NatGeo's Version of Jesus - Ay

In between running after Vincent and pulling one of my cats off the wall (no, you didn't misread that, and yes, I had to pull her off my wall) I found National Geographic's Jesus of Nazareth on TV.  Interested to see where they were going with this, I kept it on as background noise only to be drawn in repeatedly by the extremely poor historical context given by supposed experts.

Just a few of the ridiculous statements given that prove these folks had no idea what they were talking about:

1.  Jesus "had probably never been to the temple" which is why He "reacted so violently" towards the moneychangers.

Never been to the Temple?  Are you KIDDING me?!  The NT places Him there at least 3 separate times (not including the time He was "found" as a youngster).  And as for His "violent reaction" might I point my dear readers to this historically accurate and Biblically sound explanation.

2.  There was no Cenacle - Jesus held His Last Supper on the roof of a random building because room was probably too sparse for a group of people so large (meaning Jesus, His 12, and the various female disciples that followed Him).

Something that a lot of folks tend to miss about Jews back then is that they were just as fragmented as Christians are today.  You had the upper-class Jews, the religious zealots, the Essenes, and the Jews by blood only.  You had folks following John the Baptist, Jesus and probably a smattering of other folks, too.  When you realize this, you then realize why that phrase from Holy Thursday becomes key to figuring out exactly where Jesus held His Last Supper.

When the Apostles are freaking out over where to hold the Passover meal, Jesus simply says "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; and wherever he enters" we'll have our meal.

This doesn't seem like a big deal to most people.  Maybe some might think "Hey Jesus... Jerusalem is packed - how in the world do you want us to spot a particular dude carrying around a pitcher of water?  Are you seriously attempting to have us try to find a needle in the haystack?

Think for a quick second, though. 

"A MAN will meet you carrying a PITCHER OF WATER."

Back in those times, men didn't do that sorta stuff.  Drawing water from the well was a strictly female thing to do.  So this wasn't a needle in the haystack goose chase.  Instead, Jesus was specifically telling them EXACTLY where to go in order to find a man carrying around a pitcher of water.  Only ONE place in Jerusalem would fit the bill, and that'd be (drumroll please...) the Essene quarter.  Since Essenes lived a very basic (and typically celibate) lifestyle, the men were forced to take on traditionally feminine duties as the two sexes lived separate from one another.  Thus, the only place in Jerusalem you'd be able to find a guy carrying water would be the Essene district. 

The Essenes weren't exactly the most loved bunch of Jews.  They were highly pious and did not much appreciate what they saw as a degradation of the Temple by secularism and government pressures.  However, they waited with great longing for the Messiah, and were huge followers of John the Baptist.  As such, they welcomed Jesus kindly and would have given Him anything requested.  Thus, the Cenacle is still highly plausible and again takes care of women being present at the Last Supper. 

I have no doubt that women helped with the preparation of the meal.  After all, Our Lady was close by when Jesus began His Passion, so it's likely she was staying with relatives (who were very likely Essene themselves).  That doesn't mean she was present for the Last Supper.  It also doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene was, either (which is the point they were trying to make).

Speaking of Mary Magdalene...

3.  Jesus and Mary Magdalene were an item.

Bah and humbug.  This tired rubbish is so beyond played out that I'd rather listen to the Macarena a thousand times than waste my breath on this anymore.  It was at that point I abruptly changed the channel. 

Ah well.  I noted they didn't seem to interview many Catholics.  Lots of Christians, but I didn't note any Catholics.  Come to think of it, I didn't note any Jews, either.  For a special on a 1st century Jewish man, you'd think they'd do a better job of scouring for experts.

Le sigh.

---