'Zeitgeist film flunks the truth test
From the monumental to the humdrum, nearly every conspiracy theory converts cynics into true believers the same way. Conspiracists exploit a kernel of truth - usually little-known or underreported fact - and build on this firm foundation a fantastical palace of postulation and wild conjecture.
Sadly, such is the case in “Zeitgeist: Addendum,” a film which begins by exploring the symbiotic relationship between money and debt in America’s system of exchange.
Gold no longer backs our paper currency; rather, the Federal Reserve operates on a fractional reserve system under which each dollar can be used to back nine more dollars, satisfying a 10 percent reserve requirement and devaluing the currency, thus causing inflation.
The movie’s thorough examination of the United States’ irresponsible fiscal policies is a documentary triumph. However, its denouncement of organized religion - particularly Christianity - and inclusion of demonstrably false claims are a colossal disappointment that weakens the entire project’s credibility.
In its endorsement of the Venus Project, a utopian “resource-based economy” in which renewable energy and nanotechnology would provide the essentials of life free of charge and systems of monetary exchange and the workforce rat race would be obsolete, the film seeks to discredit theism and Christianity.
While there are probably cogent and articulate arguments for agnosticism, the filmmakers instead chose to trot out the well-worn bromides: No evidence exists that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, the theme of a god dying and rising was stolen from pagan faiths and the resurrection of Jesus was a legend that emerged centuries after his death.
Compared with similar works of antiquity, the Gospels are unmatched in the number of surviving manuscripts and historical and archaeological accuracy. The Jewish historian Josephus also corroborates Jesus’ existence as a teacher and miracle worker.
As for pilfering from pagan traditions, this worn-down and disproven accusation has no intellectual merit. Even atheist scholars concede this. Are the “Zeitgeist” filmmakers dozens of decades behind the curve of contemporary Biblical research? Perhaps they chose to perpetuate the myth to lend false credence to their anti-religion argument.
Early church creeds and the earliest surviving manuscripts of Paul’s epistles date 20 or 30 years after Jesus’ death. This sounds like a long time, but in proper historical context, even 50 years would be astoundingly fast. Stories were passed down through oral tradition and rarely penned to parchment.
Because many of Jesus’ contemporaries were still alive when the first New Testament manuscripts were circulating, it’s historically unlikely that legend clouded the chronology. In one of his letters, Paul identifies a group of nearly 500 people who saw Jesus after his crucifixion and dares doubters to ask the eyewitnesses.
Since written communication was reserved for matters of the highest import, and since the Jewish leaders would have loved nothing more than to discredit the fledgling Christian faith, it stands to reason that the early believers wouldn’t distribute some slapdash fairy tale about a man who some readers had personally met.
If “Zeitgeist” set out to challenge modern theological scholarship, it failed unceremoniously. If it set out to convince the incurious and the easily misled with a handful of mealy-mouthed myths, maybe it succeeded.
The film’s call for the dissolution of national borders and the formation of a one-world happy camp where money isn’t needed and everyone is provided with energy, food, transportation and housing is more silly than scary. It denies the fundamental truth - jealousy and conquest are a part (no matter how unpleasant) of human nature.
Consider Danilov’s dour denouncement of Communism in the 2001 war epic “Enemy at the Gates:”
“Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there’d be nothing to envy your neighbor. But there’s always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don’t have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love.”
And, in the case of “Zeitgeist: Addendum,” poor in premise and bankrupt in fact