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
contents 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 paederasty 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 prefered 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_ is 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 hewas
unaware of _John_. Thus _John 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
rumours 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 rumour, and besides, it does
nothave 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 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 Hellinistic 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 ofPeter
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." Thefirst 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 G-d. The style of
writing and the references to the practice of kriobolium
(baptism in sheeps 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 rediculous
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
besides 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 occured 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 hismartyrdom 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.) and 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 secondcentury 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 G-d 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 rumours 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 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 G-d, it
appears that this term is being used figurativly. 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
itmentions 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 and appearing 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
since Jesus was supposed 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 Chr istos were often confused and
so the passage might even be referring to some conflict
involving Jews who believed that some person was the Messiah,
but this person may or may not have actually been in Rome and
for all we know, he may not 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.