REFUTING MISSIONARIES:

by Hayim 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 which 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' 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' 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   [there again, "father forgive them for they know not what they do"].       . 


Browsing through the religion section of a local bookshop, 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' 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, their is however, 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' 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. 

[Just as the Catholic church confessed in the late sixties that there never was a Saint Christopher. It said this saint and several others such as, St. Bibiana, or Vibiana, Santa Barbara, SantaSusana to name a few, were made up because they thought the people would probably like and need something like this to worship. And at the time the Catholic church also needed more income.14 Part 1-Sat., May 10,1969 Los Angeles Times]

 In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shintoism,

Taoism and Confucism, 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 Mohammed. 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

anti-Semitic 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 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 favour 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 possibilty 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 particulary 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

adultress 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 farely common in pagan myths.

The following mythological characters were all believed to be

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 G-d

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 consonent 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 evented "Miriam the womens

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 *Sun*_day. 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 contempories. 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 centre 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 occured 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 occurence 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 occuring 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 portrayel 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 practised ritual immersion in water as a physical

symbol for repentence. 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 baptised 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 occured 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 contempory 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 12

April 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 baptised by John

soon after John had started baptising and preaching in the

fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias i.e. 28 - 29 C.E., when

Pontius Pilate was governer 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 circumstancial. 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.

REFUTING MISSIONARIES:

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 rumours 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

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

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

their 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.

*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!

David Ike's Mythical Jesus

Here's some food for thought on the mythical Jesus.  Keeping this scripture in mind:  2 Corinthians 5:16.

A must:Forged Origins

The sixteen crucified saviors

See also, The Immaculate Conception.
Jesus Myth / Historical Jesus

And Myth 2

And here:

The Lost Light

And Origins Of  The Jesus Mytho

Did a historical Jesus exist?

The Jesus puzzle

The Jesus Story Is A Cruel Hoax on Humanity Very interesting article by; James Donahue.

-- END --

BACK

HOME

xxxxx