Post on 07-Aug-2015
In continuation of my studies of falsehood of all Abrahamic religions
from 2008 to 2014
Complete historical study to indicate Jesus is a fictional character
Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The
power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars,
that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and
outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and
why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for
a historical Jesus.
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling,
works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of
other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a
man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that
mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from
either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent,
mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from
fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did
not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus,
simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern
scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you
know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that
there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand
present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case,
everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness
themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind
you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied,
or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about
witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of
evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in
a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable
number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from
these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go
against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far
removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to
the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who
writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can
provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the
historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as
hearsay.
THE BIBLE GOSPELS
The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of
the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from
the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most
influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many
heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical
reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world,
the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures--
the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the
Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other
claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]
Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag
Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them."
[Pagels, 1995]
Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the
alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus.
Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.
The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at
sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This
would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel
writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably
written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom
we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels,
1995]
The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John,
but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the
gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today,
we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many
Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark,"
"St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's
establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence
for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find
out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.
Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider the low life
expectancy of humans in the first century. According to the religious scholar, J.D. Crossan, "the
life expectancy of Jewish males in the Jewish state was then twenty-nine years." [Crossan] Some
people think this age appears deceptive because of the high infant mortally rates at birth.
However, at birth the inhabitants of the Roman Empire had an even lower life expectancy of
around twenty-five years. [source] According to Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the early third century
C.E., the average life expectancy at birth came even lower to around twenty-one. [Potter] Of
course these ages represent averages and some people lived after the age of 30, but how many?
According to the historian Richard Carrier: "We have reason to believe that only 4% of the
population at any given time was over 50 years old; over age 70, less than 2%. And that is under
normal circumstances. But the Gospels were written after two very devastating abnormal events:
the Jewish War and the Neronian Persecution, both of which would have, combined, greatly
reduced the life expectancy of exactly those people who were eye-witnesses to the teachings of
Jesus. And it just so happens that these sorts of people are curiously missing from the historical
record precisely when the Gospels began to be circulated." [Carrier] Even if they lived to those
unlikely ages, consider the mental and physical toll (especially during the 1st century) which
would have likely reduced their memory and capability to write. Moreover, those small
percentages of people who lived past 50 years were usually wealthy people (aristocrats,
politicians, land and slave owners, etc.). However, the Gospels suggest that the followers of
Jesus lived poorly, and this would further reduce the chances for a long life span. Although the
New Testament does not provide the ages of the disciples, most Christians think their ages came
to around 20-30 years old. Jesus' birth would have to have occurred before Herod's death at 4
B.C.E. So if Jesus' birth occurred in the year 4 B.C.E., that would put the age of the disciples, at
the time of the writing of the first gospel, at around age 60-70 and the last gospel at around age
90-100! Based on just life expectancies alone, that would make the probability unlikely they
lived during the writing of the first gospel, and extremely unlikely any of them lived during the
writing of the last gospel (and I have used only the most conservative numbers).
The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears
deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before
Matthew. From its own words, one can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus
nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel simply accepted the story of Jesus
without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time.
Historians tell us of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Mark served as the
common element between Matthew and Luke and provided the main source for both of them. Of
Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel
Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth
remove. [Helms]
* Most Bibles show 678 verses for Mark, not 666, but many Biblical scholars think the last 12
verses came later from interpolation. The earliest manuscripts and other ancient sources do not
have Mark 16: 9-20. Moreover the text style does not match and the transition between verse 8
and 9 appears awkward. Even some of today's Bibles such as the NIV exclude the last 12 verses.
The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them
for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He
improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and
heightened the miracles and magic.
The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness
(Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a
Hellenized Jew. Some scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke came from the Mark
gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source").
[Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly
determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship.
Moreover, other scholars challenge its existence and those who do think Q existed have
problems explaining it. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.
John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus
and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John
disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the unknown author(s)
of this gospel wrote it in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby
Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John
21:23)." [Spong]
Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts
since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters
themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person.
People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the
third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the
invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from
him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the
evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly,
the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve,
at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.
OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS
Even in antiquity people like Origen and Eusebius raised doubts about the authenticity of other
books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James, John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude, and Revelation.
Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James calling it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and
questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. Nevertheless, all New Testament
writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors (with the possible
exception of Paul, although still after the alleged death).
Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts,
written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some
of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and
even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that
he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth
(except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only
have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.
Epistle to the Galatians: In this letter Paul describes a meeting with Peter and James, the Lord's
brother (Gal: 1:18-20). The problem here involves the meaning of "Lord's brother." Some
scholars think this means the biological brother of the Lord while others think it means brother in
a communal spiritual sense, as all Christians are the Lord's brothers and sisters. Note, never does
any epistle refer to the brother of Jesus. In all cases, Paul uses the word "Lord," consistent with
the spiritual sense. In any case, even if this phrase did mean a biological brother, Paul could not
have known that James had a brother. At best he could only have believed it because his
information could only have come from another person, most likely James himself. That makes
this letter hearsay.
Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James?
Many claim him as the gospel disciple but the gospels mention several different James. Which
one? Or maybe this James has nothing to do with any of the gospel James. Perhaps this writer
comes from any one of innumerable James outside the gospels. James served as a common name
in the first centuries and Biblical scholars simply have no way to tell who this James refers to.
More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief.
Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from a historical
account. [1]
Epistles of John: Scholars tell us the epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear
so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that
these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a
"John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the
Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name).
No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention
a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do
we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts. [2]
Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the
first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as
unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full
edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985). The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote
long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an
ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of
determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know
what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.
Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you
see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words:
hearsay. [3], [4]
Epistle of Jude: Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book
called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible
for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it
during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would
have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude
wrote in fluent high quality Greek.
Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched claims or
eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of them here for this
deliberation.
As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New
Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and
copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears
it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more
than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard;
Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the
New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and
fifth. [Schonfield]
LYING FOR THE CHURCH
The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since
the fathers of the Church possessed the scriptoria and determined what would appear in the
Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that
might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.
The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined
the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the
Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major
heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what
Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith."
[Romer] If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of
their heretical nature. We will never know.
In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has
written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New
Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising
from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment;
Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal
considerations. [Metzger]
The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death.
Regardless of what the Church claimed, most people simply believed what their priests told
them.
In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked
him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it
in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to
know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down
for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a
common crowd or an uneducated congregation."
In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And
often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas
he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not
deceived."
Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything,
we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so
decides it."
Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the
good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies
would not be against God, he would accept them."
With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations,
how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less
using extraneous texts that support a Church's intransigent and biased position, as reliable
evidence?
GNOSTIC GOSPELS
In 1945, an Arab made an archeological discovery in Upper Egypt of several ancient papyrus
books. They have since referred to it as The Nag Hammadi texts. They contained fifty-two
heretical books written in Coptic script which include gospels of Thomas, Philip, James, John,
Thomas, and many others. Archeologists have dated them at around 350-400 C.E. They
represent copies from previous copies. None of the original texts exist and scholars argue about a
possible date of the originals. Some of them think that they can hardly have dates later than 120-
150 C.E. Others have put it closer to 140 C.E. [Pagels, 1979]
Other Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Judas, found near the Egyptian site of the Nag
Hammadi texts, shows a diverse pattern of story telling, always a mark of myth. The Judas
gospel tells of Judas Iscariot as Jesus' most loyal disciple, just opposite that of the canonical
gospel stories. Note that the text does not claim that Judas Iscariot wrote it. The Judas gospel, a
copy written in Coptic, dates to around the third-to fourth-century. The original Greek version
probably dates to between 130 and 170 C.E., around the same time as the Nag Hammadi texts.
Irenaeus first mentions this gospel in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) written around 180
C.E., so we know that this represented a heretical gospel.
Since these Gnostic texts could only have its unknown authors writing well after the alleged life
of Jesus, they cannot serve as historical evidence of Jesus anymore than the canonical versions.
Again, we only have "heretical" hearsay.
NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating
to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from
authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the
hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus.
Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from
interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37
C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account.
Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if
his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his
information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range
as an eyewitness account.
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus.
He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote
around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the
authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged
Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only
provide us with hearsay accounts.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name.
Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius
had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius'
birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish
civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim
that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a
disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may
refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets
this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the
Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged
crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot
possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they
believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian)
come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.),
Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin
Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of
Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? -
254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of
them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.
As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively
violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event
itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material
about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian
sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply
determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what
these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no
detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic
writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers
themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or
evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence,
and nothing more.
FAKES, FRAUDS, AND FICTIONS
Because the religious mind relies on belief and faith, the religious person can inherit a
dependence on any information that supports a belief and that includes fraudulent stories,
rumors, unreliable data, and fictions, without the need to check sources, or to investigate the
reliability of the information. Although hundreds of fraudulent claims exist for the artifacts of
Jesus, I will present only three examples which seem to have a life of their own and have spread
through the religious community and especially on internet discussion groups.
The Shroud of Turin
Many faithful people believe the shroud represents the actual burial cloth of Jesus where they
claim the image on the cloth represents an actual 'photographic' image left behind by the
crucified body.
The first mention of the shroud comes from a treatise (written or dictated) by Geoffroi de Charny
in 1356 and who claims to have owned the cloth (see The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi De
Charny). Later, in the 16th century, it suddenly appeared in a cathedral in Turin, Italy. (Note that
thousands of claimed Jesus relics appeared in cathedrals throughout Europe, including the wood
from the cross, chalices, blood of Jesus, etc. These artifacts proved popular and served as a
prosperous commercial device which filled the money coffers of the churches.) [See The Family
Jewels for some examples.]
Sadly, many people of faith believe that there actually exists scientific evidence to support their
beliefs in the shroud's authenticity. Considering how the Shroud's apologists use the words,
"science," "fact," and "authentic," without actual scientific justification, and even include
pseudo-scientists (without mentioning the 'pseudo') to testify to their conclusions, it should not
come to any surprise why a faithful person would not question their information or their motives.
Television specials have also appeared that purport the authenticity of the shroud. Science,
however, does not operate though television specials who have a commercial interest and have
no qualms about deceiving the public.
Experts around the world consider the 14-foot-long linen sheet, which has remained in a
cathedral in Turin since 1578, a forgery because of carbon-dating tests performed in 1988. Three
different independent radiocarbon dating laboratories in Zurich, Oxford and the University of
Arizona yielded a date range of 1260-1390 C.E. (consistent with the time period of Charny's
claimed ownership). Joe Zias of Hebrew University of Jerusalem calls the shroud indisputably a
fake. "Not only is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery." The shroud actually depicts a man whose
front measures 2 inches taller than his back and whose elongated hands and arms would indicate
that he had the affliction of gigantism if he actually lived. (Also read Joe Nickell's, Inquest On
The Shroud Of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings)
Walter C. McCrone, et al, (see Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin) discovered red ochre (a
pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages) on the cloth which
formed the body image and vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, used to represent
blood. The actual scientific findings reveal the shroud as a 14th century painting, not a two-
thousand year-old cloth with Christ's image. Revealingly, no Biblical scholar or scientist (with
any credibility), cites the shroud of Turin as evidence for a historical Jesus.
The Burial box of James
Even many credible theologians bought this fraud, hook-line-and-sinker. The Nov./Dec. 2002,
issue of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine announced a "world exclusive!" article about
evidence of Jesus written in stone, claiming that they found the actual ossuary of "James, Brother
of Jesus" in Jerusalem. This story exploded on the news and appeared widely on television and
newspapers around the world.
Interestingly, they announced the find as the "earliest historical reference of Jesus yet found."
Since they claimed the inscribing on the box occurred around 70 C.E., that agrees with
everything claimed by this thesis (that no contemporary evidence exists for Jesus). Even if the
box script proved authentic, it would not provide evidence for Jesus simply because no one knew
who wrote the script or why. It would only show the first indirect mention of a Jesus and it could
not serve as contemporary evidence simply because it didn't come into existence until long after
the alleged death of Jesus.
The claim for authenticity of the burial box of James, however, proved particularly embarrassing
for the Biblical Archaeology Review and for those who believed them without question. Just a
few months later, archaeologists determined the inscription as a forgery (and an obvious one at
that) and they found the perpetrator and had him arrested (see 'Jesus box' exposed as fake and A
fake? James Ossuary dealer arrested, suspected of forgery).
Regrettably, the news about the fraud never matched the euphoria of the numerous stories of the
find and many people today still believe the story as true.
Letters of Pontius Pilate
This would appear hilarious if not for the tragic results that can occur from believing in fiction:
many faithful (especially on the internet) have a strong belief that Pontius Pilate actually wrote
letters to Seneca in Rome where he mentions Jesus and his reported healing miracles.
Considering the lack of investigational temper of the religious mind, it might prove interesting to
the critical reader that the main source for the letters of Pilate come from W. P. Crozier's 1928
book titled, "Letters of Pontius Pilate: Written During His Governorship of Judea to His Friend
Seneca in Rome." The book cites Crozier as the editor as if he represented a scholar who edited
Pilate's letters. Well, from the title, it certainly seems to indicate that Pilate wrote some letters
doesn't it? However, unbeknownst or ignored by the uncritical faithful, this book represents
Crozier's first novel, a fictionalized account of what he thought Pilate would have written.
During the first publication, no one believed this novel represented fact and reviews of the day
reveal it as a work of fiction.
Crozier, a newspaper editor, went to Oxford University and retained an interest in Latin, Greek
and the Bible. He wrote this novel as if it represented the actual letters of Pilate. Of course no
scholar would cite this as evidence because no letters exist of Pilate to Seneca, and Seneca never
mentions Jesus in any of his writings.
The belief in Pilate's letters represents one of the more amusing fad beliefs in evidential Jesus,
however, it also reveals just how myths, fakes, and fictions can leak into religious thought.
Hundreds of years from now, Crozier's fictionalized account may very well end up just as
'reliable' as the gospels.
WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?
What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what
people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or
follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!
If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that
stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide,
not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate,
and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read
Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from
Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan."
The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of
people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke
12:1 alleges that an "innumerable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says
that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The
persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes,
including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged
crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of
Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).
So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with
great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and
the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If
the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not
have heard of him?
Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone
interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour,
and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the
veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic
event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world,
including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also
that, for obvious reasons, solar eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur
during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described
in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.
Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus.
Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this
magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?
Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no
capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing
capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior."
But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record
keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the
gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected
with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity
and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a
religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous
Jesus.
Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus (also known as Philo of Alexander) whose birth
occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher
and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He
wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once,
in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus* "the Christ." Nor do we
find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny
the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).
* Note, Philo did write about a pre-Christian celestial "Jesus," but this had nothing to do with the
Christian Jesus (unless Christians "stole" Philo's ideas). See Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues
(62-63, 146-147)
If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it
reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of
these men?
Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the
Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed
life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare
mention this embarrassing fact.
To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through
nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention
of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and
historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing
but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that
Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his
existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid
evidence.
HISTORICAL SCHOLARS
Many problems occur with the reliability of the accounts from ancient historians. Most of them
did not provide sources for their claims, as they rarely included bibliographic listings, or
supporting claims. They did not have access to modern scholarly techniques, and many times
would include hearsay as evidence. No one today would take a modern scholar seriously who
used the standards of ancient historians, yet this proves as the only kind of source that
Christology comes from. Couple this with the fact that many historians believed as Christians
themselves, sometimes members of the Church, and you have a built-in prejudice towards
supporting a "real" Jesus.
In modern scholarship, even the best historians and Christian apologists play the historian game.
They can only use what documents they have available to them. If they only have hearsay
accounts then they have to play the cards that history deals them. Many historians feel compelled
to use interpolation or guesses from hearsay, and yet this very dubious information sometimes
ends up in encyclopedias and history books as fact.
In other words, Biblical scholarship gets forced into a lower standard by the very sources they
examine. A renowned Biblical scholar illustrated this clearly in an interview when asked about
Biblical interpretation. David Noel Freeman (the General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and
many other works) responded with:
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant
of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the
evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a
little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."
-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)
The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical Jesus, he or she must
accept this based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact that all of the claims come from
hearsay, and we have a foundation made of sand, and a castle of information built of cards.
CITING GEOGRAPHY, AND KNOWN HISTORICAL FIGURES AS "EVIDENCE"
Although the New Testament mentions various cities, geological sites, kings and people that
existed or lived during the alleged life of Jesus, these descriptions cannot serve as evidence for
the existence of Jesus anymore than works of fiction that include recognizable locations, and
make mention of actual people.
Homer's Odyssey, for example, describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands.
The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take
Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply
because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. The authors of
mythical stories, fictions, and novels almost always use familiar landmarks as placements for
their stories. The authors of the Greek tragedies not only put their stories in plausible settings as
happening in the real world but their supernatural characters took on the desires, flaws and
failures of mortal human beings. Consider that fictions such as King Kong, Superman, and Star
Trek include recognizable cities, planets, and landmarks, with their protagonists and antagonists
miming human emotions.
Likewise, just because the Gospels mention cities and locations in Judea, and known historical
people, with Jesus behaving like an actual human being (with the added dimension of
supernatural curses, miracles, etc.) but this says nothing about the actuality of the characters
portrayed in the stories. However, when a story uses impossible historical locations, or
geographical errors, we may question the authority of the claims.
For example, in Matt 4:8, the author describes the devil taking Jesus into an exceedingly high
mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world. Since there exists no spot on the spheroid
earth to view "all the kingdoms," we know that the Bible errs here.
John 12:21 says, "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee. . . ."
Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which
resided west of the river.
John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." Critics agree that no such
place as Aenon exists near Salim.
No one has evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. [Gauvin]
Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's
writings (even though he provides a list of cities in Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament
epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles
appeared before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first
one didn't come into existence until about 40 years after the alleged death of Jesus. If a city
named Nazareth existed during the 1st century, then we need at least one contemporary piece of
evidence for the name, otherwise we cannot refer to it as established history. According to John
Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, "The only epigraphic evidence for Nazareth comes from
a Jewish synagogue inscription, written in Hebrew. A small dark gray marble fragment from a
third, or fourth century C.E. synagogue plaque was discovered at Caesarea Maritima in 1962,
containing the earliest occurrence of the name Nazareth in a non-Christian source. This fragment
and two others unearthed with it preserve a list of the traditional locations where Jewish priests
resettled after the Roman emperor Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem in 135 C.E."
[Grossan, 2001] And given the past history of made up objects for Jesus, even this might turn out
as a forgery.
Some historians do not agree with this of course. Some think Nazareth existed, some don't think
it existed, and some remain skeptical, but the fact that historians still debate it should tell you
that that we should not use this as a certainty. Moreover, some scholars think it as a moot point
because they believe "Nazareth" refers to a Christian movement, not a city. For one example,
Acts 24:5 refers to a sect of the Nazarenes. The Gospel writers then might have confused the
term to mean the city (which by the time they wrote the gospels, a city did exist with that name).
We have a lot of educated guesses by scholars, but no certainty.
Many more kinds of errors and uncertainties like this appear in the New Testament. And
although one cannot use these as evidence against a historical Jesus, we can certainly question
the reliability of the texts. If the scriptures make so many factual errors about geology, science,
and contain so many contradictions, falsehoods could occur any in area.
If we have a coupling with historical people and locations, then we should also have some
historical reference of a Jesus to these locations and people. But just the opposite proves the case.
The Bible depicts Herod, the Ruler of Jewish Palestine under Rome as sending out men to search
and kill the infant Jesus, yet nothing in history supports such a story. Pontius Pilate supposedly
performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a
trial. The gospels portray a multitude of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a
teacher, prophet, and healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or years after, ever records such a
human figure. The lack of a historical Jesus in the known historical record speaks for itself.
COMPARING JESUS TO OTHER HISTORICAL FIGURES
Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack of evidence by
claiming that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis of Jesus, then we cannot establish a
historical foundation for other figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Napoleon,
etc. However, there sits a vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs
either artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas, for Jesus we have
nothing.
Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind. We have buildings,
libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We have treaties, and even a letter from
Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Augustus Caesar,
we have the Res gestae divi augusti, the emperor's own account of his works and deeds, a letter
to his son (Epistula ad Gaium filium), Virgil's eyewitness accounts, and much more. Napoleon
left behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters. We can establish some historicity to these
people because we have evidence that occurred during their life times. Yet even with
contemporary evidence, historians have become wary of after-the-fact stories of many of these
historical people. For example, some of the stories of Alexander's conquests, or Nero starting the
fire in Rome always gets questioned or doubted because they contain inconsistencies or come
from authors who wrote years after the alleged facts. In qualifying the history of Alexander,
Pierre Briant writes, "Although more than twenty of his contemporaries chronicled Alexander's
life and campaigns, none of these texts survive in original form. Many letters and speeches
attributed to Alexander are ancient forgeries or reconstructions inspired by imagination or
political motives. The little solid documentation we possess from Alexander's own time is
mainly to be found in stone inscriptions from the Greek cities of Europe and Asia." [Briant]
Inventing histories out of whole cloth or embellished from a seed of an actual historical event
appears common throughout the chronicle of human thought. Robert Price observes, "Alexander
the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What
keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some
residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does
not form part of any legend cycle." [Price, pp. 260-261]
Interestingly, almost all important historical people have descriptions of what they looked like.
We have the image of Augustus Caesar cast on denarius coins, busts of Greek and Roman
aristocrats, artwork of Napoleon, etc. We have descriptions of facial qualities, height, weight,
hair length & color, age and even portraits of most important historical figures. But for Jesus, we
have nothing. Nowhere in the Bible do we have a description of the human shape of Jesus. How
can we rely on the Gospels as the word of Jesus when no one even describes what he looked
like? How odd that none of the disciple characters record what he looked like, yet believers
attribute them to know exactly what he said. Indeed, this gives us a clue that Jesus came to the
gospel writers and indirect and through myth. Not until hundreds of years after the alleged Jesus
did pictures emerge as to what he looked like from cult Christians, and these widely differed
from a blond clean shaven, curly haired Apollonian youth (found in the Roman catacombs) to a
long-bearded Italian as depicted to this day. This mimics the pattern of Greek mythological
figures as their believers constructed various images of what their gods looked like according to
their own cultural image.
Historical people leave us with contemporary evidence, but for Jesus we have nothing. If we
wanted to present a fair comparison of the type of information about Jesus to another example of
equal historical value, we could do no better than to compare Jesus with the mythical figure of
Hercules.
IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?
If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then
shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?
To take one example, examine the evidence for Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find
it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to
deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a
historical Jesus.
Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and chaste Alcmene, the
mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Similar to Herod who
wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a
mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to
heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of
perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually
lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.
Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people
like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Similar to the way the gospels tell
a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of
Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention
of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than
Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so
does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have
no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All
information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then
believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have
stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold
any consistency to historicity.
Some critics doubt that a historicized Jesus could develop from myth because they think there
never occurred any precedence for it. We have many examples of myth from history but what
about the other way around? This doubt fails in the light of the most obvious example-- the
Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc.,
assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus,
Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc. These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented
historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived. As Robert
M. Price revealed, "The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who
originated it." [Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized
mythologies: UFO adherents whose beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily invasion, and then
expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of
urban legends which started as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which
stem from fiction but believed by their constituents.
People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the
Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so do their gods. Christianity and its church
authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and
colleges. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else
risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian
friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs,
even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can
create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many
Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should
accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent
skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or
simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. Historical review has yet to achieve the
reliability of scientific investigation, (and in fact, many times ignores it). If a scholar makes a
historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just
because he or she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably
without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.
THEN WHY THE MYTH OF JESUS?
Some people actually believe that just because so much voice and ink has spread the word of a
character named Jesus throughout history, that this must mean that he actually lived. This
argument simply does not hold. The number of people who believe or write about something or
the professional degrees they hold say nothing at all about fact. Facts derive out of evidence, not
from hearsay, not from hubris scholars, and certainly not from faithful believers. Regardless of
the position or admiration held by a scholar, believer, or priest, if he or she cannot support a
hypothesis with good evidence, then it can only remain a hypothesis.
While a likely possibility exists that an actual Jesus lived, another likely possibility reveals that a
mythology could have derived out of earlier mythologies or possibly independent archetypal
hero worship. Although we have no evidence for a historical Jesus, we certainly have many
accounts of mythologies from the Middle East during the first century and before. Many of these
stories appear similar to the Christ saviour story.
Just before and during the first century, the Jews had prophesied about an upcoming Messiah
based on Jewish scripture. Their beliefs influenced many of their followers. We know that
powerful beliefs can create self-fulfilling prophesies, and surely this proved just as true in
ancient times. It served as a popular dream expressed in Hebrew Scripture for the promise of an
"end-time" with a savior to lead them to the promised land. Indeed, Roman records show
executions of several would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). Many
ancients believed that there could come a final war against the "Sons of Darkness"-- the Romans.
This then could very well have served as the ignition and flame for the future growth of
Christianity. Biblical scholars tell us that the early Christians lived within pagan communities.
Jewish scriptural beliefs coupled with the pagan myths of the time give sufficient information
about how such a religion could have formed. Many of the Hellenistic and pagan myths parallel
so closely to the alleged Jesus that to ignore its similarities means to ignore the mythological
beliefs of history. Dozens of similar savior stories propagated the minds of humans long before
the alleged life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about Jesus "the Christ" came to the Christians as
original or new.
For example, the religion of Zoroaster, founded circa 628-551 B.C.E. in ancient Persia, roused
mankind in the need for hating a devil, the belief of a paradise, last judgment and resurrection of
the dead. Mithraism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism probably influenced early Christianity. The
Magi described in the New Testament appears as Zoroastrian priests. Note the word "paradise"
came from the Persian pairidaeza.
Osiris, Hercules, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, Romulus, and others compare to the Christian
myth. According to Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus, all served as pre-Christian sun
gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers, virgins for mothers; had their births announced by
stars; got born on the solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their
infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got worshiped by "wise men" and
had allegedly fasted for forty days. [McKinsey, Chapter 5]
Even Justin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and Paganism. To the Pagans,
he wrote: "When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual
union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and
ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those
whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]
Virtually all of the mythical accounts of a savior Jesus have parallels to past pagan mythologies
which existed long before Christianity and from the Jewish scriptures that we now call the Old
Testament. The accounts of these myths say nothing about historical reality, but they do say a lot
about believers, how they believed, and how their beliefs spread.
In the book The Jesus Puzzle, the biblical scholar, Earl Doherty, presents not only a challenge to
the existence of an historical Jesus but reveals that early pre-Gospel Christian documents show
that the concept of Jesus sprang from non-historical spiritual beliefs of a Christ derived from
Jewish scripture and Hellenized myths of savior gods. Nowhere do any of the New Testament
epistle writers describe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of the epistles mention a Jesus from
Nazareth, an earthly teacher, or as a human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find these writers
quoting Jesus. Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jesus' life on earth or his
followers. Nowhere do we find the epistle writers even using the word "disciple" (they of course
use the term "apostle" but the word simply means messenger, as Paul saw himself). Except for a
few well known interpolations, Jesus always gets presented as a spiritual being that existed
before all time with God, and that knowledge of Christ came directly from God or as a revelation
from the word of scripture. Doherty writes, "Christian documents outside the Gospels, even at
the end of the first century and beyond, show no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life
and ministry of Jesus were in circulation."
Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews (8:4), makes it explicitly clear that the epistle writer did
not believe in a historical Jesus: "If He [Jesus] had been on earth, He would not be a priest."
Did the Christians copy (or steal) the pagan ideas directly into their own faith? Not necessarily.
They may have gotten many of their beliefs through syncretism or through independent hero
archetype worship, innate to human story telling. If gotten through syncretism, Jews and pagans
could very well have influenced the first Christians, especially the ideas of salvation and beliefs
about good and evil. Later, at the time of the gospels, other myths may entered Christian beliefs
such a the virgin birth and miracles. In the 4th century, we know that Christians derived the
birthday of Jesus from the pagans. If gotten through independent means, it still says nothing
about Christian originality because we know that pagans had beliefs about incarnated gods, long
before Christianity existed. The hero archetypes still exist in our story telling today. As one
personal example, as a boy I used to read and collect Superman comics. It never occurred to me
at the time to see Superman as a Christ-figure. Yet, if you analyze Superman and Jesus stories,
they have uncanny similarities. In fact the movie Superman Returns explicitly tells the Superman
story through a savior's point of view without once mentioning Jesus, yet Christians would
innately know the connection. Other movies like Star Wars, Phenomenon, K-PAX, The Matrix,
etc. also covertly tell savior stories. So whether the first Christians borrowed or independently
came up with a savior story makes no difference whatsoever. The point here only aims to
illustrate that Christians did not originate the savior story.
The early historical documents can prove nothing about an actual Jesus but they do show an
evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse concepts of Christianity, starting from a
purely spiritual form of Christ to a human figure who embodied that spirit, as portrayed in the
Gospels. The New Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized
and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience for their particular
religious times.
A NOTE ABOUT DATING:
The A.D. (Anno Domini, or "year of our Lord") dating method derived from a monk named
Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Little), in the sixth-century who used it in his Easter tables.
Oddly, some people seem to think this has relevance to a historical Jesus. But of course it has
nothing at all to do with it. In the time before and during the 6th century, people used various
other dating methods. The Romans used A.U.C. (anno urbis conditae, "year of the founded city,"
that being Rome). The Jews had their own dating system. Not until the tenth century did most
churches accept the new dating system. The A.D. system simply reset the time of January 1, 754
A.U.C. to January 1, of year one A.D., which Dionysius obliquely derived from the belief of the
date of "incarnation" of Jesus. The date, if one uses the Bible as history, can't possibly hold true.
*
Instead of B.C. and A.D., I have used the convention of B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and
C.E. (Common Era) as often used in scholarly literature. They correspond to the same dates as
B.C. and A.D., but without alluding to the birth or death of an alleged Christ.
* Dionysius believed that the conception (incarnation) of Jesus occurred on March 25. This
meant that the conception must have occurred nine months later on December 25, probably not
coincidentally, the very same date that the Emperor Aurelian, in 274 C.E., declared December 25
a holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336 C.E., Christians replaced
Mithras with Jesus' birth on the same date. Dionysius then declared the new year several days
later on January 1, probably to coincide with the traditional Roman year starting on January 1st.
Dionysius probably never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus because the Matthew
gospel says his birth occurred while Herod served as King. That meant that if he did exist, his
birth would have to occur in 4 B.C.E. or earlier. He made another 'mistake' by assigning the first
year as 1 instead of 0 (everyone's birthday starts at year 0, not 1). The concept of zero (invented
from Arabia and India) didn't come into Europe until about two hundred years later.
QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS:
Although the majority of scholars today believe that a Jesus lived on earth, the reasons for this
appear suspicious once you consider the history and evolution of Jesus scholarship. Hundreds of
years ago all Biblical scholars believed in God. Considering their Christian beliefs, they would,
of course, believe in a historical Jesus. In the last two centuries, the school has loosened up a bit,
and today they even allow atheists into their study rooms. But even today you had better allude
to a historical Jesus even if you question the reliability of the sources, otherwise, you may not
have a job. If, indeed, Bible scholars did allow skeptics of a historical Jesus into their studies,
and they presented a convincing case, that could threaten the very branch of Jesus scholarship
that studied a historical Jesus. It could very well disappear like that of euhermerism.
Although some secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus (minus the miracles),
they, like most Christians, simply accept the traditional view without question. As time goes on,
more and more scholars have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or
should I say, the lack of evidence. So for those who wish to rely on scholarly opinion, I will give
a few quotes from Biblical researchers and scholars, past and present:
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they
could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us
whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are
in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered,
abridged or dressed them up.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books
has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of
these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of
contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of
Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age
historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the
name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.
-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not
belong to history at all.
-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
Many people-- then and now-- have assumed that these letters [of Paul] are genuine, and five of
them were in fact incorporated into the New Testament as "letters of Paul." Even today, scholars
dispute which are authentic and which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul actually
wrote only eight of the thirteen "Pauline" letters now included in the New Testament. collection:
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually
all scholars agree that Paul himself did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus-- letters written in a
style different from Paul's and reflecting situations and viewpoints in a style different from those
in Paul's own letters. About the authorship of Ephesias, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, debate
continues; but the majority of scholars include these, too, among the "deutero-Pauline"--
literally, secondarily Pauline-- letters."
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (Adam, Eve, and the Serpent)
We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John.
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)
Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that
sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of
independent evidence."
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the forth remove from Jesus.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good
historical reason to accept these attributions.
-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto
(Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel.
-Bishop John Shelby Spong
But even if it could be proved that John's Gospel had been the first of the four to be written
down, there would still be considerable confusion as to who "John" was. For the various styles of
the New Testament texts ascribed to John- The Gospel, the letters, and the Book of Revelations--
are each so different in their style that it is extremely unlikely that they had been written by one
person.
-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)
It was not until the third century that Jesus' cross of execution became a common symbol of the
Christian faith.
-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)
What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things.
-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)
When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that
is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern
historiographic requirements or professional standards.
-David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible
Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)
Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and
it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the
canonical books ascribed to them.
-Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June
1994)
A generation after Jesus' death, when the Gospels were written, the Romans had destroyed the
Jerusalem Temple (in 70 C.E.); the most influential centers of Christianity were cities of the
Mediterranean world such as Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Damascus, Ephesus and Rome.
Although large number of Jews were also followers of Jesus, non-Jews came to predominate in
the early Church. They controlled how the Gospels were written after 70 C.E.
-Bruce Chilton, Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College (Bible Review, Dec. 1994, p. 37)
James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, "is in fact not
historical."
How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus'
baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other
event written about in the Gospels, is historical?
-Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)
David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read
as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later
redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and
legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as
sources of historical information.
-Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39
The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories
to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts.
-Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels
Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the
identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries
of translation and editing.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Wrote the Bible," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals-
who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the
writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or
traveled with Jesus.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Once written, many experts believe, the Gospels were redacted, or edited, repeatedly as they
were copied and circulated among church elders during the last first and early second centuries.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
The tradition attributing the fourth Gospel to the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, is first noted
by Irenaeus in A.D. 180. It is a tradition based largely on what some view as the writer's
reference to himself as "the beloved disciple" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Current
objection to John's authorship are based largely on modern textural analyses that strongly suggest
the fourth Gospel was the work of several hands, probably followers of an elderly teacher in Asia
Minor named John who claimed as a young man to have been a disciple of Jesus.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no
one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words
the authors attributed to Jesus himself.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Three letters that Paul allegedly wrote to his friends and former co-workers Timothy and Titus
are now widely disputed as having come from Paul's hand.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
The Epistle of James is a practical book, light on theology and full of advice on ethical behavior.
Even so, its place in the Bible has been challenged repeatedly over the years. It is generally
believed to have been written near the end of the first century to Jewish Christians. . . but
scholars are unable conclusively to identify the writer.
Five men named James appear in the New Testament: the brother of Jesus, the son of Zebedee,
the son of Alphaeus, "James the younger" and the father of the Apostle Jude.
Little is known of the last three, and since the son of Zebedee was martyred in A.D. 44, tradition
has leaned toward the brother of Jesus. However, the writer never claims to be Jesus' brother.
And scholars find the language too erudite for a simple Palestinian. This letter is also disputed on
theological grounds. Martin Luther called it "an epistle of straw" that did not belong in the Bible
because it seemed to contradict Paul's teachings that salvation comes by faith as a "gift of God"--
not by good works.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
The origins of the three letters of John are also far from certain.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Christian tradition has held that the Apostle Peter wrote the first [letter], probably in Rome
shortly before his martyrdom about A.D. 65. However, some modern scholars cite the epistle's
cultivated language and its references to persecutions that did not occur until the reign of
Domitian (A.D. 81-96) as evidence that it was actually written by Peter's disciples sometime
later.
Second Peter has suffered even harsher scrutiny. Many scholars consider it the latest of all New
Testament books, written around A.D. 125. The letter was never mentioned in second-century
writings and was excluded from some church canons into the fifth century. "This letter cannot
have been written by Peter," wrote Werner Kummel, a Heidelberg University scholar, in his
highly regarded Introduction to the New Testament.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
The letter of Jude also is considered too late to have been written by the attested author-- "the
brother of James" and, thus, of Jesus. The letter, believed written early in the second century.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
According to the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, a faithful account of the actions
and words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels; but it is impossible to reconcile this with the
existence in the text of contradictions, improbabilities, things which are materially impossible or
statements which run contrary to firmly established reality.
-Maurice Bucaille (The Bible, the Quran, and Science)
The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
-Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels,"
(U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous
followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus'
life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion.
-David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" (Time, April 8, 1996)
So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost nothing concerning the
life and personality of Jesus."
-Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926
The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII,
Number 3, p. 43)
Josephus says that he himself witnessed a certain Eleazar casting out demons by a method of
exorcism that had been given to Solomon by God himself-- while Vespasian watched! In the
same work, Josephus tells the story of a rainmaker, Onias (14.2.1).
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII,
Number 3, p. 43)
For Mark's gospel to work, for instance, you must believe that Isaiah 40:3 (quoted, in a slightly
distorted form, in Mark 1:2-3) correctly predicted that a stranger named John would come out of
the desert to prepare the way for Jesus. It will then come as something of a surprise to learn in
the first chapter of Luke that John is a near relative, well known to Jesus' family.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII,
Number 3, p. 43)
The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical
record of that year.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII,
Number 3, p. 54)
Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of
ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived
and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies.
-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS
documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)
The gospels are not eyewitness accounts
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
We are led to conclude that, in Paul's past, there was no historical Jesus. Rather, the activities of
the Son about which God's gospel in scripture told, as interpreted by Paul, had taken place in the
spiritual realm and were accessible only through revelation.
-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.83
Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of
Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.
-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If
there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to
be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of
somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction.
-Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John
Rankin," Opening Statement
It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic
from first to last."
-Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute
(Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)
CONCLUSION
Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hearsay do not
amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with eyewitness accounts we must tread
carefully. Simply because someone makes a claim, does not mean it represents reality. For
example, consider some of the bogus claims that supposedly come from many eyewitness
accounts of alien extraterrestrials and their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses but
present blurry photos to boot! If we can question these accounts, then why should we not
question claims that come from hearsay even more? Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes
from ancient and unknown people that no longer live.
Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds and nothing,
even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possibly change their minds. We
have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history,
we cannot even begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least an eyewitness
account or a contemporary artifact that points to a biological Jesus.
Of course a historical Jesus might have existed, perhaps based loosely on a living human even
though his actual history got lost, but this amounts to nothing but speculation. However we do
have an abundance of evidence supporting the mythical evolution of Jesus. Virtually every major
detail in the gospel stories occurred in Hebrew scripture and pagan beliefs, long before the
advent of Christianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of
a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence for the belief of Jesus.
So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a historical Jesus, simply ask
for the author's birth date. Anyone whose birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an
eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.
Sources (click on a blue highlighted title if you'd like to obtain it or read it):
Briant, Pierre, "Alexander the Great: Man of Action Man of Spirit," Harry N. Abrams, 1996
Carrier, Richard, "Reply to McFall on Jesus as a Philosopher (2004)"
Crossan, J.D., "Jesus: a revolutionry biography," HarperOne, 1995
Crossan, J.D, & Reed, Jonathan L., "Excavating Jesus," HarperSanFrancisco, 2001
Doherty, Earl, "The Jesus Puzzle," Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999
Flavius, Josephus (37 or 38-circa 101 C.E.), Antiquities
Gauvin, Marshall J., "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" (from: www.infidels.org/)
Gould, Stephen Jay "Dinosaur in a Haystack," (Chapter 2), Harmony Books, New York, 1995
Graham, Henry Grey, Rev., "Where we got the Bible," B. Heder Book Company, 1960
Helms, Randel McCraw , "Who Wrote the Gospels?", Millennium Press, 1997
Irenaeus of Lyon (140?-202? C.E.), Against the Heresies
McKinsey, C. Dennis "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy," Prometheus Books, 1995
Metzger, Bruce,"The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration," Oxford University Press, 1968
Pagels, Elaine, "The Gnostic Gospels," Vintage Books, New York, 1979
Pagels, Elaine, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," Vintage Books, New York, 1988
Pagels, Elaine, "The Origin of Satan," Random House, New York, 1995
Potter, David Stone, Mattingly, Dr. David J., "Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman
Empire, Univ. of Michigan Press, 2010
Price, Robert M.," Deconstructing Jesus," Prometheus Books, 2000
Pritchard, John Paul, "A Literary Approach to the New Testament," Norman, University of
Oklahoma Press, 1972
Robertson, J.M. "Pagan Christs," Barnes & Noble Books, 1966
Romer, John, "Testament : The Bible and History," Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988
Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, "A History of Biblical Literature," New American Library, 1962
Spong, Bishop Shelby, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," HarperSanFrancisco, 1991
Tacitus (55?-117? C.E.), Annals
Wilson, Dorothy Frances, "The Gospel Sources, some results of modern scholarship," London,
Student Christian Movement press, 1938
The Revell Bible Dictionary," Wynwood Press, New York, 1990
King James Bible, 1611
U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990
Various issues of Bible Review magazine, published by the Biblical Archaeology Society,
Washington D.C.
Online sources:
[1] Epistle of James, from Theopedia
[2] Epistles of John, Wikipedia
[3] First Epistle of Peter, from Theopedia
[4] Second Epistle of Peter, from Theopedia
Also read: Why do historians rely on hearsay for evidence of Jesus? by Jim Walker