Did a historical Jesus exist?

by Jim Walker
originated: 12 June 1997 / additions: 15 Jan. 2010

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the relig
ious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most bel
ievers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence get
s obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The follow
ing gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evi
dence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evide
nce 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 art
ifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims ab
out Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Rom
an 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 eit
her: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudul
ent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these
writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and date
s to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they coul
d still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because al
l sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' ow
n knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest m
odern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we
should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a c
rime 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 he
arsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes th
e stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themse
lves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other pe
ople, 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 pr
ovides 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 p
eople believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of
fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derive
s from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same re
asoning 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 observ
ation 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 Geor
ge Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide cit
ations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the hist
orians 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 canon
ical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible a
s original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the in
fluence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Ir
enaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gos
pels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystica
l reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zo
nes of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the fo
ur 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 gosp
el writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]
Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those di
scovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who a
ctually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]
Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existe
d 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 manuscr
ipts 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 cruc
ifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagel
s writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last y
ear 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..." [Page
ls, 1995]
The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Mat
thew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simpl
y occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles d
escribed in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers de
scribing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still cont
inue 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 d
etermine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gosp
els 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 th
at the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and v
ery few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occurred at about the same ti
me as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would pu
t Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.
The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark a
ppears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at l
east a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the aut
hor of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever
wrote the gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question an
d wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any c
areful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal t
hat Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main
source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, som
e 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at
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 thin
k 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 n
ot 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 an
d used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tr
adition 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 ge
ntile, or at the very least, a Hellenized Jew. Many modern scholars think that t
he Gospel of Matthew and Luke came from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical docum
ent 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. Again we g
et faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.
John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discour
ses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historic
al Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, a
nd Luke. Moreover the unknown author(s) of this gospel wrote it in Greek near th
e end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carr
ied 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 eyewit
ness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, a
nd not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, w
ritten almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselv
es as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. More
over, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the inv
ention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to hav
e come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even mor
e marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus
confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional wri
ters use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at wo
rst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.

OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

Even in antiquity people like Origen and Eusebius raised doubts about the authen
ticity of other books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James, John 2 & 3, P
eter 2, Jude, and Revelation. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James callin
g it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Ap
ocalypse 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 survivi
ng Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little re
ason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bi
ble scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs inte
rpolations. 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 a
bout a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hears
ay.
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 s
everal different James. Which one? Or maybe this James has nothing to do with an
y of the gospel James. Perhaps this writer comes from any one of innumerable Jam
es outside the gospels. James served as a common name in the first centuries and
we 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. Nowh
ere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it f
rom an historical account. [1]
Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appea
r 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 schol
ars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from the work of church fat
hers 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. No
t only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay a
ccounts. [2]
Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistle
s. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most s
cholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for so
me examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jeru
salem Bible, 1985, and [3]). In short, no one has any way of determining whether
the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a co
mmon name) or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.
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 th
em 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 co
me 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 existe
d 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] Acc
ording 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 fr
om 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 infamou
s book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not on
ly became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-po
int of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it als
o, 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 be
cause 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 boo
k, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration
, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from fa
ulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment; Clearing up historical and
geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerat
ions. [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 wha
t 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. F
or, 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 com
mon 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 b
y means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done gr
eat mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be rig
ht 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 fo
r the sake of the good and for the Christian church a lie out of necessity, a us
eful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept the
m."
With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible err
ors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Tes
tament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's int
ransigent and biased position, as reliable evidence?

GNOSTIC GOSPELS
In 1945, an Arab made an archeological discovery in Upper Egypt of several ancie
nt 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 gospe
ls of Thomas, Philip, James, John, Thomas, and many others. Archeologists have d
ated them at around 350-400 C.E. They represent copies from previous copies. Non
e of the original texts exist and scholars argue about a possible date of the or
iginals. 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 mar
k of myth. The Judas gospel tells of Judas Iscariot as Jesus' most loyal discipl
e, just opposite that of the canonical gospel stories. Note that the text does n
ot claim that Judas Iscariot wrote it. The Judas gospel, a copy written in Copti
c, dates to around the third-to fourth-century. The original Greek version proba
bly dates to between 130 and 170 C.E., around the same tine as the Nag Hammadi t
exts. 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 an
ymore 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 writi
ngs. 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 Jesu
s. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of th
eir 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 fa
ther (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! Therefor
e, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could on
ly serve as hearsay.
Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows tha
t he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his bi
rth 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 al
leged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Boo
k XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his materi
al. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, t
he very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annal
s 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 n
ame. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But
even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jes
us. 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 collectio
n of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evid
ence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, th
is Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at l
east a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben P
andera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, t
he 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 tw
o centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a contro
versial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a h
istorical 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 whic
h 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 Ale
xandria (? - 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 al
leged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of the
m 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 writ
ings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source o
r backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can prov
ide 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 t
he 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 happ
ening 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 fo
r their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' exis
tence, 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 hu
ndreds of fraudulent claims exist for the artifacts of Jesus, I will present onl
y 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 Je
sus 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 G
eoffroi de Charny in 1356 and who claims to have owned the cloth (see The Book o
f Chivalry of Geoffroi De Charny). Later, in the 16th century, it suddenly appea
red in a cathedral in Turin, Italy. (Note that thousands of claimed Jesus relics
appeared in cathedrals throughout Europe, including the wood from the cross, ch
alices, blood of Jesus, etc. These artifacts proved popular and served as a pros
perous commercial device which filled the money coffers of the churches.) [See T
he Family Jewels for some examples.]
Sadly, many people of faith believe that there actually exists scientific eviden
ce to support their beliefs in the shroud's authenticity. Considering how the Sh
roud's apologists use the words, "science," "fact," and "authentic," without act
ual scientific justification, and even include pseudo-scientists (without mentio
ning the 'pseudo') to testify to their conclusions, it should not come to any su
rprise why a faithful person would not question their information or their motiv
es. 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 remain
ed in a cathedral in Turin since 1578, a forgery because of carbon-dating tests
performed in 1988. Three different independent radiocarbon dating laboratories i
n 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 onl
y is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery." The shroud actually depicts a man wh
ose front measures 2 inches taller than his back and whose elongated hands and a
rms 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 Fin
dings)
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 A
ges) on the cloth which formed the body image and vermilion paint, made from mer
curic sulphide, used to represent blood. The actual scientific findings reveal t
he shroud as a 14th century painting, not a two-thousand year-old cloth with Chr
ist'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 exc
lusive!" article about evidence of Jesus written in stone, claiming that they fo
und the actual ossuary of "James, Brother of Jesus" in Jerusalem. This story exp
loded on the news and appeared widely on television and newspapers around the wo
rld.
Interestingly, they announced the find as the "earliest historical reference of
Jesus yet found." Since they claimed the inscribing on the box occurred around 7
0 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 n
ot 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 unti
l long after the alleged death of Jesus.
The claim for authenticity of the burial box of James, however, proved particula
rly embarrassing for the Biblical Archaeology Review and for those who believed
them without question. Just a few months later, archaeologists determined the in
scription as a forgery (and an obvious one at that) and they found the perpetrat
or and had him arrested (see 'Jesus box' exposed as fake and A fake? James Ossua
ry 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 be
lieving in fiction: many faithful (especially on the internet) have a strong bel
ief that Pontius Pilate actually wrote letters to Seneca in Rome where he mentio
ns Jesus and his reported healing miracles.
Considering the lack of investigational temper of the religious mind, it might p
rove 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: W
ritten 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 l
etters. Well, from the title, it certainly seems to indicate that Pilate wrote s
ome letters doesn't it? However, unbeknownst or ignored by the uncritical faithf
ul, 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 re
views 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 actu
al letters of Pilate. Of course no scholar would cite this as evidence because n
o letters exist of Pilate to Seneca, and Seneca never mentions Jesus in any of h
is 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 fictional
ized 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 histo
rian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged tim
e 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 cl
aimed 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 h
ad heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 wher
e it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Gal
ilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jo
rdan." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed J
esus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of th
ese gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumerable multitude of p
eople... 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, incl
uding the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his allege
d crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of pe
ople 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 a
nd healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the gre
atest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one per
son 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 hear
d of him?
Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the atten
tion of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there oc
curred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until th
e ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in t
he midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got reco
rded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world
, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dat
es. Note also that, for obvious reasons, solar eclipses can't occur during a ful
l moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporar
y person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the eart
h 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 ex
traordinary 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 t
here lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of educa
tion of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of pap
er gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surroundi
ng 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 scrib
es 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 muc
h popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.
Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E.
and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and his
torian 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 sur
rounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a sin
gle account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Sene
ca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23?
- 79 C.E.).
If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any rea
der here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would no
t 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 d
uring his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will fin
d few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.
To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagin
e 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 c
entury. 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 fo
r explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the abilit
y 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 moder
n 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 h
istorians, yet this proves as the only kind of source that Christology comes fro
m. Couple this with the fact that many historians believed as Christians themsel
ves, 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 th
e 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 encyclopedi
as and history books as fact.
In other words, Biblical scholarship gets forced into a lower standard by the ve
ry 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 convic
t the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil c
ases, 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 reall
y 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 description
s cannot serve as evidence for the existence of Jesus anymore than works of fict
ion that include recognizable locations, and make mention of actual people.
Homer's Odyssey, for example, describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the G
reek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in hist
ory. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants
and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locatio
ns accurately? Of course not. The authors of mythical stories, fictions, and nov
els almost always use familiar landmarks as placements for their stories. The au
thors 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 desir
es, flaws and failures of mortal human beings. Consider that fictions such as Ki
ng Kong, Superman, and Star Trek include recognizable cities, planets, and landm
arks, with their protagonists and antagonists miming human emotions.
Likewise, just because the Gospels mention cities and locations in Judea, and kn
own historical people, with Jesus behaving like an actual human being (with the
added dimension of supernatural curses, miracles, etc.) but this says nothing ab
out the actuality of the characters portrayed in the stories. However, when a st
ory uses impossible historical locations, or geographical errors, we may questio
n the authority of the claims.
For example, in Matt 4:8, the author describes the devil taking Jesus into an ex
ceedingly high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world. Since there e
xists 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 G
alilee. . . ." Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jorda
n river, not Galilee, which resided west of the river.
John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." Critics agr
ee that no such place as Aenon exists near Salim.
There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of th
e alleged Jesus. [Gauvin] Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor doe
s it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a det
ailed list of the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle w
riters ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epi
stles appeared before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Go
spels, where the first one didn't come into existence until about 40 years after
the hypothetical death of Jesus. Apologists attempt to dismiss this by claiming
that Nazareth existed as an insignificant and easily missed village (how would
they know?), thus no one recorded it. However, whenever the Gospels speak of Naz
areth, they always refer to it as a city, never a village, and a historian of th
at period would surely have noticed a city. (Note the New Testament uses the ter
ms village, town, and city.) Nor can apologists fall on archeological evidence o
f preexisting artifacts for the simple reason that many cities get built on anci
ent sites. 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 r
efer to it as historical.
Many more errors and unsupported geographical locations appear in the New Testam
ent. And although one cannot use these as evidence against a historical Jesus, w
e 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 jus
t the opposite proves the case. The Bible depicts Herod, the Ruler of Jewish Pal
estine under Rome as sending out men to search and kill the infant Jesus, yet no
thing in history supports such a story. Pontius Pilate supposedly performed as j
udge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a tr
ial. 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 sever
al decades after, ever records such a human figure. The lack of a historical Jes
us 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 evi
dence 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 Ale
xander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Napoleon, etc. However, there sits a vast dif
ference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs either artifacts, wri
tings, 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 h
ave buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We ha
ve treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved i
n stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Augustus Caesar, we have the Res gestae divi au
gusti, the emperor's own account of his works and deeds, a letter to his son (Ep
istula ad Gaium filium), Virgil's eyewitness accounts, and much more. Napoleon l
eft behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters. We can establish some his
toricity to these people because we have evidence that occurred during their lif
e times. Yet even with contemporary evidence, historians have become wary of aft
er-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 get
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 chronicl
ed Alexander's life and campaigns, none of these texts survive in original form.
Many letters and speeches attributed to Alexander are ancient forgeries or reco
nstructions inspired by imagination or political motives. The little solid docum
entation we possess from Alexander's own time is mainly to be found in stone ins
criptions from the Greek cities of Europe and Asia." [Briant]
Inventing histories out of whole cloth or embellished from a seed of an actual h
istorical 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 the
m as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at lea
st a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not f
orm 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, b
usts of Greek and Roman aristocrats, artwork of Napoleon, etc. We have descripti
ons of facial qualities, height, weight, hair length & color, age and even portr
aits of most important historical figures. But for Jesus, we have nothing. Nowhe
re 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 loo
ked like? How odd that none of the disciple characters record what he looked lik
e, 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 wh
at he looked like from cult Christians, and these widely differed from a blond c
lean shaven, curly haired Apollonian youth (found in the Roman catacombs) to a l
ong-bearded Italian as depicted to this day. This mimics the pattern of Greek my
thological figures as their believers constructed various images of what their g
ods looked like according to their own cultural image.
Historical people leave us with contemporary evidence, but for Jesus we have not
hing. 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 f
or 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 yo
u will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree th
at for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and c
ontradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.
Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and chaste Al
cmene, the mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). S
imilar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jes
us, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miracu
lous 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 popula
r hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told st
ories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.
Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have his
torical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Sim
ilar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the e
pic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and qu
otes 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 Chri
stus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most import
antly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we
also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes f
rom stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercul
es, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and b
eliefs 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 the
y think there never occurred any precedence for it. We have many examples of myt
h from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails in the ligh
t of the most obvious example-- the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writ
ers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that there must have existed
a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Minos, Diony
sus, etc. These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented historica
l time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived. As
Robert M. Price revealed, "The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, fr
om Euhemerus who originated it." [Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many example
s of seedling historicized mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a d
ream of alien bodily invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (s
ome of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which starte
d as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fi
ction but believed by their constituents.
People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer b
elieve in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so do their god
s. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powe
rful 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 Chr
istian friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it w
ill 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 e
ven into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theo
logians 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 investigati
on, (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 bec
ause he or she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can liv
e 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 noth
ing 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 po
sition 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 the possibility exists that an actual Jesus lived, a more likely possibili
ty reveals that a mythology could have arrived totally out of earlier mythologie
s. Although we have no evidence for a historical Jesus, we certainly have many a
ccounts for the mythologies of the Middle East and Egypt during the first centur
y 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 upcom
ing Messiah based on Jewish scripture. Their beliefs influenced many of their fo
llowers. We know that powerful beliefs can create self-fulfilling prophesies, an
d 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 severa
l would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). Many ancients b
elieved that there could come a final war against the "Sons of Darkness"-- the R
omans.
This then could very well have served as the ignition and flame for the future g
rowth of Christianity. We know that the early Christians lived within pagan comm
unities. 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 ig
nore its similarities means to ignore the mythological beliefs of history. Dozen
s of similar savior stories propagated the minds of humans long before the alleg
ed life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about Jesus "the Christ" came to the Christi
ans 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 Zoroastri
anism probably influenced early Christianity. The Magi described in the New Test
ament appears as Zoroastrian priests. Note the word "paradise" came from the Per
sian pairidaeza.
Osiris, Hercules, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus 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 m
others; had their births announced by stars; got born on the solstice around Dec
ember 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their infancy; met violent dea
ths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got worshiped by "wise men" and had alle
gedly fasted for forty days. [McKinsey, Chapter 5]
The pre-Christian cult of Mithra had a deity of light and truth, son of the Most
High, fought against evil, presented the idea of the Logos. Pagan Mithraism mys
teries had the burial in a rock tomb, resurrection, sacrament of bread & water (
Eucharist), the marking on the forehead with a mystic mark, the symbol of the Ro
ck, the Seven Spirits and seven stars, all before the advent of Christianity.
Even Justin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and Paganism. T
o the Pagans, he wrote: "When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, wa
s produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was cru
cified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing d
ifferent 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 scr
iptures that we now call the Old Testament. The accounts of these myths say noth
ing about historical reality, but they do say a lot about believers, how they be
lieved, and how their beliefs spread.
In the book The Jesus Puzzle, the biblical scholar, Earl Doherty, presents not o
nly a challenge to the existence of an historical Jesus but reveals that early p
re-Gospel Christian documents show that the concept of Jesus sprang from non-his
torical spiritual beliefs of a Christ derived from Jewish scripture and Helleniz
ed myths of savior gods. Nowhere do any of the New Testament epistle writers des
cribe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of the epistles mention a Jesus from N
azareth, an earthly teacher, or as a human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find th
ese writers quoting Jesus. Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jes
us' 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 si
mply means messenger, as Paul saw himself). Except for a few well known interpol
ations, 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 reve
lation 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 t
hat any tradition about an earthly life and ministry of Jesus were in circulatio
n."
Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews (8:4), makes it explicitly clear that th
e 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. I
f gotten through syncretism, pagans could very well have have influenced the fir
st Christians, especially the ideas of resurrection, beliefs about good and evil
, and virgin births. In my opinion, this appears the most likely, considering th
e close parallel of these beliefs to pre-Christian pagan beliefs. If gotten thro
ugh independent means, it still says nothing about Christian originality because
we know that pagans had beliefs about resurrected gods, long before Christianit
y existed. The hero archetypes still exist in our story telling today. As one pe
rsonal example, as a boy I used to read and collect Superman comics. It never oc
curred to me at the time to see Superman as a Christ-figure, or any other savior
story. Yet, if you analyze Superman and Jesus stories, they have uncanny simila
rities. In fact the move Superman Returns explicitly tells the Superman story th
rough a savior's point of view without once mentioning Jesus, yet Christians wou
ld innately know the connection. Other movies like Star Wars, Phenomenon, K-PAX,
The Matrix, etc. also covertly tell savior stories. So whether the first Christ
ians borrowed or independently came up with a savior story makes no difference w
hatsoever. The point here only aims to illustrate that Christians did not origin
ate 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 Chris
tianity, starting from a purely spiritual form of Christ to a human figure who e
mbodied that spirit, as portrayed in the Gospels. The New Testament stories appe
ars as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized and pagan stories compiled b
y pietistic believers to appeal to an audience for their particular religious ti
mes.
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 his
torical Jesus. But of course it has nothing at all to do with it. In the time be
fore and during the 6th century, people used various other dating methods. The R
omans used A.U.C. (anno urbis conditae, "year of the founded city," that being R
ome). 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 Commo
n Era) and C.E. (Common Era) as often used in scholarly literature. They corresp
ond to the same dates as B.C. and A.D., but without alluding to the birth or dea
th of an alleged Christ.
* Dionysius believed that the conception (incarnation) of Jesus occurred on Marc
h 25. This meant that the conception must have occurred nine months later on Dec
ember 25, probably not coincidentally, the very same date that the Emperor Aurel
ian, 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 Ja
nuary 1, probably to coincide with the traditional Roman year starting on Januar
y 1st. Dionysius probably never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus be
cause the Matthew gospel says his birth occurred while Herod served as King. Tha
t meant that if he did exist, his birth would have to occur in 4 B.C.E. or earli
er. He made another mistake by assigning the first year as 1 instead of 0 (every
one's birthday starts at year 0, not 1). The concept of zero (invented from Arab
ia and India) didn't come into Europe until about two hundred years later.

QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS:

Although apologist scholars believe that an actual Jesus lived on earth, the rea
sons for this appear obvious considering their Christian beliefs. Although some
secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus (minus the miracles)
, they, like most Christians, simply accept the traditional view without questio
n. 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 s
cholars, past and present:
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the wr
itings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogeth
er of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the nam
e 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 libr
ary of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one st
artling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning w
hom 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 a
ge of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flour
ished; 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 tha
t 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 genui
ne, and five of them were in fact incorporated into the New Testament as "letter
s 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 thirtee
n "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-- le
tters written in a style different from Paul's and reflecting situations and vie
wpoints in a style different from those in Paul's own letters. About the authors
hip of Ephesias, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, debate continues; but the majo
rity of scholars include these, too, among the "deutero-Pauline"-- literally, se
condarily Pauline-- letters."
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (Adam, Eve, and t
he Serpent)

We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthe
w, Mark, Luke, and John.
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gosp
els)

Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jes
us". . . 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

We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Ch
ristian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world.
-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)

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 remo
ve 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 t
o 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 Unive
rsity 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

Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did
not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no
evidence for it.
-Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)

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 G
ospel, 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 commo
n symbol of the Christian faith.
-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)

What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two diff
erent 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 s
tandards.
-David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible serie
s (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)

It is said that the last recourse of the Bible apologist is to fall back upon al
legory. After all, when confronted with the many hundreds of biblical problems,
allegory permits one to interpret anything however one might please.
-Gene Kasmar, Minnesota Atheists

Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published u
nder 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 R
eview, June 1994)

A generation after Jesus' death, when the Gospels were written, the Romans had d
estroyed the Jerusalem Temple (in 70 C.E.); the most influential centers of Chri
stianity were cities of the Mediterranean world such as Alexandria, Antioch, Cor
inth, Damascus, Ephesus and Rome. Although large number of Jews were also follow
ers 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. 1
994, 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 bapti
sm, 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 c
ould not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said
; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by th
eir religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospe
l 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 en
deavor, 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, 1
990)

Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to conservati
ve evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote t
he Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or c
laim 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, repeat
edly as they were copied and circulated among church elders during the last firs
t 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 Zebe
dee, 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" an
d "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Current objection to John's authorship are ba
sed 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' d
eath that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the G
ospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1
990)

Three letters that Paul allegedly wrote to his friends and former co-workers Tim
othy 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, 1
990)

The Epistle of James is a practical book, light on theology and full of advice o
n ethical behavior. Even so, its place in the Bible has been challenged repeated
ly 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 conclusivel
y 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 Apost
le 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 n
ever claims to be Jesus' brother. And scholars find the language too erudite for
a simple Palestinian. This letter is also disputed on theological grounds. Mart
in Luther called it "an epistle of straw" that did not belong in the Bible becau
se 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, 1
990)

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, 1
990)

Christian tradition has held that the Apostle Peter wrote the first [letter], pr
obably in Rome shortly before his martyrdom about A.D. 65. However, some modern
scholars cite the epistle's cultivated language and its references to persecutio
ns 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 l
atest 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 in
to the fifth century. "This letter cannot have been written by Peter," wrote Wer
ner 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, 1
990)

The letter of Jude also is considered too late to have been written by the attes
ted author-- "the brother of James" and, thus, of Jesus. The letter, believed wr
itten early in the second century.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1
990)

According to the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, a faithful account o

f the actions and words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels; but it is imposs
ible to reconcile this with the existence in the text of contradictions, improba
bilities, things which are materially impossible or statements which run contrar
y 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 thei
r anonymous followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented a somewhat
different picture of Jesus' life. The earliest appeared to have been written so
me 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 conc
erning 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 Vespa
sian 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 (quot
ed, in a slightly distorted form, in Mark 1:2-3) correctly predicted that a stra
nger named John would come out of the desert to prepare the way for Jesus. It wi
ll then come as something of a surprise to learn in the first chapter of Luke th
at 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 nothin
g in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanti
ng to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despi
te 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 Univers
ity (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 Schoo
l

We are led to conclude that, in Paul's past, there was no historical Jesus. Rath
er, the activities of the Son about which God's gospel in scripture told, as int
erpreted by Paul, had taken place in the spiritual realm and were accessible onl
y 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 nev
er 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 Jesu
s. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "h
istorical 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 ap

parently mythic from first to last."
-Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Inst
itute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)

CONCLUSION
Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hea
rsay do not amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with eyewitnes
s accounts we must tread carefully. Simply because someone makes a claim, does n
ot mean it represents reality. For example, consider some of the bogus claims th
at supposedly come from many eyewitness accounts of alien extraterrestrials and
their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses but present blurry photos t
o boot! If we can question these accounts, then why should we not question claim
s that come from hearsay even more? Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes fr
om ancient and unknown people that no longer live.
Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds a
nd nothing, even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possi
bly change their minds. We have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but i
f we wish to establish the facts of history, we cannot even begin to put togethe
r a knowledgeable account without at least a few reliable eyewitness accounts.
Of course a historical Jesus may 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 detail in the gospel stories occurred in pa
gan and/or Hebrew stories, 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 who's birth occurred after
 an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evid
ence for that event.