel Jesus was also a demigod.

Dogma:

A principle, or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true, and serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system. As such, it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system’s paradigm, or theology itself.

Fact:

If something meets the criteria of unvarying uniformity, is repeatable and verifiable by numerous people, and explains previous unknowns, it is typically considered a fact; it does not have to be accepted as such by all observers, however. Webster defines a fact as A thing that has actually happened, or that is really true; A state of things as they are.

Faith:

Where science requires verifiability and proof, faith is more a state of mind. Webster partially defines it as Unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence; anything believed; complete trust, confidence or reliance; allegiance to some person or thing, loyalty.

Geography:

For centuries it was assumed that the crust of the Earth was one homogenous piece, covering a liquid magma mantle and dense nickel/Iron core. The Earth had an inclined axis with a north and a south pole, much like the poles of a magnet. Several centuries earlier we learned that the magnetic poles do not correspond to the geographic poles and that—for some unknown reason—this polarity changes periodically; the North Pole becomes the South Pole and vice versa. Also, when viewing a map of the world, one could not help noticing that the shape of the eastern side of South American appeared to have a matching—yet opposite—shape on the western side of Africa. It was almost as if a solid land mass was torn into two pieces.

It has been hypothesized that a single large land mass once occurred. However, at some point in time, it became fragmented into a series of large plates floating on the surface of liquid magma. This was confirmed in the 1950s when maps of floor of the Atlantic Ocean were produced. These maps portrayed a long chain of underwater mountains with a huge fissure down the middle. This fact was originally discovered by the HMS Challenger in 1872 while researching a route for the Transatlantic Cable. The underwater mountains were formed by an upwelling of magma through this fissure. This upwelling then forced the African/European and the North and South American plates apart. At the same time, water covered the space between the continents forming the Atlantic Ocean. This revelation served to explain the visible fissure which divided portions of Iceland. It also helped explain the long fissure visible in many portions of California (the San Andreas Fault).

With few volcanoes along the rim of the Atlantic Ocean, scientists questioned why there were so many around the Pacific? Pressure from this growing ridge in the middle of the Atlantic caused the North American plate to buckle contributing to the formation of the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains. But these weren’t of sufficient mass to equal the displaced crust from the growing Atlantic. Then the idea of subduction, one crustal plate sliding under another, explained the Ring of Fire (numerous volcanoes encircling the Pacific). As old crustal material slid under an adjacent plate, it was melted (recycled) by the underlying molten magma of the Mantle. This created pressure which was vented through the leading edge of the overlying crust – Vu ala, you have volcanoes acting like the pressure-relief valve on a household water heater. Once the United States placed 24 geosynchronous orbiting satellites around the world—we not only had an incredibly accurate GPS navigation system but—we could photograph, measure land elevations, and detect crustal movement rates and direction: and much, much more.

The hypothesis of Plate Dynamics, quickly became a scientific fact. This one geologic fact, helped explain many other questions involving human migration and numerous other biological anomalies. How did three rather similar flightless birds on three different continents, the Rhea of South America, the Emu and Cassowary of Australia, and the Ostrich of Africa, get there? Once physically isolated by separating plates, genetic variation of the parent species occurred. This geological phenomenon also helped explained the difference between prehensile tailed monkeys in Africa, and monkeys lacking prehensile tails in South America; pythons in Africa, and Boa Constrictors in South America, etc.

Like falling Dominos, many previous unknowns were being rapidly explained by a known geologic and evolutionary process. This also tended to reinforce Darwin’s theory that variation among an isolated species, i.e. the tortoises, finches, and iguanas of the Galapagos Islands, favored those features best suited to a limited and specialized food source. It was natural selection in action.

Using the analogy of a concrete block building, a strong footing of verifiable knowledge, permits one to build subsequent layers of enhanced knowledge. Each new layer, then contributes to the final structure. A seemingly simple fact, Plate Tectonics, has produced more precise answers to questions and theories in seemingly unrelated fields. However, I must add a caveat. Errors or pseudo knowledge, can also build upon itself; but it has a footing set on sand. This can lead to false assumptions and/or conclusions, resulting in its inevitable and eventual collapse.

God:

In ancient times leaders of civilized groups were often revered as a God and/or a King. In earlier polytheistic cultures, a pantheon of pagan gods were created by the human population to explain—and hopefully control—unexplained natural phenomena. Even today, thousands of religions on earth view God in different ways and forms. A priestly class within evolving clans, tribes and civilized groups, established themselves as conduits to these deities. Again, Webster attempts to define God as, Any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; a person or thing deified, or excessively honored and admired; in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all powerful and all knowing.

In my early draft of this book, I initially felt that the personal pronouns he and him were too gender-specific and, therefore, possibly objectionable to some readers. Although some religions consider God to be a gender-neutral deity, others do not. In fact, many ancient religions created a separate category, the Goddess. Initial I chose to refer to God—after first referencing the deity in a paragraph—as IT to avoid any age-old cultural bias. However, the term itself seemed more objectionable than he or him; and to constantly say he/her, or him/her, was equally clumsy. So, although gender-specific, I chose to use the masculine pronouns to be more consistent with centuries of established literature and the Bible.

Although I opted for this approach to the term God, at the behest of the publisher, and to be less objectionable to the female readers, I replaced references to man and mankind with humans and humanity. Although having done so, humans as a word still has a gender-dominant component: human. Anyway, please don’t allow the English language conundrum, to obfuscate the intended meaning with political correctness! I know—Good Grief Charlie Brown! Words. I bet we could eliminate 50% of the words in the English language and actually enhance comprehension; but it wouldn’t sound as good nor be as specific with regard to a sentence’s intended meaning.

Heaven:

Heaven can be viewed from both an astronomical and spiritual context. Astronomically, it is the sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. From a religious context, it is the abode of God, the angels, and the souls of those who are granted salvation; an eternal state of communion with God; everlasting bliss; any of the places in or beyond the sky conceived of as domains of divine beings in various religions.

Over the past two millennia, Christians tends to look up toward the sky when discussing Heaven. Similarly, the Pharos of Egypt felt they would be transported up to some location (possibly Orion), for their after life existence. More recently Mesoamerican cultures of the Aztecs and Mayans (with their respective feathered serpent deities Quetzalcoatl and Kukulkan), would also look up (presumably to the Pleiades). Christian religious art commissioned by theologians, also portray God sitting on a cloud and symbolically implying that there is a special place in the cosmos where the righteous soul will ascend. However, physical space is an inhospitable environment; so obviously we can’t apply material logic, but rather view it as some supernatural spiritual dimension or state of mind.

When we read the surviving literature of the Maya, Sumerians, Greeks, Hebrews, Indians, Chinese, Inca, etc., there are repeated references from these cultures scattered around the world to Visitors, or Gods, descending to Earth from the Sky or Heaven. To the uneducated people of Earth, were these visiting entities true spiritual deities, or technologically superior aliens from distant civilizations possessing incredible God-like power? Is Heaven, like a God or Gods, a human construct? Farther ahead I will introduce you to a statement made by James Lanenger as he recounts his reincarnation experience. He appears to imply NO to the previous question. But more on James in a bit.

History:

History is typically perceived as a chronological record of events—often including an explanation of, or commentary on, those events. Essentially it is a branch of knowledge that records and analyzes people and events occurring in the past.

We should be ever mindful that history may not always accurately reflect fact, time, place, events, individuals involved, and especially its associated analysis. Wherever and whenever incomplete information occurs, people attempt to plug up the holes of the unknown with theory, supposition—if not imposition—conjecture and any other form of reasonably educated guesswork. Habit, tradition, religion, institutional secrecy, and a host of other factors, should be carefully—if not suspiciously—considered when viewing what has been recorded for subsequent generations.

When any social or military conflict is eventually resolved, the victor frequently writes the history as they saw events, motives, and outcome, and more importantly, how they want posterity to remember them. In any given event, there are usually at least two or more points of view. History, therefore, is not always fixed but rather subject to constant revision as more reliable and unbiased information is unearthed; at least this should be the goal in an open and free society.

To this day, there are still people who claim the infamous Holocaust of WWII never happened, and the thousands of photos and interviews were all staged. In anticipation of this eventuality, General of the Allied Armies of Western Europe, Dwight D. Eisenhower, insisted that the local German populations adjacent to the nearly 20,000 different Nazi concentration, labor and death camps, not only personally see the atrocities, but also participate in feeding and clothing survivors and burying all the dead. [www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org]

Hypothesis:

A hypothesis is typically the starting point when attempting to answer a problem. The progression is then theory, and finally law. Again, it can be defined as: a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification (working hypothesis), or accepted as likely to be true; an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition, an unproved theory; a conjecture.

Law:

Law, laws or a law, describes numerous human endeavors from religious to legal. However, I have restricted the definition to science, the natural step beyond a theory. With this restriction, Webster defines a law as A sequence of events in nature or in human activities that has been observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions.

Legend:

Webster defines legend as a story handed down for generations among a people and popularly believed to have a historical basis, although not verifiable. Most, if not all, legends begin orally at a time when the populace either had no written language, or were illiterate. Oral traditions were perpetuated among members of a clan or other small group, as a source of both education and entertainment. Later, troubadours, or wandering minstrels, would spread the legend or myth from group to group. To make the stories more entertaining, palatable, or to provide a moral objective, they were frequently embellished by the teller. The Arthurian Legend is one such example.

As the power of the western half of the Roman Empire disintegrated in the middle of the 5th Century, the troops stationed in England were withdrawn leaving the land south of Hadrian’s Wall and large portions of current day France and Spain, without central authority or defense. The Anglo-Saxons were a pagan Germanic tribe from an area encompassing contemporary Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and northern Germany, and who started to occupy those vacated areas of the western Empire. In the latter part of the 6th Century, one of the few remaining wealthy Roman land holders, Aurelianus Ambrosius the elder and later his son the younger—possible archetypes for King Arthur—fought a series of twelve campaigns to rid the island of the Saxons [the Saxon Wars, 500 – 542 CE),.

These campaigns culminated in the Battle of Badon Hill—possibly current day Bath—where the native force of Briton’s armed with mounted cavalry, defeated the Saxons. Many of the defeated Saxons, retreated east across the English Channel. It should be noted, however, that dates, locations, and even personalities involved, are historical conjecture: written centuries after the actual event.

Peace and relative security for the native Britons, lasted part of the 6th Century. However, the period from roughly 550 – 1066 CE, was marked by the fragmentation of the island into numerous Shires composed of—and ruled by—returning Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. Some of the native Celts (or Brits), were forced into Wales and Cornwall along the west coast, while much of the remaining population retreated to Normandy along the French coast.

A thousand years of internal strife between these warring Shires, followed by the Norman invasion in1066 by the disenfranchised Celts and Franks, eventually resulted in the consolidation of the southern part of the island into a Nation-State (now England) under Norman rule. In 1137, Jeoffery of Monmouth, a Welsh Catholic cleric, wrote a book, History of the Kings of Britain from the late 5th to the late 11th Century. In it he started the Legend of King Arthur, quite possibly from the exploits of Ambrosius and the 12th Battle of the Saxons at Badon Hill. Other scholars, however, believe Arthur was a composite fictional hero, born out of the emotional need of an oppressed people. Could similar social needs have produced a deified Jesus?

An instant success, Geoffrey’s book and its resulting oral tradition among the illiterate populace, spread to the Frankish Kingdom (France). There in the 12th Century, the romance authors added Lancelot, the Holy Grail, and many other unique elements to the current rendition. However, scholars have been unable to find any support for Camelot, the Round Table, Guinevere, Ivanhoe, Excalibur, Lady of the Lake, Sword in the Stone, Merlin, etc. Most of these literary embellishments, were pieced together from stylized individuals and fictional events. In fact, even the name Arthur, is believed to have been fabricated from the Celtic word Arth, meaning bear. It is speculated that the illustration of a bear was probably on Ambrosia’s, or some other earlier warrior’s, shield. Other scholars suspect that Arthur was a composite of other Welsh and Celtic warriors. In any event, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table with their chivalrous code of honor and beautiful wives and consorts, emerged out of the chaos of the time; and not a word of truth can be found regarding their authenticity by contemporary literary scholars. Ask yourself, "How many of the stories which became part of the oral traditions thousands of years before the birth, and during the life of Jesus, occurred in a similar