There Was No Historical Jesus

[Guest guest]

A little article about Jesus by a Jewish author. I was wondering what you

think about it.

Also do you know Jesus' real name?

 

REFUTING MISSIONARIES

by Hayyim ben Yehoshua

 

PART 1: THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS

 

Much concern has been expressed in the Jewish media regarding the activity

of "Jews for Jesus" and other missionary organizations who go out of their

way to convert Jews to Christianity. Unfortunately, many Jews are ill

equipped to deal with Christian missionaries and their arguments. Hopefully

this article will contribute to remedying this situation.

 

When countering Christian missionaries it is important to base one's

arguments on correct facts. Arguments based on incorrect facts can easily

backfire and end up strengthening the arguments of the missionaries.

 

It is rather unfortunate that many well-meaning Jewish Studies teachers have

unwittingly aided missionaries by teaching Jewish pupils incorrect

information about the origins of Christianity. I can recall being taught the

following story about Jesus at the Jewish day school I attended:

 

"Jesus was a famous first century rabbi whose Hebrew name was Rabbi

Yehoshua. His father was a carpenter named Joseph and his mother's name was

Mary. Mary became pregnant before she married Joseph. Jesus was born in a

stable in Bethlehem during a Roman census. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and

became a learned rabbi. He traveled all over Israel preaching that people

should love one another. Some people thought that he was the Messiah and he

did not deny this, which made the other rabbis very angry. He caused so much

controversy that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate had him crucified. He was

buried in a tomb and later his body was found to be missing since it had

probably been stolen by his disciples."

 

A few years after being taught this seemingly innocent story, I became

interested in the origins of Christianity and decided to do some further

reading on the "famous Rabbi Yehoshua." Much to my dismay, I discovered that

there was no historical evidence of this Rabbi Yehoshua. The claim that

Jesus was a rabbi named Yehoshua and the claim that his body was probably

stolen both turned out to be pure conjecture. The rest of the story was

nothing more than a watered down version of the story which Christians

believe as part of the Christian religion but which is not supported by any

legitimate historical source.

 

There was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus, Joseph or Mary ever

existed, let alone that Joseph was a carpenter or that Jesus was born in

Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

 

Despite the lack of evidence for Jesus's existence many Jews have made the

tragic mistake of assuming that the New Testament story is largely correct

and have tried to refute Christianity by attempting to rationalize the

various miracles that allegedly occurred during Jesus's life and after his

death. Numerous books have been written which take this approach to

Christianity. This approach however is hopelessly flawed and is in fact

dangerous since it encourages belief in the New Testament.

 

When the Israelites were confronted with the worship of Baal they did not

blindly accept the ancient West Semitic myths as history. When the Maccabees

were confronted with Greek religion they did not blindly accept Greek

mythology as history. Why do so many modern Jews blindly accept Christian

mythology? The answer to this question seems to be that many Christians do

not know themselves where the distinction between established history and

Christian belief lies and they have passed their confusion on to the Jewish

community. Browsing through the religion section of a local bookstore, I

recently came across a book which claimed to be an objective biography of

Jesus. It turned out to be nothing more than a summary of the usual New

Testament story. It even included claims that Jesus's miracles had been

witnessed but that rational explanations for them might exist. Many history

books written by Christians take a similar approach. Some Christian authors

will suggest that perhaps the miracles are not completely historical but

they nevertheless follow the general New Testament story. The idea that

there was a real historical Jesus has thus become entrenched in Christian

society and Jews living in the Christian world have come to blindly accept

this belief because they have never seen it seriously challenged.

 

Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains that there is no

historical Jesus. In order to understand what is meant by an "historical

Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas

turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this

we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his

tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas

and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real

Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is

about a person whose existence is known as a fact--the "historical Midas."

In the case of Jesus, however, there is no single person whose existence is

known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus

stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.

 

When confronted by a Christian missionary, one should immediately point out

that the very existence of Jesus has not been proven. When missionaries

argue they usually appeal to emotions rather than to reason and they will

attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus.

The usual response is something like "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus

just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth?"

A popular variation of this response used especially against Jews is "Isn't

denying the existence of Jesus like denying the Holocaust?" One should then

point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence

of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named, while there is

no corresponding evidence for Jesus.

 

To be perfectly thorough you should take time to do some research on the

historical personalities mentioned by the missionaries and present hard

evidence of their existence. At the same time you should challenge the

missionaries to provide similar evidence of Jesus's existence. You should

point out that although the existence of Julius Caesar, or Queen Elizabeth,

etc., is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In the Far East

where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism,

Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious

mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe

in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the

Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New

Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of

Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he was ever crucified.

 

To sum up, there is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide.

It is this fact which puts Jesus on a different level to established

historical personalities. If the missionaries use the "Holocaust reply," you

should point out that the Holocaust is well-documented and that there are

numerous eyewitness reports. It should be pointed out that most of the

people who deny the Holocaust have turned out to be antisemitic hate-mongers

with fraudulent credentials. On the other hand, millions of honest people in

Asia, who make up the majority of the world's population, have failed to be

convinced by the Christian story of Jesus since there is no compelling

evidence for its authenticity. The missionaries will insist that the story

of Jesus is a well-established fact and will argue that there is "plenty of

evidence supporting it." One should then insist on seeing this evidence and

refuse to listen any further until they produce it.

 

If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament

story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has

always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew word neitzer,

which means a shoot or sprout--an obvious Messianic symbol. There were

already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah

(c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only

started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century

Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the

Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the

most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu

ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus

began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the

Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The

name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is

important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since

modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and

moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people

besides Yeishu.

 

We know very little about Yeishu ha-Notzri. All modern works that mention

him are based on information taken from the Tosefta and the Baraitas -

writings made at the same time as the Mishna but not contained in it.

Because the historical information concerning Yeishu is so damaging to

Christianity, most Christian authors (and even some Jewish ones) have tried

to discredit this information and have invented many ingenious arguments to

explain it away. Many of their arguments are based on misunderstandings and

misquotations of the Baraitas and in order to get an accurate picture of

Yeishu one should ignore Christian authors and examine the Baraitas

directly.

 

The skimpy information contained in the Baraitas is as follows: Rabbi

Yehoshua ben Perachyah once repelled Yeishu with both hands. People believed

that Yeishu was a sorcerer and they considered him to be a person who had

led the Jews astray. As a result of charges brought against him (the details

of which are not known, but which probably involved high treason) Yeishu was

stoned and his body hung up on the eve of Passover. Before this he was

paraded around for forty days with a herald going in front of him announcing

that he would be stoned and calling for people to come forward to plead for

him. Nothing was brought forward in his favor however. Yeishu had five

disciples: Mattai, Naqai, Neitzer, Buni, and Todah.

 

In the Tosefta and the Baraitas, Yeishu's father is named Pandeira or

Panteiri. These are Hebrew-Aramaic forms of a Greek name. In Hebrew the

third consonant of the name is written either with a dalet or a tet.

Comparison with other Greek words transliterated into Hebrew shows that the

original Greek must have had a delta as its third consonant and so the only

possibility for the father's Greek name is Panderos. Since Greek names were

common among Jews during Hashmonean times it is not necessary to assume that

he was Greek, as some authors have done.

 

The connection between Yeishu and Jesus is corroborated by the the fact that

Mattai and Todah, the names of two of Yeishu's disciples, are the original

Hebrew forms of Matthew and Thaddaeus, the names of two of Jesus's disciples

in Christian mythology.

 

The early Christians were also aware of the name "ben Pandeira" for Jesus.

The pagan philosopher Celsus, who was famous for his arguments against

Christianity, claimed in 178 C.E. that he had heard from a Jew that Jesus's

mother, Mary, had been divorced by her husband, a carpenter, after it had

been proved that she was an adultress. She wandered about in shame and bore

Jesus in secret. His real father was a soldier named Pantheras. According to

the Christian writer Epiphanius (c. 320 - 403 C.E.), the Christian apologist

Origen (c.185 - 254 C.E.) had claimed that "Panther" was the nickname for

Jacob the father of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus. It should be noted that

Origen's claim is not based on any historical information. It is purely a

conjecture aimed at explaining away the Pantheras story of Celsus. That

story is also not historical. The claim that the name of Jesus's mother was

Mary and the claim that her husband was a carpenter is taken directly from

Christian belief. The claim that Jesus's real father was named Pantheras is

based on an incorrect attempt at reconstructing the original form of

Pandeira. This incorrect reconstruction was probably influenced by the fact

that the name Pantheras was found among Roman soldiers.

 

Why did people believe that Jesus's mother was named Mary and her husband

named Joseph? Why did non-Christians accuse Mary of being an adultress while

Christians believed she was a virgin? To answer these questions one must

examine some of the legends surrounding Yeishu. We cannot hope to obtain the

absolute truth concerning the origins of the Jesus myth but we can show that

reasonable alternatives exist to blindly accepting the New Testament.

 

The name Joseph for Jesus's stepfather is easy to explain. The Notzri

movement was particularly popular with the Samaritan Jews. While the

Pharisees were waiting for a Messiah who would be a descendant of David, the

Samaritans wanted a Messiah who would restore the northern kingdom of

Israel. The Samaritans emphasized their partial descent from the tribes of

Ephraim and Manasseh, who were descended from the Joseph of the Torah. The

Samaritans considered themselves to be "Bnei Yoseph" i.e. "sons of Joseph,"

and since they believed that Jesus had been their Messiah, they would have

assumed that he was a "son of Joseph." The Greek speaking population, who

had little knowledge of Hebrew and true Jewish traditions, could have easily

misunderstood this term and assumed that Joseph was the actual name of

Jesus's father. This conjecture is corroborated by the fact that according

to the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph's father is named Jacob, just like the

Torah Joseph. Later, other Christians, who followed the idea that the

Messiah was to be descended from David, tried to trace Joseph back to David.

They came up with two contradictory genealogies for him, one recorded in

Matthew and the other in Luke. When the idea that Mary was a virgin

developed, the mythical Joseph was relegated to the position of simply being

her husband and the stepfather of Jesus.

 

To understand where the Mary story came from we have to turn to another

historical character who contributed to the Jesus myth, namely ben Stada.

All the information we have on ben Stada again comes from the Tosefta and

the Baraitas. There is even less information about him than about Yeishu.

Some people believed that he had brought spells out of Egypt in a cut in his

flesh, others thought that he was a madman. He was a beguiler and was caught

by the method of concealed witnesses. He was stoned in Lod.

 

In the Tosefta, ben Stada is called ben Sotera or ben Sitera. Sotera seems

to be the Hebrew-Aramaic form of the Greek name Soteros. The forms "Sitera"

and "Stada" seem have arisen as misreadings and spelling mistakes (yod

replacing vav and dalet replacing reish).

 

Since there was so little information concerning ben Stada, many conjectures

arose as to who he was. It is known from the Gemara that he was confused

with Yeishu. This probably resulted from the fact that both were executed

for treasonous teachings and were associated with sorcery. People who

confused ben Stada with Yeishu had to explain why he was also called ben

Pandeira. Since the name "Stada" resembles the Aramaic expression "stat da,"

meaning "she went astray" it was thought that "Stada" referred to the mother

of Yeishu and that she was an adultress. Consequently, people began to think

that Yeishu was the illegitimate son of Pandeira. These ideas are in fact

mentioned in the Gemara and are probably much older. Since ben Stada lived

in Roman times and the name Pandeira resembled the name Pantheras found

among Roman soldiers, it was assumed that Pandeira had been a Roman soldier

stationed in Israel. This certainly explains the story mentioned by Celsus.

 

The Tosefta mentions a famous case of a woman named Miriam bat Bilgah

marrying a Roman soldier. The idea that Yeishu had been born to a Jewish

woman who had had an affair with a Roman soldier probably resulted in

Yeishu's mother being confused with this Miriam. The name "Miriam" is of

course the original form of the name "Mary." It is in fact known from the

Gemara that some of the people who confused Yeishu with ben Stada believed

that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's hairdresser."

 

The story that Mary (Miriam) the mother of Jesus was an adulteress was

certainly not acceptable to the early Christians. The virgin birth story was

probably invented to clear Mary's name. The early Christians did not suck

this story out of their thumbs. Virgin birth stories were fairly common in

pagan myths. The following mythological characters were all believed to have

been born to divinely impregnated virgins: Romulus and Remus, Perseus,

Zoroaster, Mithras, Osiris-Aion, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas,

Dionysus. The pagan belief in unions between gods and women, regardless of

whether they were virgins or not, is even more common. Many characters in

pagan mythology were believed to be sons of divine fathers and human

females. The Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God born to a

virgin, is typical of Greco-Roman superstition. The Jewish philosopher,

Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 B.C.E - 45 C.E.), warned against the widespread

superstitious belief in unions between male gods and human females which

returned women to a state of virginity.

 

The god Tammuz, worshipped by pagans in northern Israel, was said to have

been born to the virgin Myrrha. The name "Myrrha" superficially resembles

"Mary/Miriam" and it is possible that this particular virgin birth story

influenced the Mary story more than the others. Like Jesus, Tammuz was

always called Adon, meaning "Lord." (The character Adonis in Greek mythology

is based on Tammuz.) As we will see later, the connection between Jesus and

Tammuz goes much further than this.

 

The idea that Mary had been an adultress never completely disappeared in

Christian mythology. Instead, the character of Mary was split into two: Mary

the mother of Jesus, believed to be a virgin, and Mary Magdalene, believed

to be a woman of ill repute. The idea that the character of Mary Magdalene

is also derived from Miriam the mythical mother of Yeishu, is corroborated

by the fact that the strange name "Magdalene" clearly resembles the Aramaic

term "mgadla nshaya," meaning "womens' hairdresser." As mentioned before,

there was a belief that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's

hairdresser." Because the Christians did not know what the name "Magdalene"

meant, they later conjectured that it meant that she had come from a place

called Magdala on the west of Lake Kinneret. The idea of the two Marys

fitted in well with the pagan way of thinking. The image of Jesus being

followed by the two Marys is strongly reminiscent of Dionysus being followed

by Demeter and Persephone.

 

The Gemara contains an interesting legend concerning Yeishu which attempts

to elucidate the Beraita which says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah

repelled Yeishu with both hands. The legend claims that when the Hashmonean

king Yannai was killing the Pharisees, Rabbi Yehoshua and Yeishu fled to

Egypt. When returning they came upon an inn. The Aramaic word "aksanya"

means both "inn" or "innkeeper." Rabbi Yehoshua remarked how beautiful the

"aksanya" was (meaning the inn). Yeishu (meaning the innkeeper) replied that

her eyes were too narrow. Rabbi Yehoshua was very angry with Yeishu and

excommunicated him. Yeishu asked many times for forgiveness but Rabbi

Yehoshua would not forgive him. Once when Rabbi Yehoshua was reciting the

Shema, Yeishu came up to him. He made a sign to him that he should wait.

Yeishu misunderstood and thought that he was being rejected again. He mocked

Rabbi Yehoshua by setting up a brick and worshipping it. Rabbi Yehoshua told

him to repent but he refused to, saying that he had learned from him that

anyone who sins and causes many to sin, is not given the opportunity to

repent.

 

The above story, up to the events at the inn, closely resembles another

legend in which the protagonist is not Rabbi Yehoshua but his disciple

Yehuda ben Tabbai. In this legend, Yeishu is not named. One may thus

question whether Yeishu really went to Egypt or not. It is possible that

Yeishu was confused with some other disciple of either Rabbi Yehoshua or

Rabbi Yehuda. The confusion might have resulted from the fact that Yeishu

was confused with ben Stada who had returned from Egypt. On the other hand,

Yeishu might have really fled to Egypt and returned, and this in turn could

have contributed to the confusion between Yeishu and ben Stada. Whatever the

case, the belief that Yeishu fled to Egypt to escape being killed by a cruel

king, appears to be the origin of the Christian belief that Jesus and his

family fled to Egypt to escape King Herod.

 

Since the early Christians believed that Jesus had lived in Roman times it

is natural that they would have confused the evil king who wanted to kill

Jesus with Herod, since there were no other suitable evil kings during the

Roman period. Yeishu was an adult at the time that the rabbis fled from

Yannai; why did the Christians believe that Jesus and his family had fled to

Egypt when Jesus was an infant? Why did the Christians believe that Herod

had ordered all baby boys born in Bethlehem to be killed, when there is no

historical evidence of this? To answer these questions we again have to look

at pagan mythology.

 

The theme of a divine or semi-divine child who is feared by an evil king is

very common in pagan mythology. The usual story is that the evil king

receives a prophecy that a certain child will be born who will usurp the

throne. In some stories the child is born to a virgin and usually he is son

of a god. The mother of the child tries to hide him. The king usually orders

the slaying of all babies who might be the prophecied king. Examples of

myths which follow this plot are the birth stories of Romulus and Remus,

Perseus, Krishna, Zeus, and Oedipus. Although Torah literalists will not

like to admit it, the story of Moses's birth also resembles these myths

(some of which claim that the mother put the child in a basket and placed

him in a river). There were probably several such stories circulating in the

Levant which have been lost. The Christian myth of the slaughter of the

innocents by Herod is simply a Christain version of this theme. The plot was

so well known that one Midrashic scholar could not resist using it for an

apocryphal account of Abraham's birth.

 

The early Christians believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.

This belief is based on a misunderstanding of Micah 5.2 which simply names

Bethlehem as the town where the Davidic lineage began. Since the early

Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed

that he was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that he

lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple. The early Greek speaking

Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek

form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the

Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri"

is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene.") The early Christians

conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was

assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely

confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (Nazarene, Christian), "Natzrati"

(Nazarethite) and "nazir" (nazarite), all of which have completely different

meanings.

 

The information in the Talmud (which contains the Baraitas and the Gemara),

concerning Yeishu and ben Stada, is so damaging to Christianity that

Christians have always taken drastic measures against it. When the

Christians first discovered the information they immediately tried to wipe

it out by censoring the Talmud. The Basle edition of the Talmud (c. 1578 -

1580) had all the passages relating to Yeishu and ben Stada deleted by the

Christians. Even today, editions of the Talmud used by Christian scholars

lack these passages!

 

During the first few decades of this century, fierce academic battles raged

between atheist and Christian scholars over the true origins of

Christianity. The Christians were forced to face up to the Talmudic

evidence. They could no longer ignore it and so they decided to attack it

instead. They claimed that the Talmudic Yeishu was a distortion of the

"historical Jesus." They claimed that the name "Pandeira" was simply a

Hebrew attempt at pronouncing the Greek word for virgin--"parthenos."

Although there is a superficial resemblence between the words, one should

note that in order for "Pandeira" to be derived from "parthenos," the "n"

and "r" have to be interchanged. However, the Jews did not suffer from any

speech impediment which would cause this to happen! The Christian response

is that possibly the Jews purposefully altered the word "parthenos" to

either the name "Pantheras" (found in Celsus's story) or to "pantheros"

meaning a panther, and "Pandeira" is derived from the deliberately altered

word. This argument also fails since the third consonant of both the altered

and unaltered "parthenos" is theta. This letter is always transliterated by

the Hebrew letter tav, whose pronunciation during classical times most

closely resembled that of the Greek letter. However, the name "Pandeira" is

never spelled with a tav but with either a dalet or a tet which show that

the original Greek form had a delta as its third consonant, not a theta. The

Christian argument can also be turned on its head: maybe the Christians

deliberately altered "Pantheras" to "parthenos" when they invented the

virgin birth story. It should also be noted that the resemblence between

"Pantheras" (or "pantheros") and "parthenos" is actually much less when

written in Greek since in the original Greek spelling their second vowels

are completely different.

 

The Christians also did not accept that Mary Magdalene was connected to

Miriam the alleged mother of Yeishu in the Talmud. They argued that the name

"Magdalene" does mean a person from Magdala and that the Jews invented

"Miriam the women's hairdresser mgadla nshaya)" either to mock the

Christians, or out of their own misunderstanding of the name "Magdalene."

This argument is also false. Firstly, it ignores Greek grammar: the correct

Greek for "of Magdala" is "Magdales" and the correct Greek for a person from

Magdala is "Magdalaios." The original Greek root of "Magdalene" is

"Magdalen-," with a conspicuous "n" showing that the word has nothing to do

with Magdala. Secondly, Magdala only got its name after the Gospels were

written. Before that it was called Magadan or Dalmanutha. (Although

"Magadan" has an "n," it lacks an "l" and so it cannot be the derivation of

"Magdalene.") In fact, the ruins of this area were renamed Magdala by the

Christian community because they believed that Mary Magdalene had come from

there.

 

The Christians also claimed that the word "Notzri" means a person from

Nazareth. This is of course false since the original Hebrew for Nazareth is

"Natzrat" and a person from Nazareth is a "Natzrati." The name "Notzri"

lacks the letter tav from "Natzrat" as so it cannot be derived from it. The

Christians argue that perhaps the Aramaic name for Nazareth was "Natzarah"

or "Natzirah" (like the modern Arabic name) which explains the missing tav

in "Notzri." This is also nonsense since the Aramaic word for a person from

Nazareth would then be "Natzaratiya" or "Natziratiya" (with a tav since the

feminine ending "-ah" would become "-at-" when the suffix "-iya" is added),

and besides, the Aramaic form would not be used in Hebrew. The Christians

also came up with various other arguments which can be dismissed since they

confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" and "nazir" or ignore the fact that

"Notzri" is the earliest form of the word "Nazarene."

 

To sum up, all the Christian arguments were based on impossible phonetic

changes and grammatical forms, and were consequently dismissed. Moreover,

although the legends in the Gemara cannot be taken as fact, the evidence in

the Baraitas and Tosefta concerning Yeishu can be traced back directly to

Yehoshua ben Perachyah, Shimon ben Shetach and Yehuda ben Tabbai and their

disciples who were contemporaries of Yeishu, while the evidence in the

Baraitas and Tosefta concerning ben Stada can be traced to Rabbi Eliezer ben

Hyrcanus and his disciples who were ben Stada's contempories. Consequently

the evidence can be regarded as historically accurate. Therefore modern

Christians no longer attack the Talmud but instead deny any connection

between Jesus and Yeishu or ben Stada. They dismiss the similarities as pure

coincidence. However, one must still be aware of the false attacks on the

Talmud since many Christian books still mention them and they can and do

resurface from time to time.

 

Many parts of the Jesus story are not based on Yeishu or ben Stada. Most

Christian denominations claim that Jesus was born on 25 December. Originally

the eastern Christains believed that he was born on 6 January. The Armenian

Christians still follow this early belief while most Christians consider it

to be the date of the visit of the Magi. As pointed out already, Jesus was

probably confused with Tammuz born of the virgin Myrrha. We know that in

Roman times, the gods Tammuz, Aion and Osiris were identified. Osiris-Aion

was said to be born of the virgin Isis on the 6 January and this explains

the earlier date for Christmas. Isis was sometimes represented as a sacred

cow and her temple as a stable which is probably the origin of the Christian

belief that Jesus was born in a stable. Although some might find this claim

to be farfetched, it is known as a fact that certain early Christian sects

identified Jesus and Osiris in their writings. The date of 25 December for

Christmas was originally the pagan birthday of the sun god, whose day of the

week is still known as Sunday. The halo of light which is usually shown

surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian saints, is another concept taken

from the sun god.

 

The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan

mythology. In particular the story of Jesus's temptation by Satan resembles

the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.

 

We have already hinted that there was also a connection between Jesus and

the pagan god Dionysus. Like Dionysus, the infant Jesus was wrapped in

swaddling clothes and placed in a manger; like Dionysus, Jesus could turn

water into wine; like Dionysus, Jesus rode on an ass and fed a multitude in

the wilderness; like Dionysus, Jesus suffered and was mocked. Some early

Christians claimed that Jesus had in fact been born, not in a stable, but in

a cave--just like Dionysus.

 

Where did the story that Jesus was crucified come from? It appears to have

resulted from a number of sources. Firstly there were three historical

characters during the Roman period who people thought were Messiahs and who

were crucified by the Romans, namely Yehuda of Galilee (6 C.E.), Theudas (44

C.E.), and Benjamin the Egyptian (60 C.E.). Since these three people were

all thought to be the Messiah, they were naturally confused with Yeishu and

ben Stada. Yehuda of Galilee had preached in Galilee and had collected many

followers before being crucified by the Romans. The story of Jesus's

ministry in Galilee appears to be based on the life of Yehuda of Galilee.

This story and the belief that Jesus lived in Nazareth in Galilee,

reinforced each other. The belief that some of Jesus's disciples were killed

in c. 44 C.E. by Agrippa appears to be based the fate of Theudas's

disciples. Since ben Stada had come from Egypt it is natural that he would

have been confused with Benjamin the Egyptian. They were probably also

contemporaries. Even some modern authors have suggested that they were the

same person, although this is not possible since the stories of their deaths

are completely different. In the New Testament book of Acts, which uses

Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities (93 - 94 C.E.) as a reference, it is made

clear that the author considered Jesus, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and

Benjamin the Egyptian, to be four different people. However, by that time it

was too late to undo the confusions which had already taken place before the

New Testament was written, and the idea of Jesus's crucifixion had become an

integral part of the myth.

 

Secondly, the idea arose that Jesus had been executed on the eve of

Passover. This belief is apparently based on Yeishu's execution. Passover

occurs at the time of the Vernal Equinox, an event considered important by

astrologers during the Roman Empire. The astrologers thought of this time as

the time of the crossing of two astrological celestial circles, and this

event was symbolized by a cross. Thus there was a belief that Jesus had died

on "the cross." The misunderstanding of this term by those who were not

initiated into the astrological cults, was another factor contributing to

the belief that Jesus was crucified. In one of the earliest Christian

documents (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) there is no mention of Jesus

being crucified yet the sign of a cross in the sky is used to represent

Jesus's coming. It should be noted that the center of astrological

superstition in the Roman Empire was the city of Tarsus in Asia Minor - the

place where the legendary missionary Paul came from. The idea that a special

star had heralded the birth of Jesus, and that a solar eclipse occurred at

his death, is typical of Tarsian astrological superstition.

 

The third factor contributing to the crucifixion story is again pagan

mythology. The theme of a divine or semi-divine being sacrificed against a

tree, pole or cross, and then being resurrected, is very common in pagan

mythology. It was found in the mythologies of all western civilizations

stretching from as far west as Ireland and as far east as India. In

particular it is found in the mythologies of Osiris and Attis, both of whom

were often identified with Tammuz. Osiris landed up with his arms stretched

out on a tree like Jesus on the cross. This tree was sometimes shown as a

pole with outstretched arms - the same shape as the Christian cross. In the

worship of Serapis (a composite of Osiris and Apis) the cross was a

religious symbol. Indeed, the Christian "Latin cross" symbol seems to be

based directly on the cross symbol of Osiris and Serapis. The Romans never

used this traditional Christian cross for crucifixions, they used crosses

shaped either like an X or a T. The hieroglyph of a cross on a hill was

associated with Osiris. This heiroglyph stood for the "Good One," in Greek

"Chrestos," a name applied to Osiris and other pagan gods. The confusion of

this name with "Christos" (Messiah, Christ) strengthened the confusion

between Jesus and the pagan gods.

 

At the Vernal Equinox, pagans in northern Israel would celebrate the death

and resurrection of the virgin-born Tammuz-Osiris. In Asia Minor (where the

earliest Christian churches were established) a similar celebration was held

for the virgin-born Attis. Attis was shown as dying against a tree, being

buried in a cave and then being resurrected on the third day. We thus see

where the Christian story of Jesus's resurrection comes from. In the worship

of Baal, it was believed that Baal cheated Mavet (the god of death) at the

time of the Vernal Equinox. He pretended to be dead but later appeared

alive. He accomplished this ruse by giving his only son as a sacrifice.

 

The occurrence of Passover at the same time of year as the pagan "Easter"

festivals is not coincidental. Many of the Pessach customs were designed as

Jewish alternatives to pagan customs. The pagans believed that when their

nature god (such as Tammuz, Osiris or Attis) died and was resurrected, his

life went into the plants used by man as food. The matza made from the

spring harvest was his new body and the wine from the grapes was his new

blood. In Judaism, matza, was not used to represent the body of a god but

the poor man's bread which the Jews ate before leaving Egypt. The pagans

used the paschal sacrifice to represent the sacrifice of a god or his only

son, but Judaism used it to represent the meal eaten before leaving Egypt.

Instead of telling stories about Baal sacrificing his first born son to

Mavet, the Jews told how mal'ach ha-mavet (the angel of death) slew the

first born sons of the Egyptians. The pagans ate eggs to represent the

resurrection and rebirth of their nature god, but the egg on the seder plate

represents the rebirth of the Jewish people escaping captivity in Egypt.

When the early Christians noticed the similarities between Pessach customs

and pagan customs, they came full circle and converted the Pessach customs

back to their old pagan interpretations. The seder became the last supper of

Jesus, similar to the last supper of Osiris commemorated at the Vernal

Equinox. The matza and wine once again became the body and blood of a false

god, this time Jesus. Easter eggs are again eaten to commemorate the

resurrection of a "god" and also the "rebirth" obtained by accepting his

sacrifice on the cross.

 

The Last Supper myth is particularly interesting. As mentioned, the basic

idea of last supper occurring at the Vernal Equinox comes from the story of

the last supper of Osiris. In the Christian story, Jesus is present with

twelve apostles. Where did the story of the twelve apostles come from? It

appears that in its earliest version, the story was understood to be an

allegory. The first time that twelve apostles are mentioned is in the

document known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. This document

apparently originated as a sectarian Jewish document written in the first

century C.E., but it was adopted by Christians who altered it substantially

and added Christian ideas to it. In the earliest versions it is clear that

the "twelve apostles" are the twelve sons of Jacob representing the twelve

tribes of Israel. The Christians later considered the "twelve apostles" to

be allegorical disciples of Jesus.

 

In Egyptian mythology, Osiris was betrayed at his last supper by the evil

god Set, whom the Greeks identified with Typhon. This seems to be the origin

of the idea that Jesus's betrayer was present at his last supper. The idea

that this betrayer was named "Judas" goes back to the time when the twelve

apostles were still understood to be the sons of Jacob. The idea of Judas

(Judah, Yehuda) betraying Jesus (the "son" of Joseph) is strongly

reminiscent of the story of the Torah Joseph being betrayed by his brothers

with Yehuda as the ringleader. This allegory would have been particulary

appealing to the Samaritan Notzrim who considered themselves to be sons of

Joseph betrayed by mainstream Jews (represented by Judas/Yehuda).

 

However, the story of the twelve apostles lost its original allegorical

interpretation and the Christians began to think that the "twelve apostles"

were twelve real people who followed Jesus. The Christians attempted to find

names for these twelve apostles. Matthew and Thaddaeus were based on Mattai

and Todah, two of Yeishu's disciples. One or both of the apostles named

Jacobus (James) is possibly based on Jacob of Kfar Sekanya, an early

Christian known to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, but this is just a guess. As

we have seen, the character of Judas is mostly based on the Judah of the

Torah but there might also be a connection with Yeishu's contemporary,

Yehuda ben Tabbai the disciple of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah. As already

mentioned, the idea of the betrayer at the last supper is derived from the

mythology of Osiris who was betrayed by Set-Typhon. Set-Typhon had red hair

and this is probably the origin of the claim that Judas had red hair. This

idea has led to the Christian stereotypical portrayal of Jews as having red

hair, despite the fact that in reality, red hair is far more common among

Aryans than among Jews.

 

Judas is often given the nickname "Iscariot." In some places where English

New Testaments have "Iscariot," the Greek text actually has "apo Kariotou"

which means "from Karyot." Karyot was the name of a town in Israel, probably

the modern site known in Arabic as Karyatein. We thus see that the name

Iscariot is derived from the Hebrew "ish Karyot" meaning "man from Karyot."

This is in fact the accepted modern Christian understanding of the name.

However, in the past, the Christians misunderstood this name and legends

arose that Judas was from the town of Sychar, that he was a member of the

extremist party known as the Sicarii and that he was from the tribe of

Issacher. The most interesting misunderstanding of the name is its early

confusion with the word scortea meaning a leather money bag. This led to the

New Testament myth that Judas carried such a bag, which in turn led to the

belief that he was the treasurer of the apostles.

 

The apostle Peter appears to be a largely fictitious character. According to

Christian mythology, Jesus chose him to be the "keeper of the keys to the

kingdom of heaven." This is clearly based on the Egyptian pagan deity,

Petra, who was the door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife ruled over by

Osiris. We must also doubt the story of Luke "the good healer" who was

supposed to be a friend of Paul. The original Greek for "Luke" is "Lykos"

which was another name for Apollo, the god of healing.

 

John the Baptist is largely based on an historical person who practiced

ritual immersion in water as a physical symbol for repentance. He did not

perform Christian style sacramental baptisms to cleanse people's souls -

such an idea was totally foreign to Judaism. He was put to death by Herod

Antipas, who feared that he was about to start a rebellion. John's name in

Greek was "Ioannes" and in Latin "Johannes." Although these names were

usually used for the Hebrew name Yochanan, it is unlikely that this was

John's actual Hebrew name. "Ioannes" closely resembles "Oannes" the Greek

name for the pagan god Ea. Oannes was the "God of the House of Water."

Sacramental baptism for magically cleansing souls was a practice which

apparently originated in the worship of Oannes. The most likely explanation

of John's name and its connection with Oannes is that John probably bore the

nickname "Oannes" since he practised baptism which he had adapted from the

worship of Oannes. The name "Oannes" was later confused with "Ioannes." (In

fact, the New Testament legend concerning John provides a clue that his real

name might have been Zacharia.) It is known from Josephus's writings that

the historical John rejected the pagan "soul-cleansing" interpretation of

baptism. The Christians, however, returned to this original pagan

interpretation.

 

The god Oannes was associated with the constellation Capricorn. Both Oannes

and the constellation Capricorn were associated with water. (The

constellation is supposed to depict a mythical sea-creature with the body of

a fish and the foreparts of a goat.) We have already seen that Jesus was

given the same birthday as the sun god (25 December), when the sun is in the

constellation of Capricorn. The pagans thought of this period as one where

the sun god is immersed in the waters of Oannes and emerges reborn. (The

Winter Solstice, when days start getting longer, occurs near 25 December.)

This astrological myth is apparently the origin of the story that Jesus was

baptized by John. It probably started as an allegorical astrological story,

but it appears that the god Oannes later became confused with the historical

person nicknamed Oannes (John).

 

The belief that Jesus had met John contributed to the belief that Jesus's

ministry and crucifixion occurred when Pontius Pilate was procurator of

Judaea. It should be noted that most dates for Jesus quoted by Christians

are completely nonsense. Jesus was partly based on Yeishu and ben Stada who

probably lived more than a century apart. He was also based on the three

false Messiahs, Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, who were crucified by the

Romans at various different times. Another fact that contributed to confused

dating of Jesus was that Jacob of Kfar Sekanya and probably other Notzrim as

well, used expressions like "thus was I taught by Yeishu ha-Notzri," even

though he had not been taught by Yeishu in person. We know from the Gemara

that Jacob's statement led Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus to incorrectly

conclude that Jacob was a disciple of Yeishu. This suggests that there were

rabbis who were unaware of the fact that Yeishu had lived in Hashmonean

times. Even after Christians placed Jesus in the first century C.E.,

confusion continued among non-Christians. There was a contemporary of Rabbi

Akiva named Pappus ben Yehuda who used to lock up his unfaithful wife. We

know from the Gemara that some people who confused Yeishu and ben Stada

confused the wife of Pappus with Miriam the unfaithful mother of Yeishu.

This would place Yeishu more than two centuries after he actually lived!

 

The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no

way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is

1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod

ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12,

4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4

B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of

Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten

years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John

soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of

the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of

Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened

when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high

priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed

in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and

about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never

two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest

with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E

after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest

in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about

eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius

Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents

Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it

incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it

correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of

these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and

misunderstandings of Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities, which was used as

reference by the author of Luke and Acts.

 

The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to

placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate

was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any

authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a

concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and

who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian

mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one

criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a

custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the

year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus

the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have

enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic

lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by

antisemites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is

that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that

the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name "Barabbas" is

simply the Greek form of the Aramaic "bar Abba" which means "son of the

Father." Thus "Jesus Barabbas" originally meant "Jesus the son of the

Father," in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story

claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring

to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus

Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman

and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name "Barabbas."

 

Lastly, the claim that the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples is

also based on pagan superstition. In Roman mythology, the virgin born

Romulus appeared to his friend on the road before he was taken up to heaven.

(The theme of being taken up to heaven is found in scores of pagan myths and

legends and even in Jewish stories.) It was claimed that Apollonius of Tyana

had also appeared to his disciples after having been resurrected. It is

interesting to note that the historical Apollonius was born more or less at

the same time as the mythical Jesus was supposed to have been born. In

legends people claimed that he had performed many miracles which were

identical to those also ascribed to Jesus, such as exorcisms of demons and

the raising to life of a dead girl.

 

When confronted with Christian missionaries one should point out as much

information as possible about the origins of Christianity and the Jesus

myth. You will almost never succeed in convincing them that Christianity is

a false religion. You will not be able to prove beyond all doubt that the

story of Jesus arose in the way we have claimed it has, since most of the

evidence is circumstantial. Indeed we cannot be certain about the precise

origin of many particular points in the story of Jesus. This does not

matter. What is important is that you yourself realize that logical

alternatives exist to blind belief in Christian myths and that reasonable

doubt can be cast on the New Testament narrative.

 

PART 2: THE LACK OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS

The usual Christian response to those who question the historicity of Jesus

is to palm off various documents as "historical evidence" for the existence

of Jesus. They usually start with the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark,

Luke and John. The usual claim is that these are "eyewitness accounts of the

life of Jesus made by his disciples." The reply to this argument can be

summed up in one word--pseudepigraphic. This term refers to works of writing

whose authors conceal their true identities behind the names of legendary

characters from the past. Pseudepigraphic writing was particularly popular

among the Jews during Hashmonean and Roman periods and this style of writing

was adopted by the early Christians.

 

The canonical gospels are not the only gospels. For example, there are also

gospels of Mary, Peter, Thomas and Philip. These four gospels are recognized

as being pseudepigraphic by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. They

provide no legitimate historical information since they were based on rumors

and belief. The existence of these obviously pseudepigraphic gospels makes

it quite reasonable to suspect that the canonical gospels might also be

pseudepigraphic. The very fact that early Christians wrote pseudepigraphic

gospels suggests that this was in fact the norm. It is thus the

missionaries' claim that the canonical gospels are not pseudepigraphic which

requires proof.

 

The Gospel of Mark is written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the

mythical Peter. (Peter is largely based on the pagan god Petra, who was

door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife in Egyptian religion.) Even in

Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul

and Luke. Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100 C.E.) but after

the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., which it mentions. Most Christians

believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history but

on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This

is not possible since the style of language used in Mark shows that it was

written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first

language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Indeed, since all the

other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past,

Mark was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one)

had died. The content of Mark is a collection of myths and legends put

together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was

based on any reliable historical sources. Mark was altered and edited many

times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E. Clement of

Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained about the alternative

versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The

Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue

and Clement complained about their versions of Mark which told of Jesus's

homosexual exploits with young boys!)

 

The Gospel of Matthew was certainly not written by the apostle Matthew. The

character of Matthew is based on the historical person named Mattai who was

a disciple of Yeishu ben Pandeira. (Yeishu, who lived in Hashmonean times,

was one of several historical people upon whom the character Jesus is

based.) The Gospel of Matthew was originally anonymous and was only assigned

the name Matthew some time during the first half of the second century C.E.

The earliest form was probably written at more or less the same time as the

Gospel of Luke (c. 100 C.E.), since neither seems to know of the other. It

was altered and edited until about 150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing

with the virgin birth, were not in the original version and the Christians

in Israel of Jewish descent preferred this earlier version. For its sources

it used Mark and a collection of teachings referred to as the Second Source

(or the Q Document). The Second Source has not survived as a separate

document, but its full contents are found in Matthew and Luke. All the

teachings contained in it can be found in Judaism. The more reasonable

teachings can be found in mainstream Judaism, while the less reasonable ones

can be found in sectarian Judaism. There is nothing in it which would

require us to suppose the existence of a real historical Jesus. Although

Matthew and Luke attribute the teachings in it to Jesus, the Epistle of

James attributes them to James. Thus Matthew provides no historical evidence

for Jesus.

 

The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (which were two parts of a single

work) were written in the name of the Christian mythological character Luke

the healer (who was probably not an historical person but a Christian

adaptation of the Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology, Luke

was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. Luke and Acts use

Josephus's Jewish Antiquities as a reference, and so they could not have

been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul would be either

dead or well into senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian

scholars agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written by

an anonymous Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and edited until c.

150 - 175 C.E. Besides Josephus's book, Luke and Acts also use the Gospel of

Mark and the Second Source as references. Although Josephus is considered to

be more or less reliable, the anonymous author often misread and

misunderstood Josephus and moreover, none of the information about Jesus in

Luke and Acts comes from Josephus. Thus Luke and Acts are of no historical

value.

 

The Gospel of John was written in the name of the apostle John the brother

of James, son of Zebedee. The author of Luke used as many sources as he

could get hold of but he was unaware of John. Thus John more than likely

could not have been written before Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently John

could not have been written by the semi-mythical character John the Apostle

who was supposed to have been killed by Herod Agrippa shortly before his own

death in 44 C.E. (John the Apostle is apparently based on an historical

disciple of the false Messiah Theudas who was crucified by the Romans in 44

C.E. and whose disciples were murdered.) The real author of the Gospel of

John was in fact an anonymous Christian from Ephesus in Asia Minor. The

oldest surviving fragment of John dates to c. 125 C.E. and so we can date

the gospel to c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based on stylistic considerations many

scholars narrow down the date to c. 110 - 120 C.E. The earliest version of

John did not contain the last chapter which deals with Jesus appearing to

his disciples. Like the other gospels, John probably only attained its

present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The author of John used Mark sparingly

and so one suspects that he did not trust it. He either had not read Matthew

and Luke or he did not trust them since he does not use any information from

them which was not found in Mark. Most of John consists of legends with

obvious underlying allegorical interpretations and one suspects that the

author never intended them to be history. John does not contain any

information from reliable historical sources.

 

Christians will claim that the Gospel of John itself states that it is an

historical document written by John. This claim is based on the verses John

19.34-35 and John 21.20 - 24. John 19.34-35 does not claim that the gospel

was written by John. It claims that the events described in the immediately

preceding verses were accurately reported by a witness. The passage is

ambiguous and it is not clear whether the witness is supposed to be the same

person as the author. Many scholars are of the opinion that the ambiguity is

deliberate and that the author of John is trying to tease his readers in

this passage as well as in the passages which tell miraculous stories with

allegorical interpretations. John 21.20-24 also does not claim that the

author is John. It claims that the disciple mentioned in the passage is the

one who witnessed the events described. It is again notably ambiguous as

regards the question of whether the disciple is the same person as the

author. It should be noted that this passage is in the last chapter of John

which was not part of the original gospel but was added on as an epilogue by

an anonymous redactor. One should beware the fact that many "easy to

understand" translations of the New Testament distort the passages mentioned

so as to remove the ambiguity found in the original Greek. (Ideally one

needs to be familiar with the original Greek text of the New Testament in

order to avoid biased and distorted translations used by fundamentalist

Christians and missionaries.)

 

In order to back up their claims that the gospels of Mark and Matthew were

written by the "real" apostles Mark and Matthew and that Jesus is an

historical person, missionaries often point to the so-called "testimony of

Papias." Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis (near Ephesus) during the

middle of the second century C.E. None of his writings have survived but the

Christian historian Eusebius (c. 260 - 339 C.E.) in his book, Ecclesiastical

History (written c. 311 - 324 C.E.) paraphrased certain passages from

Papias's book Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord (written c. 140 - 160

C.E.). In these passages, Papias claimed that he had known the daughters of

the apostle Philip and also reported several stories which he claimed came

from people named Aristion and John the Elder, who had still been alive

during his own lifetime. Eusebius appears to have thought that Aristion and

John the Elder were disciples of Jesus. Papias claimed that John the Elder

had said that Mark had been Peter's interpreter and had written down

accurately everything that Peter had to tell about Jesus. Papias also

claimed that Matthew had compiled all the "oracles" in Hebrew and everyone

had interpreted them as best they could. None of this, however, provides any

legitimate historical evidence of Jesus nor does it back up the belief that

Mark and Matthew were really written by apostles bearing those names. Papias

was a name-dropper and it is by no means certain that he was honest when he

claimed that he had met Philip's daughters. Even if he had, this would at

most prove that the apostle Philip in Christian mythology was based on an

historical person. Papias never explicitly claimed that he had met Aristion

and John the Elder. Moreover, just because Eusebius in the 4th century

believed that they were disciples of Jesus does not mean that they were.

Nothing at all is known about who on earth Aristion actually was. He is

certainly not one of the disciples in the usual Christian tradition. I have

seen books in which certain fundamentalist Christians claim that John the

Elder was the apostle John the son of Zebedee and that he was still alive

when Papias was young. They also claim that Papias lived in c. 60 - 130 C.E.

and that he wrote his book in c. 120 C.E. These dates are not based on any

legitimate evidence and are complete nonsense: Papias was bishop of

Hierapolis in c. 150 C.E and as already mentioned his book was written

sometime in the period c. 140 - 160 C.E. Pushing the date for Papias back to

60 C.E. still does not place him during the lifetime of the apostle John who

according to standard Christian legends was killed in 44 C.E. Besides, it is

unlikely that John the Elder had anything to do with John the Apostle.

According to Epiphanius (c. 320 - 403 C.E.), an early Christian named John

the Elder had died in 117 C.E. We will have more to say about him when we

discuss the three epistles named after John. Whatever the case, the stories

which Papias collected were being told at least a decade after the gospels

and Acts had been written and reflect unfounded rumors and superstition

about the origins of these books. In particular, the story about Mark

obtained from John the Elder is nothing more than a slight elaboration of

the legend about Mark found in Acts and so it tells us nothing about the

true origins of the Gospel of Mark. The story about Matthew writing the

"oracles" is simply a rumor, and besides, it does not have anything to do

with the Gospel of Matthew. The term "oracles" can only be understood as a

reference to the collection of writings known as the Oracles of the Lord

which is referred to in the title of Papias's book and which in all

likelyhood is the same thing as the Second Source, not the Gospel of

Matthew.

 

Besides the canonical gospels and Acts, missionaries also try to use the

various Christian epistles as proof of the Jesus story. They claim that the

epistles are letters written by Jesus's disciples and followers. However,

epistles (from the Greek epistol q e, meaning message or order) are books,

written in the form of letters (usually from legendary characters from the

past), which expound religious doctrines and instructions. This form of

religious writing was used by the Jews in Greco-Roman times. (The most

famous Jewish epistle is the Epistle of Jeremiah, which is a lengthy

condemnation of idolatry written during the Hellenistic period in the form

of a letter from the prophet Jeremiah to the people of Jerusalem just before

they were exiled to Babylon.) As in the case of the gospels, there are

Christian epistles not contained in the New Testament which both Christian

and non-Christian scholars agree are pseudepigraphic and of no historical

value since they expound beliefs and not history. The existence of

pseudepigraphic epistles and indeed the whole concept of an epistle,

suggests that epistles were normally pseudepigraphic. Thus again it is the

claims by missionaries and Christian fundamentalists, that the canonical

epistles are genuine letters, which requires proof.

 

The Epistle of Jude is written in the name of Jude (Judas) the brother of

James. According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus had brothers named Judas and

James. Comparison with other writings shows that the Epistle of Jude was

written in c. 130 C.E. and so it is obviously pseudepigraphic. There is no

evidence however that its author used any legitimate historical sources as

regards Jesus.

 

Two of the canonical epistles are written in the name of Peter. Since Peter

is a mythical Christian adaptation of the Egyptian pagan deity Petra, these

epistles were certainly not written by him. The style and character of the

First Epistle of Peter alone shows that it could not have been written

earlier than c. 80 C.E. Even according to Christian legend, Peter was

supposed to have died following the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64

C.E. and so he could not have written the epistle. The author of Luke and

Acts used all written sources he could get hold of and tended to use them

indiscriminately, however he did not mention any epistles by Peter. This

shows that the First Epistle of Peter was probably written after Luke and

Acts (c. 100 C.E.). No references to Jesus in the First Epistle of Peter are

taken from historical sources but instead reflect beliefs and superstition.

The Second Epistle of Peter speaks out against the Marcionists and so it

must have been written c. 150 C.E. It is thus clearly pseudepigraphic. The

Second Epistle of Peter uses as sources: the story of Jesus's

transfiguration found in Mark, Matthew and Luke, the Apocalypse of Peter and

the Epistle of Jude. The non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter (written some

time in the first quarter of the second century C.E.) is recognized as being

non-historical even by fundamentalist Christians. Thus the Second Epistle of

Peter also does not use any legitimate historical sources.

 

We now turn to the epistles supposedly written by Paul. The First Epistle of

Paul to Timothy warns against the Marcionist work known as the Antithesis.

Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome in c. 144 C.E. and the First

Epistle of Paul to Timothy was written shortly afterwards. Thus we again

have a clear case of pseudepigraphy. The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy

and the Epistle of Paul to Titus were written by the same author and date to

about the same period. These three epistles are known as the "pastoral

epistles." The ten remaining "non-pastoral" epistles written in the name of

Paul were known to Marcion by c. 140 C.E. Some of them were not written in

Paul's name alone but are in the form of letters written by Paul in

collaboration with various friends such as Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas.

The author of Luke and Acts, went out of his way to obtain all sources

available and tended to use them indiscriminately, but he used nothing from

the Pauline epistles. We can thus conclude that the non-pastoral epistles

were written after Luke and Acts in the period c. 100 - 140 C.E. The

non-canonical First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written c. 125

C.E.) uses the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians as a source and so

we can narrow down the date for that epistle to c. 100 - 125 C.E. However,

we are left with the conclusion that that all the Pauline epistles are

pseudepigraphic. (The semi-mythical Paul was supposed to have died during

the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E.) Some of the Pauline

epistles appear to be have been altered and edited numerous times before

reaching their modern forms. As sources they use each other, Acts, the

gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the First Epistle of Peter. We may

thus conclude that they provide no historical evidence of Jesus.

 

The Epistle to the Hebrews is a particularly interesting epistle since it is

not pseudepigraphic but completely anonymous. Its author neither reveals his

own name nor does he write in the name of a Christian mythological

character. Fundamentalist Christians claim that it is another epistle by

Paul and in fact call it the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. This idea,

apparently dating to the late fourth century C.E., is not accepted by all

Christians however. As a source for its information on Jesus it uses

material common to Mark, Matthew and Luke, but no legitimate sources. The

author of the First Epistle of Clement used it as a source and so it must

have been written before that epistle (c. 125 C.E.) but after at least the

Gospel of Mark (c. 75 - 100 C.E.).

 

 

The Epistle of James is written in the name of a servant of Jesus called

James (or Jacobus). However, in Christian mythology there were two apostles

named James and Jesus also had a brother named James. It is not clear which

James is intended and there is no agreement among Christians themselves. It

quotes sayings from the Second Source but unlike Matthew and Luke it does

not attribute these sayings to Jesus but presents them as sayings of James.

It contains an important argument against the doctrine of "salvation through

faith" expounded in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. We can thus conclude

that it was written during the first half of the second century C.E., after

Romans but before the time that Matthew and Luke were accepted by all

Christians. Thus regardless of which James is intended, the Epistle of James

is pseudepigraphic. It says almost nothing about Jesus and there is no

evidence that the author had any historical sources for him.

 

There are three epistles named after the apostle John. None of them are in

fact written in the name of John and were probably only ascribed to him some

time after they had been written. The First Epistle of John, like the

Epistle to the Hebrews, is completely anonymous. The idea that it was

written by John arises from the fact that it used the Gospel of John as a

source. The other two epistles named after John are written by a single

author who, instead of writing in the name of an apostle, chose simply to

call himself "the Elder." The idea that these two epistles were written by

John arose from the beliefs that "the Elder" referred to John the Elder and

that he was the same person as the apostle John. In the case of the Second

Epistle of John this belief was reinforced by the fact that that epistle

also uses the Gospel of John as a source. We can thus conclude that the

first two epistles ascribed to John were written after the Gospel of John

(c. 110 - 120 C.E.). Consequently none of the three epistles could have been

written by the apostle John. It should be pointed out that it is quite

possible that the pseudonym "the Elder" does refer to the person named John

the Elder, but if this is so, he is certainly not the apostle John. The

first two John epistles use only the Gospel of John as a source for Jesus;

they do not use any legitimate sources. The Third Epistle of John barely

mentions "Christ" and there is no evidence that it used any historical

sources for him.

 

Besides the epistles named after John, the New Testament also contains a

book known as the Revelation to John. This book combines two forms of

religious writing, that of the epistle and that of the apocalypse.

(Apocalypses are religious works which are written in the form of

revelations about the future made by a famous character from the past. These

revelations usually describe unfortunate events occurring at the time of

writing and also offer some hope to the reader that things will improve.) It

is not certain how much editing the Revelation to John underwent and so it

is difficult to date it precisely. Since it mentions the persecutions

instigated by Nero we can say with certainty that it was not written earlier

than 64 C.E, thus it cannot have been written by the "real" John. The first

few verses form an introduction which is clearly not intended to be by John

and which provides a vague admission that the book is pseudepigraphic even

though the author feels that his message is inspired by God. The style of

writing and the references to the practice of kriobolium (baptism in sheep's

blood) suggests that the author was one of those people of Jewish descent

who mixed Judaism with pagan practices. There were many such "pagan Jews"

during Roman times and it was these people who become the first converts to

Christianity, established the first churches, and who were probably also

responsible for introducing pagan myths into the story of Jesus. (They are

also remembered for their ridiculous belief that "Adonai Tzevaot" was the

same as the pagan god "Sebazios.") The references to Jesus in the book are

few and there is no evidence that they are based on anything but belief.

 

Besides the epistles accepted in the New Testament and the epistles which

are unanimously recognized as being of no value (such as the Epistle of

Barnabas), there are also several epistles which although not accepted in

the New Testament, are considered of value by some Christians. Firstly there

are the epistles named after Clement. In Christian legend, Clement was the

third in succession of Peter as bishop of Rome. The First Epistle of Clement

to the Corinthians is not in fact written in the name of Clement but in the

name of the "Church of God which sojourns in Rome." It refers to a

persecution which is generally thought to have occurred in 95 C.E. under

Domitian, and it refers to the dismissal of the elders of the Church of

Corinth in c. 96 C.E. Christians believe that Clement was bishop of Rome

during this time and this is apparently the reason why the epistle was later

named after him. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the epistle was in

fact written in c. 96 C.E. This date is not possible since the epistle

refers to bishops and priests as separate groups; a division which had not

taken place yet. Stylistic considerations show that it was written in c. 125

C.E. As references it used the Epistle to the Hebrews and The First Epistle

of Paul to the Corinthians but no legitimate historical sources. The Second

Epistle of Clement is by a different author to the first and was written

later. We may thus conclude that it was also not written by Clement. (There

is no evidence that either of these epistles were named after Clement before

their incorporation into the collection of books known as the Codex

Alexandrinus in the fifth century C.E.) As sources for Jesus, the Second

Epistle of Clement uses the Gospel of the Egyptians, a document which is

rejected by even the most fundamentalist Christians, and also the New

Testament books which we have shown to be valueless. Thus again we have no

legitimate evidence of Jesus.

 

Next we have the epistles written in the name of Ignatius. According to

legend, Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch who was killed under Trajan's

rule c. 110 C.E. (Although he is probably based on a real historical person,

the legends about his martyrdom are largely fictional.) There are fifteen

epistles written in his name. Of these, eight are unanimously recognized as

being pseudepigraphic and of no value as regards Jesus. The remaining seven

each have two forms, a longer and a shorter. The longer forms are clearly

altered and edited versions of the shorter forms. Fundamentalist Christians

claim that the shorter forms are genuine letters written by Ignatius. The

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans mentions the threefold ordering of

bishops, priests and deacons which had not yet taken place by Ignatius's

death which occurred no later than 117 C.E. and which probably took place c.

110 C.E. All seven shorter epistles attack various Christian beliefs, now

considered heretical, which only became prevalent c. 140 - 150 C.E. The

shorter Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans contains a quote from the writings

of Irenaeus, written after 170 C.E. and published c. 185 C.E. We can thus

conclude that the seven shorter epistles are also pseudepigraphic. The

shorter Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans was certainly written after 170

C.E. (In fact, if it was not written by Irenaeus then it was probably

written after c. 185 C.E.) The other six were written no earlier than the

period c. 140 - 150 C.E., if not later. There are no sources for Jesus in

the Ignatian epistles other than the New Testament books and the writings of

Irenaeus which only use the New Testament. Thus they contain no legitimate

evidence of Jesus.

 

There are two more epistles which Christians claim are genuine letters,

namely the Epistle of Polycarp and the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The Ignatian

epistles and the epistles concerning Polycarp have always been closely

associated. It is quite possible that they were all written by the Christian

writer Irenaeus and his disciples. There certainly was a real historical

early Christian named Polycarp. He was bishop of Smyrna and was killed by

the Romans sometime in the period 155 - 165 C.E. When Irenaeus was a boy he

knew Polycarp. Fundamentalist Christians claim that Polycarp was the

disciple of the apostle John. However, even if we accept the legend that

Polycarp lived to the age of 86, he could not have been born earlier than 67

C.E and therefore could not have been a disciple of John. (It is possible

that he was a disciple of the enigmatic John the Elder.) Since Irenaeus had

known Polycarp they also assume that Irenaeus was in fact his disciple, a

claim for which there is no evidence. The Epistle of Polycarp uses most New

Testament books and the Ignatian epistles as references but it uses no

legitimate sources for Jesus. Those Christians who reject the Ignatian

epistles but believe the Epistle of Polycarp is a genuine letter, claim that

the references to the Ignatian epistles are a later interpolation. This idea

is based on personal bias, not on any genuine evidence. Based on the blind

belief that this epistle is a genuine letter, some Christians date it to

around the middle of the second century C.E., shortly before Polycarp's

death. However, the references to the Ignatian epistles suggest that it was

in fact written some time in the last few decades of the second century

C.E., at least about a decade after Polycarp's death if not later.

 

The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written in the name of "the Church of God that

sojourns in Smyrna." It starts off in the form of a letter but its main body

is written in the form of an ordinary story. It tells the tale of Polycarp's

martyrdom. Like the Epistle of Polycarp, it was written some time during the

last few decades of the second century C.E. Unfortunately, there is no

evidence that it used any reliable sources for its story, only rumors and

hearsay. The story in fact appears to be highly fictionalized. The

references to Jesus are not taken from any reliable source.

 

We have thus seen that the epistles used by missionaries as "evidence" are

just as spurious as the gospels. Again, the reader should beware "easy to

understand" translations of the New Testament since they call the epistles

"letters," thereby incorrectly implying that they are really letters written

by the people after whom they are named.

 

Now, besides the books of the New Testament, and besides the epistles

relating to Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, there is only one more Christian

religious work which Christians claim as historical evidence of Jesus,

namely the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles also known as the Didache. All

other early Christian religious works are either wholly rejected by modern

Christians or are at least recognized as not being primary sources as

regards Jesus. The Didache began as a sectarian Jewish document, probably

written during the period of turmoil in c. 70 C.E. Its earliest form

consisted of moral teachings and predictions of the destruction of the

current world order. This earliest version, which obviously did not mention

Jesus, was taken over by Christians who heavily edited and altered it,

adding a story of Jesus and rules of worship for early Christian

communities. Scholars estimate that the earliest Christian version of the

_Didache_ could not have been written much later than 95 C.E. It probably

only reached its final form around c. 120 C.E. It appears to have served an

isolated Christian community in Syria as a "Church Order" during the period

c. 100 - 130 C.E. However, there is no evidence that its story of Jesus was

based on any reliable sources, and as we have mentioned, the earliest Jewish

version had nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, this document provides

evidence that the myth of Jesus grew gradually. Like the Gospel of Mark and

the early versions of Gospel of Matthew, the Jesus story in the Didache

makes no mention of a virgin birth. It makes no mention of the fantastic

miracles which were later attributed to Jesus. Although Jesus is referred to

as a "son" of God, it appears that this term is being used figuratively. The

evidence we have concerning the origin of the crucifixion myth suggests that

one of the things leading to this myth was the fact that the cross was the

astrological symbol of the Vernal Equinox which occurs near Passover, when

Jesus was believed to have been killed. It is thus not surprising to find

that the story in the Didache makes no mention of Jesus being crucified,

although it mentions a cross in the sky as a sign of Jesus. The twelve

apostles mentioned in the full title of the Didache do not appear as twelve

real disciples of Jesus and the term clearly refers to the twelve sons of

Jacob representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus the Didache provides

vital clues concerning the growth of the Jesus myth, but it certainly does

not provide any evidence of an historical Jesus.

 

Since none of the Christian religious texts provide any acceptable evidence

of Jesus, missionaries turn next to non-Christian texts. Christians claim

that several reliable historians recorded information about Jesus. Although

some of these historians are more or less accepted, we shall see that they

do not provide any information about Jesus.

 

Firstly, Christians claim that the Jewish historian Josephus recorded

information about Jesus in his book Jewish Antiquities (published c. 93 - 94

C.E.) It is true that this book contains information about the three false

Messiahs, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Benjamin the Egyptian, and it is

true that the character of Jesus appears to be based on all of them in part,

but none of them can be regarded as the historical Jesus. Moreover, in the

book of Acts, these people are mentioned as being different people to Jesus

and so modern Christianity actually rejects any connection between them and

Jesus. In the Christian edited versions of the Jewish Antiquities there are

two passages dealing with Jesus as portrayed in Christian religious works.

Neither of these passages are found in the original version of the Jewish

Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3)

was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E. and so we can conclude that it

was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish

Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9,

1) was added in. Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is

fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that

they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors

and were based purely on Christian belief.

 

Next the Christians will point to the Annals by Tacitus. In the Annals

XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome

in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person

named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of

Tiberias. It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from

Christ or Christus (Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by

Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made

by the Christians themselves. They appeared in the gospels of Mark, Matthew

and Luke, which had already been widely circulated when the Annals were

being written. (The Annals were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly

not written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the Annals contains a sentence

in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based

purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value. It

is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs

since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred

of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus"

he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of

Middle East history in his book the Histories is so distorted as to be

laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be

taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.

 

Once Tacitus is dismissed, the Christians will claim that one of the younger

Pliny's letters to the emperor Trajan provides evidence of an historical

Jesus. (Letters X, 96.) This is nonsense. The letter in question simply

mentions that certain Christians had cursed "Christ" to avoid being

punished. It does not claim that this Christ really existed. The letter in

question was written before Pliny's death in c. 114 C.E. but after he was

sent to Bithynia in 111 C.E., probably in the year 112 C.E. Thus it provides

nothing more than a confirmation of the trivial fact that around the

beginning of the twelfth decade C.E. Christians did not normally curse

something called "Christ" although some had done it to avoid punishment. It

provides no evidence of an historical Jesus.

 

Christians will also claim that Suetonius recorded evidence of Jesus in his

book Lives of the Caesars (also known as The Twelve Caesars). The passage in

question is Claudius 25, where he mentions that the emperor Claudius

expelled the Jews from Rome (apparently in 49 C.E.) because they caused

continual disturbances at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. If one

blindly assumes that "Chrestus" refers to Jesus then, if anything, this

passage contradicts the Christian story of Jesus. Jesus was supposed to have

been crucified when Pontius Pilate was procurator (26 - 36 C.E.) during the

reign of Tiberias and, moreover, he was never supposed to have been in Rome!

Suetonius lived during the period c. 75 - 150 C.E. and his book, Lives of

the Caesars, was published during the period 119 - 120 C.E., having been

written some time after Domitian's death in 96 C.E. Thus the event he

describes occurred at least 45 years before he was writing about it and so

we cannot be certain of its accuracy. The name Chrestus is derived from the

Greek Chrestos meaning "good one" and it is not the same as Christ or

Christus which are derived from the Greek Christos meaning "anointed

one/Messiah." If we take the passage at face value it refers to a person

named Chrestus who was in Rome and who had nothing to do with Jesus or any

other "Christ." The term Chrestos was often applied to pagan gods and many

of the people in Rome called "Jews" were actually people who mixed Jewish

beliefs with pagan beliefs and who were not necessarily of Jewish descent.

Thus it is also possible that the passage refers to conflicts involving

these pagan "Jews" who worshipped a pagan god (such as Sebazios) titled

Chrestos. On the other hand, the words Chrestos and Christos were often

confused and so the passage might even be referring to some conflict

involving Jews who believed that some person was the Messiah. This person

may or may not have actually been in Rome and for all we know, he may not

even have been a real historical person. One should bear in mind that the

described event took place just several years after the crucifixion of the

false Messiah Theudas in 44 C.E., and the passage may be referring to his

followers in Rome. Christians claim that the passage refers to Jesus and

conflicts arising after Paul brought news of him to Rome and that Suetonius

was only mistaken about Jesus himself being in Rome. However, this

interpretation is based on blind belief in Jesus and the myths about Paul

and there is nothing to suggest that it is the correct interpretation. Thus

we may conclude that Suetonius also fails to provide any reliable evidence

of an historical Jesus.

 

All other writers who mention Jesus, from Justin Martyr in the second

century C.E. to the latest expounders of Christian myth in the twentieth

century, have all based their references to Jesus on the sources we have

discredited above. Consequently their claims are worthless as historical

evidence. We are thus left with the conclusion that there is absolutely no

reliable and acceptable historical evidence of Jesus. All references to

Jesus are derived from the superstitious beliefs and myths of the early

Christian community. The majority of these beliefs only came into existence

after the persecution by Nero and the tragedy of 70 C.E. Many of these

beliefs are based on the pagan legends about the gods Tammuz, Osiris, Attis,

Dionysus and the sun god Mithras. Other myths about Jesus appear to be based

on various different historical people such as the convicted criminals

Yeishu ben Pandeira and ben Stada, and the crucified false Messiahs Yehuda,

Theudas and Benjamin, but none of these people can be regarded as an

historical Jesus.

 

 

 

*FURTHER READING*

1) J. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Prometheus

Books, reprinted 1991. (Examines how ancient myths were misused by the early

church and misrepresented as history.)

 

2) J. Campbell, Occidental Mythology, Penguin Books, reprinted 1985. (An

exposition of religious mythology in western civilization. Includes

important evidence concerning the borrowing of pagan myths by Christianity.)

 

 

3) E.D. Cohen, The Mind of the Bible-Believer, Prometheus Books, reprinted

1991. (Uncovers the psychological ploys around which the New Testament is

built and exposes the adverse effects of Christian fundamentalism.)

 

4) R. Helms, Gospel Fictions, Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Exposes the

gospels as being largely fictional documents composed as a culmination to an

extensive mythological tradition.)

 

5) S. Levine, You Take Jesus and I'll Take God: How to Refute Christian

Missionaries, revised edition, Hamoroh Press, Los Angeles, 1980. (Exposes

the tricks used by missionaries and the misquotations of the Tanach in the

New Testament.)

 

6) J.M. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity, 2nd Ed., Watts & Co.,

London 1913. (One of the first serious academic investigations into the

origins of Christianity. Exposes the elements of the Jesus story borrowed

from pagan myths.)

 

7) The Talmud, should be compulsory reading for all Jews although it is

unfortunately neglected in modern times!

 

 

-NITIN ANAND-

Southern Wine and Spirits Of America

E-Services Multimedia Development Lead

Direct : 510.441.3310

Cell: 510.676.0309

Pager : 510.448.8756

Pager E-mail : <5104488756 5104488756

E-mail: <nitinanand nitinanand

Personal E-mail: <NANAND78 NANAND78

Southern URL: <http://www.southernwineandspirits.com/>

http://www.southernwineandspirits.com

My URL: <http://www.nanand78.com> http://www.nanand78.com

<http://www.southernwineandspirits.com/>