Artikel (Englisch) aus sci.archaeology (ca. 90 KB)
Geschrieben von Harald Henkel am 20. Mai 2001 13:06:45:
Als Antwort auf: Re: jesus ist eine geschichtlich existente person VON ANJUVA geschrieben von Loki am 20. Mai 2001 10:28:57:
As I pointed out in the sci.anthropology newgroup this is nonsence because the whole situation regading Jesus can be broken into four hypothosies:
1) Jesus Christ didn't exist at all but rather was a literary creation similar to what some believe about Moses. Given that some people accually think Sherlock Holmes lived it is possible but IMHO not very proable.
2) Jesus Christ is accually a composite person ie composed of several individial people. Robin Hood is good UK example of this with the closest American equivalent being John Henry. This is basicly the premice of _Refuting Missionaries_ by Hayyim ben Yehoshua (see below)
3) Jesus Christ existed but had other abilities, actions, qualities latter attributed to him; ie in essence he was legendized. Robert Louis Stevenson is a good modern example of this in the UK's history with Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur version of King Arthur a posability and here in the USA there is Washington, Daniel Boone, and Lincoln.
4) Jesus Christ existed exactly as portraid in the bible. This is also unlikely as the Biblical Jesus has many contradictions regarding birth, geneology, and ministry. This non only in regards to the Gospels but with Paul and the Gospels.
The Jesus Puzzle
I have mentioned _Refuting Missionaries_ by Hayyim ben Yehoshua but the post made to the _Did Jesus exist?_ thread in the sci.archaeology newsgroup by boyd1@ix.netcom.com was incomplete. Using Dejanews I have recontructed the entire post using partical framents. Though _Refuting Missionaries_ does have few flaws it does gather together many of the relevent points that some people want to ignore.
Refuting Missionaries:
by Hayyim ben Yehoshua
PART 1: THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Much concern has been expressed in the Jewish media
regarding the activity of "Jews for Jesus" and other missionary organizations who go out of their way to convert Jews to
Christianity. Unfortunately, many Jews are ill-equipped to deal with Christian missionaries and their arguments. Hopefully this article will contribute to remedying this situation.
When countering Christian missionaries it is important
to base one's arguments on correct facts. Arguments based on
incorrect facts can easily backfire and end up strengthening the arguments of the missionaries.
It is rather unfortunate that many well meaning Jewish
Studies teachers have unwittingly aided missionaries by teaching Jewish pupils incorrect information about the origins of
Christianity. I can recall being taught the following story
about Jesus at the Jewish day school which I attended:
"Jesus was a famous first century rabbi whose
Hebrew name was Rabbi Yehoshua. His father was a carpenter
named Joseph and his mother's name was Mary. Mary became
pregnant before she married Joseph. Jesus was born in a
stable in Bethlehem during a Roman census. Jesus grew up
in Nazareth and became a learned rabbi. He travelled all
over Israel preaching that people should love one another.
Some people thought that he was the Messiah and he did not
deny this which made the other rabbis very angry. He
caused so much controversy that the Roman governor Pontius
Pilate had him crucified. He was buried in a tomb and
later his body was found to be missing since it had
probably been stolen by his disciples."
A few years after being taught this seemingly innocent
story, I became interested in the origins of Christianity and
decided to do some further reading on the "famous Rabbi
Yehoshua." Much to my dismay, I discovered that there was no historical evidence of this Rabbi Yehoshua. The claim that
Jesus was a rabbi named Yehoshua and the claim that his body was probably stolen both turned out to be pure conjecture. The rest of the story was nothing more than a watered down version of the story which Christians believe as part of the Christian religion but which is not supported by any legitimate historical source.
There was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus, Joseph
or Mary ever existed, let alone that Joseph was a carpenter or
that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.
Despite the lack of evidence for Jesus's existence many
Jews have made the tragic mistake of assuming that the New
Testament story is largely correct and have tried to refute
Christianity by attempting to rationalize the various miracles
that allegedly occured during Jesus's life and after his death.
Numerous books have been written which take this approach to
Christianity. This approach however is hopelessly flawed and is in fact dangerous since it encourages belief in the New
Testament.
When the Israelites were confronted with the worship of
Baal they did not blindly accept the ancient West Semitic myths
as history. When the Maccabees were confronted with Greek
religion they did not blindly accept Greek mythology as history. Why do so many modern Jews blindly accept Christian mythology?
The answer to this question seems to be that many Christians do
not know themselves where the distinction between established
history and Christian belief lies and they have passed their
confusion on to the Jewish community. Browsing through the
religion section of a local bookshop, I recently came across a
book which claimed to be an objective biography of Jesus. It
turned out to be nothing more than a summary of the usual New
Testament story. It even included claims that Jesus's miracles
had been witnessed but that rational explanations for them might exist. Many history books written by Christians take a similar
approach. Some Christian authors will suggest that perhaps the
miracles are not completely historical but they nevertheless
follow the general New Testament story. The idea that there was a real historical Jesus has thus become entrenched in Christian
society and Jews living in the Christian world have come to
blindly accept this belief because they have never seen it
seriously challenged.
Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains
that there is no historical Jesus. In order to understand what
is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas turned everything he
touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we know
that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told
the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people
to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of
the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact - the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, their is however, no single person whose
existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the
subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical
Jesus.
When confronted by a Christian missionary, one should
immediately point out that *the very existence of Jesus has not
been proven*. When missionaries argue they usually appeal to
emotions rather than to reason and they will attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus. The
usual response is something like _"Isn't denying the existence of Jesus just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth?"_. A popular variation of this response used especially against Jews is _"Isn't denying the existence of Jesus like denying the Holocaust?"_ One should then point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named,
while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus.
To be perfectly thorough you should take time to do some research on the historical personalities mentioned by the
missionaries and present hard evidence of their existence. At
the same time you should challenge the missionaries to provide
similar evidence of Jesus's existence. You should point out
that although the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth
etc, is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In
the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shintoism,
Taoism and Confucism, Jesus is considered to be just another
character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor,
Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu
god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject
the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who
announced the coming of Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he
was ever crucified.
To sum up, there is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide. It is this fact which puts Jesus on a
different level to established historical personalities. If the missionaries use the "Holocaust reply," you should point out that the Holocaust is well-documented and that there are
numerous eyewitness reports. It should be pointed out that most of the people who deny the Holocaust have turned out to be
antisemitic hate-mongers with fraudulent credentials. On the
other hand, millions of honest people in Asia, who make up the
majority of the world's population, have failed to be convinced
by the Christian story of Jesus since there is no compelling
evidence for its authenticity. The missionaries will insist
that the story of Jesus is a well-established fact and will
argue that there is "plenty of evidence supporting it"_. One should then insist on seeing this evidence and refuse to listen
any further until they produce it.
If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the
whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The
Hebrew name for Christians has always been _Notzrim_. This name is derived from the Hebrew word _neitzer_ which means a shoot or sprout - an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c.
100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the
first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence
for about 150 years. One of the the most notorious Notzrim was
Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic
scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began
with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu
and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note that Yeishu
ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity
denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover,
parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people
besides Yeishu.
We know very little about Yeishu ha-Notzri. All modern
works that mention him are based on information taken from the
Tosefta and the Baraitas - writings made at the same time as the Mishna but not contained in it. Because the historical
information concerning Yeishu is so damaging to Christianity,
most Christian authors (and even some Jewish ones) have tried to discredit this information and have invented many ingenious
arguments to explain it away. Many of their arguments are based on misunderstandings and misquotations of the Baraitas and in
order to get an accurate picture of Yeishu one should ignore
Christian authors and examine the Baraitas directly.
The skimpy information contained in the Baraitas is as
follows: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah once repelled Yeishu with both hands. People believed that Yeishu was a sorcerer and they considered him to be a person who had led the Jews astray. As a result of charges brought against him (the details of which are
not known, but which probably involved high treason) Yeishu was
stoned and his body hung up on the eve of Passover. Before this he was paraded around for forty days with a herald going in
front of him announcing that he would be stoned and calling for
people to come forward to plead for him. Nothing was brought
forward in his favour however. Yeishu had five disciples:
Mattai, Naqai, Neitzer, Buni, and Todah.
In the Tosefta and the Baraitas, Yeishu's father is
named Pandeira or Panteiri. These are Hebrew-Aramaic forms of a Greek name. In Hebrew the third consonant of the name is
written either with a dalet or a tet. Comparison with other
Greek words transliterated into Hebrew shows that the original
Greek must have had a delta as its third consonant and so the
only possibilty for the father's Greek name is Panderos. Since
Greek names were common among Jews during Hashmonean times it is not necessary to assume that he was Greek, as some authors have
done.
The connection between Yeishu and Jesus is corroborated
by the the fact that Mattai and Todah, the names of two of
Yeishu's disciples, are the original Hebrew forms of Matthew and Thaddaeus, the names of two of Jesus's disciples in Christian
mythology.
The early Christians were also aware of the name "ben Pandeira" for Jesus. The pagan philosopher Celsus, who was famous for his arguments against Christianity, claimed in 178
C.E. that he had heard from a Jew that Jesus's mother, Mary,
had been divorced by her husband, a carpenter, after it had been proved that she was an adultress. She wandered about in shame
and bore Jesus in secret. His real father was a soldier named
Pantheras. According to the Christian writer Epiphanius (c.
320 - 403 C.E.), the Christian apologist Origen (c.185 - 254
C.E.) had claimed that "Panther" was the nickname for Jacob the father of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus. It should be noted
that Origen's claim is not based on any historical information.
It is purely a conjecture aimed at explaining away the Pantheras story of Celsus. That story is also not historical. The claim
that the name of Jesus's mother was Mary and the claim that her
husband was a carpenter is taken directly from Christian belief. The claim that Jesus's real father was named Pantheras is based
on an incorrect attempt at reconstructing the original form of
Pandeira. This incorrect reconstruction was probably influenced by the fact that the name Pantheras was found among Roman
soldiers.
Why did people believe that Jesus's mother was named
Mary and her husband named Joseph? Why did non-Christians accuse Mary of being an adultress while Christians believed she was a
virgin? To answer these questions one must examine some of the
legends surrounding Yeishu. We cannot hope to obtain the
absolute truth concerning the origins of the Jesus myth but we
can show that reasonable alternatives exist to blindly accepting the New Testament.
The name Joseph for Jesus's stepfather is easy to
explain. The Notzri movement was particulary popular with the
Samaritan Jews. While the Pharisees were waiting for a Messiah
who would be a descendant of David, the Samaritans wanted a
Messiah who would restore the northern kingdom of Israel. The
Samaritans emphasized their partial descent from the tribes of
Ephraim and Manasseh, who were descended from the Joseph of the
Torah. The Samaritans considered themselves to be "Bnei Yoseph" i.e. "sons of Joseph," and since they believed that Jesus had been their Messiah, they would have assumed that he was a "son of Joseph." The Greek speaking population, who had little
knowledge of Hebrew and true Jewish traditions could have easily misunderstood this term and assumed that Joseph was the actual
name of Jesus's father. This conjecture is corroborated by the
fact that according to the _Gospel of Matthew_, Joseph's father
is named Jacob, just like the Torah Joseph. Later, other
Christians, who followed the idea that the Messiah was to be
descended from David, tried to trace Joseph back to David. They came up with two contradictory genealogies for him, one recorded in _Matthew _ and the other in _Luke_. When the idea that Mary
was a virgin developed, the mythical Joseph was relegated to the position of simply being her husband and the stepfather of
Jesus.
To understand where the Mary story came from we have to
turn to another historical character who contributed to the
Jesus myth, namely ben Stada. All the information we have on
ben Stada again comes from the Tosefta and the Baraitas. There
is even less information about him than about Yeishu: Some
people believed that he had brought spells out of Egypt in a cut in his flesh, others thought that he was a madman. He was a
beguiler and was caught by the method of concealed witnesses.
He was stoned in Lod.
In the Tosefta, ben Stada is called ben Sotera or ben
Sitera. Sotera seems to be the Hebrew-Aramaic form of the Greek name Soteros. The forms "Sitera" and "Stada" seem have arisen as misreadings and spelling mistakes (yod replacing vav and
dalet replacing reish).
Since there was so little information concerning ben
Stada, many conjectures arose as to who he was. It is known
from the Gemara that he was confused with Yeishu. This probably resulted from the fact that both were executed for treasonous
teachings and were associated with sorcery. People who confused ben Stada with Yeishu had to explain why he was also called ben
Pandeira. Since the name "Stada" resembles the Aramaic expression "stat da," meaning "she went astray" it was thought that "Stada" referred to the mother of Yeishu and that she was an adultress. Consequently, people began to think that Yeishu
was the illegitimate son of Pandeira. These ideas are in fact
mentioned in the Gemara and are probably much older. Since ben
Stada lived in Roman times and the name Pandeira resembled the
name Pantheras found among Roman soldiers, it was assumed that
Pandeira had been a Roman soldier stationed in Israel. This
certainly explains the story mentioned by Celsus.
The Tosefta mentions a famous case of a woman named
Miriam bat Bilgah marrying a Roman soldier. The idea that
Yeishu had been born to a Jewish woman who had had an affair
with a Roman soldier probably resulted in Yeishu's mother being
confused with this Miriam. The name "Miriam" is of course the original form of the name "Mary." It is in fact known from the Gemara that some of the people who confused Yeishu with ben
Stada believed that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's hairdresser."
The story that Mary (Miriam) the mother of Jesus was an
adultress was certainly not acceptable to the early Christians.
The virgin birth story was probably invented to clear Mary's
name. The early Christians did not suck this story out of their thumbs. Virgin birth stories were farely common in pagan myths. The following mythological characters were all believed to be
have been born to divinely impregnated virgins: Romulus and
Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Osiris-Aion, Agdistis,
Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, Dionysus. The pagan belief in
unions between gods and women, regardless of whether they were
virgins or not, is even more common. Many characters in pagan
mythology were believed to be sons of divine fathers and human
females. The Christian belief that Jesus was the son of G-d
born to a virgin, is typical of Greco-Roman superstition. The
Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 B.C.E - 45 C.E.), warned against the widespread superstitious belief in unions
between male gods and human females which returned women to a
state of virginity.
The god Tammuz, worshipped by pagans in northern Israel, was said to have been born to the virgin Myrrha. The name
"Myrrha" superficially resembles "Mary/Miriam" and it is possible that this particular virgin birth story influenced the
Mary story more than the others. Like Jesus, Tammuz was always
called Adon, meaning "Lord." (The character Adonis in Greek mythology is based on Tammuz.) As we will see later, the
connection between Jesus and Tammuz goes much further than this.
The idea that Mary had been an adultress never
completely disappeared in Christian mythology. Instead, the
character of Mary was split into two: Mary the mother of Jesus, believed to be a virgin, and Mary Magdalene, believed to be a
woman of ill repute. The idea that the character of Mary
Magdalene is also derived from Miriam the mythical mother of
Yeishu, is corroborated by the fact that the strange name
"Magdalene" clearly resembles the Aramaic term "mgadla nshaya" meaning "womens' hairdresser." As mentioned before, there was a belief that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's
hairdresser." Because the Christians did not know what the name "Magdalene" meant, they later conjectured that it meant that she had come from a place called Magdala on the west of Lake
Kinneret. The idea of the two Marys fitted in well with the
pagan way of thinking. The image of Jesus being followed by the two Marys is strongly reminiscent of Dionysus being followed by
Demeter and Persephone.
The Gemara contains an interesting legend concerning
Yeishu which attempts to elucidate the Beraita which says that
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah repelled Yeishu with both hands.
The legend claims that when the Hashmonean king Yannai was
killing the Pharisees, Rabbi Yehoshua and Yeishu fled to Egypt.
When returning they came upon an inn. The Aramaic word
"aksanya" means both "inn" or "innkeeper." Rabbi Yehoshua remarked how beautiful the "aksanya" was (meaning the inn). Yeishu (meaning the innkeeper) replied that her eyes were too
narrow. Rabbi Yehoshua was very angry with Yeishu and
excommunicated him. Yeishu asked many times for forgiveness
but Rabbi Yehoshua would not forgive him. Once when Rabbi
Yehoshua was reciting the Shema, Yeishu came up to him. He made a sign to him that he should wait. Yeishu misunderstood and
thought that he was being rejected again. He mocked Rabbi
Yehoshua by setting up a brick and worshipping it. Rabbi
Yehoshua told him to repent but he refused to, saying that he
had learned from him that anyone who sins and causes many to
sin, is not given the opportunity to repent.
The above story, up to the events at the inn, closely
resembles another legend in which the protagonist is not Rabbi
Yehoshua but his disciple Yehuda ben Tabbai. In this legend,
Yeishu is not named. One may thus question whether Yeishu
really went to Egypt or not. It is possible that Yeishu was
confused with some other disciple of either Rabbi Yehoshua or
Rabbi Yehuda. The confusion might have resulted from the fact
that Yeishu was confused with ben Stada who had returned from
Egypt. On the other hand, Yeishu might have really fled to Egypt and returned, and this in turn could have contributed to the
confusion between Yeishu and ben Stada. Whatever the case, the
belief that Yeishu fled to Egypt to escape being killed by a
cruel king, appears to be the origin of the Christian belief
that Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape King Herod.
Since the early Christians believed that Jesus had lived in Roman times it is natural that they would have confused the
evil king who wanted to kill Jesus with Herod, since there were
no other suitable evil kings during the Roman period. Yeishu
was an adult at the time that the rabbis fled from Yannai; why
did the Christians believe that Jesus and his family had fled to Egypt when Jesus was an infant? Why did the Christians believe
that Herod had ordered all baby boys born in Bethlehem to be
killed, when there is no historical evidence of this? To answer these questions we again have to look at pagan mythology.
The theme of a divine or semi-divine child who is feared by an evil king is very common in pagan mythology. The usual
story is that the evil king receives a prophecy that a certain
child will be born who will usurp the throne. In some stories
the child is born to a virgin and usually he is son of a god.
The mother of the child tries to hide him. The king usually
orders the slaying of all babies who might be the prophecied
king. Examples of myths which follow this plot are the birth
stories of Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Krishna, Zeus, and
Oedipus. Although Torah literalists will not like to admit it,
the story of Moses's birth also resembles these myths (some of
which claim that the mother put the child in a basket and placed him in a river). There were probably several such stories
circulating in the Levant which have been lost. The Christian
myth of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod is simply a
Christain version of this theme. The plot was so well known
that one Midrashic scholar could not resist using it for an
apocryphal account of Abraham's birth.
The early Christians believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This belief is based on a misunderstanding
of Micah _ 5.2 which simply names Bethlehem as the town where
the Davidic lineage began. Since the early Christians believed
that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed that he
was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that
he lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple. The early
Greek speaking Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri" is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene.") The early Christians conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today,
Christians blithely confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (_ Nazarene_, _Christian_), "Natzrati" _Nazarethite_) and "nazir" (_nazarite_), all of which have completely different meanings.
The information in the Talmud (which contains the
Baraitas and the Gemara), concerning Yeishu and ben Stada, is so damaging to Christianity that Christians have always taken
drastic measures against it. When the Christians first
discovered the information they immediately tried to wipe it out by censoring the Talmud. The Basle edition of the Talmud (c.
1578 - 1580) had all the passages relating to Yeishu and ben
Stada deleted by the Christians. Even today, editions of the
Talmud used by Christian scholars lack these passages!
During the first few decades of this century, fierce
academic battles raged between atheist and Christian scholars
over the true origins of Christianity. The Christians were
forced to face up to the Talmudic evidence. They could no
longer ignore it and so they decided to attack it instead. They claimed that the Talmudic Yeishu was a distortion of the
"historical Jesus." They claimed that the name "Pandeira" was simply a Hebrew attempt at pronouncing the Greek word for virgin - "parthenos." Although there is a superficial resemblence between the words, one should note that in order for "Pandeira" to be derived from "parthenos," the "n" and "r" have to be interchanged. However, the Jews did not suffer from any speech
impediment which would cause this to happen! The Christian
response is that possibly the Jews purposefully altered the word "parthenos" to either the name "Pantheras" (found in Celsus's story) or to "pantheros" meaning a panther, and "Pandeira" is derived from the deliberately altered word. This argument also
fails since the third consonent of both the altered and
unaltered "parthenos" is theta. This letter is always transliterated by the Hebrew letter tav, whose pronunciation
during classical times most closely resembled that of the Greek
letter. However, the name "Pandeira" is never spelled with a tav but with either a dalet or a tet which show that the
original Greek form had a delta as its third consonant, not a
theta. The Christian argument can also be turned on its head:
maybe the Christians deliberately altered "Pantheras" to "parthenos" when they invented the virgin birth story. It should also be noted that the resemblence between "Pantheras" (or "pantheros") and "parthenos" is actually much less when written in Greek since in the original Greek spelling their
second vowels are completely different.
Part 3
The Christians also did not accept that Mary Magdalene
was connected to Miriam the alleged mother of Yeishu in the
Talmud. They argued that the name "Magdalene" does mean a person from Magdala and that the Jews evented "Miriam the womens hairdresser _mgadla nshaya_)" either to mock the Christians, or out of their own misunderstanding of the name "Magdalene." This argument is also false. Firstly, it ignores Greek grammar: the correct Greek for "of Magdala" is "Magdales" and the correct Greek for a person from Magdala is "Magdalaios." The original Greek root of "Magdalene" is "Magdalen-" with a conspicuous "n" showing that the word has nothing to do with Magdala. Secondly, Magdala only got its name after the Gospels were written.
Before that it was called Magadan or Dalmanutha. (Although
"Magadan" has an "n," it lacks an "l" and so it cannot be the derivation of "Magdalene.") In fact, the ruins of this area were renamed Magdala by the Christian community because they believed that Mary Magdalene had come from there.
The Christians also claimed that the word "Notzri" means a person from Nazareth. This is of course false since the
original Hebrew for Nazareth is "Natzrat" and a person from Nazareth is a "Natzrati." The name "Notzri" lacks the letter tav from "Natzrat" as so it cannot be derived from it. The Christians argue that perhaps the Aramaic name for Nazareth was
"Natzarah" or "Natzirah" (like the modern Arabic name) which explains the missing tav in "Notzri." This is also nonsense since the Aramaic word for a person from Nazareth would then be
"Natzaratiya" or "Natziratiya" (with a tav since the feminine ending "-ah" would become "-at-" when the suffix "-iya" is added), and besides, the Aramaic form would not be used in
Hebrew. The Christians also came up with various other
arguments which can be dismissed since they confuse the Hebrew
words "Notzri" and "nazir" or ignore the fact that "Notzri" is the earliest form of the word "Nazarene."
To sum up, all the Christian arguments were based on
impossible phonetic changes and grammatical forms, and were
consequently dismissed. Moreover, although the legends in the
Gemara cannot be taken as fact, the evidence in the Baraitas and Tosefta concerning Yeishu can be traced back directly to
Yehoshua ben Perachyah, Shimon ben Shetach and Yehuda ben Tabbai and their disciples who were contemporaries of Yeishu, while the evidence in the Baraitas and Tosefta concerning ben Stada can be traced to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and his disciples who were
ben Stada's contempories. Consequently the evidence can be
regarded as historically accurate. Therefore modern Christians
no longer attack the Talmud but instead deny any connection
between Jesus and Yeishu or ben Stada. They dismiss the
similarities as pure coincidence. However, one must still be
aware of the false attacks on the Talmud since many Christian
books still mention them and they can and do resurface from time to time.
Many parts of the Jesus story are not based on Yeishu or ben Stada. Most Christian denominations claim that Jesus was
born on 25 December. Originally the eastern Christains believed that he was born on 6 January. The Armenian Christians still
follow this early belief while most Christians consider it to be the date of the visit of the Magi. As pointed out already,
Jesus was probably confused with Tammuz born of the virgin
Myrrha. We know that in Roman times, the gods Tammuz, Aion and
Osiris were identified. Osiris-Aion was said to be born of the
virgin Isis on the 6 January and this explains the earlier date
for Christmas. Isis was sometimes represented as a sacred cow
and her temple as a stable which is probably the origin of the
Christian belief that Jesus was born in a stable. Although some might find this claim to be farfetched, it is known as a fact
that certain early Christian sects identified Jesus and Osiris
in their writings. The date of 25 December for Christmas was
originally the pagan birthday of the sun god, whose day of the
week is still known as *Sun*_day. The halo of light which is
usually shown surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian
saints, is another concept taken from the sun god.
The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was
also found in pagan mythology. In particular the story of
Jesus's temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of Osiris
by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.
We have already hinted that there was also a connection
between Jesus and the pagan god Dionysus. Like Dionysus, the
infant Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a
manger; like Dionysus, Jesus could turn water into wine; like
Dionysus, Jesus rode on an ass and fed a multitude in the
wilderness; like Dionysus, Jesus suffered and was mocked. Some
early Christians claimed that Jesus had in fact been born, not
in a stable, but in a cave - just like Dionysus.
Where did the story that Jesus was crucified come from?
It appears to have resulted from a number of sources. Firstly
there were three historical characters during the Roman period
who people thought were Messiahs and who were crucified by the
Romans, namely. Yehuda of Galilee (6 C.E.), Theudas (44 C.E.)
and Benjamin the Egyptian (60 C.E.). Since these three people
were all thought to be the Messiah, they were naturally confused with Yeishu and ben Stada. Yehuda of Galilee had preached in
Galilee and had collected many followers before being crucified
by the Romans. The story of Jesus's ministry in Galilee appears to be based on the life of Yehuda of Galilee. This story and
the belief that Jesus lived in Nazareth in Galilee, reinforced
each other. The belief that some of Jesus's disciples were
killed in c. 44 C.E. by Agrippa appears to be based the fate of Theudas's disciples. Since ben Stada had come from Egypt it is
natural that he would have been confused with Benjamin the
Egyptian. They were probably also contempories. Even some
modern authors have suggested that they were the same person,
although this is not possible since the stories of their deaths
are completely different. In the New Testament book of _Acts_,
which uses Josephus's book _ Jewish Antiquities_ (93 - 94 C.E.)
as a reference, it is made clear that the author considered
Jesus, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Benjamin the Egyptian, to
be four different people. However, by that time it was too late to undo the confusions which had already taken place before the
New Testament was written, and the idea of Jesus's crucifixion
had become an integral part of the myth.
Secondly, the idea arose that Jesus had been executed on the eve of Passover. This belief is apparently based on
Yeishu's execution. Passover occurs at the time of the Vernal
Equinox, an event considered important by astrologers during the Roman Empire. The astrologers thought of this time as the time
of the crossing of two astrological celestial circles, and this
event was symbolized by a cross. Thus there was a belief that
Jesus had died on "the cross." The misunderstanding of this term by those who were not initiated into the astrological
cults, was another factor contributing to the belief that Jesus
was crucified. In one of the earliest Christian documents (the
_Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_) there is no mention of Jesus
being crucified yet the sign of a cross in the sky is used to
represent Jesus's coming. It should be noted that the centre of astrological superstition in the Roman Empire was the city of
Tarsus in Asia Minor - the place where the legendary missionary
Paul came from. The idea that a special star had heralded the
birth of Jesus, and that a solar eclipse occured at his death,
is typical of Tarsian astrological superstition.
The third factor contributing to the crucifixion story
is again pagan mythology. The theme of a divine or semi-divine
being sacrificed against a tree, pole or cross, and then being
resurrected, is very common in pagan mythology. It was found in the mythologies of all western civilizations stretching from as
far west as Ireland and as far east as India. In particular it
is found in the mythologies of Osiris and Attis, both of whom
were often identified with Tammuz. Osiris landed up with his
arms stretched out on a tree like Jesus on the cross. This tree was sometimes shown as a pole with outstretched arms - the same
shape as the Christian cross. In the worship of Serapis (a
composite of Osiris and Apis) the cross was a religious symbol.
Indeed, the Christian "Latin cross" symbol seems to be based directly on the cross symbol of Osiris and Serapis. The Romans
never used this traditional Christian cross for crucifixions,
they used crosses shaped either like an X or a T. The
hieroglyph of a cross on a hill was associated with Osiris.
This heiroglyph stood for the "Good One," in Greek "Chrestos," a name applied to Osiris and other pagan gods. The confusion of
this name with "Christos (= Messiah, Christ)" strengthened the confusion between Jesus and the pagan gods.
At the Vernal Equinox, pagans in northern Israel would
celebrate the death and resurrection of the virgin born
Tammuz-Osiris. In Asia Minor (where the earliest Christian
churches were established) a similar celebration was held for
the virgin born Attis. Attis was shown as dying against a tree, being buried in a cave and then being resurrected on the third
day. We thus see where the Christian story of Jesus's
resurrection comes from. In the worship of Baal, it was
believed that Baal cheated Mavet (the god of death) at the time
of the Vernal Equinox. He pretended to be dead but later
appeared alive. He accomplished this ruse by giving his only
son as a sacrifice.
The occurence of Passover at the same time of year as
the pagan "Easter" festivals is not coincidental. Many of the Pessach customs were designed as Jewish alternatives to pagan
customs. The pagans believed that when their nature god (such
as Tammuz, Osiris or Attis) died and was resurrected, his life
went into the plants used by man as food. The matza made from
the spring harvest was his new body and the wine from the grapes was his new blood. In Judaism, matza, was not used to represent the body of a god but the poor man's bread which the Jews ate
before leaving Egypt. The pagans used the paschal sacrifice to
represent the sacrifice of a god or his only son, but Judaism
used it to represent the meal eaten before leaving Egypt.
Instead of telling stories about Baal sacrificing his first born son to Mavet, the Jews told how _mal'ach ha-mavet_ (the angel of death) slew the first born sons of the Egyptians. The pagans
ate eggs to represent the resurrection and rebirth of their
nature god, but the egg on the seder plate represents the
rebirth of the Jewish people escaping captivity in Egypt. When
the early Christians noticed the similarities between Pessach
customs and pagan customs, they came full circle and converted
the Pessach customs back to their old pagan interpretations.
The seder became the last supper of Jesus, similar to the last
supper of Osiris commemorated at the Vernal Equinox. The matza
and wine once again became the body and blood of a false god,
this time Jesus. Easter eggs are again eaten to commemorate the resurrection of a "god" and also the "rebirth" obtained by accepting his sacrifice on the cross.
The Last Supper myth is particularly interesting. As
mentioned, the basic idea of last supper occuring at the Vernal
Equinox comes from the story of the last supper of Osiris. In
the Christian story, Jesus is present with twelve apostles.
Where did the story of the twelve apostles come from? It appears that in its earliest version, the story was understood to be an
allegory. The first time that twelve apostles are mentioned is
in the document known as the _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_.
This document apparently originated as a sectarian Jewish
document written in the first century C.E., but it was adopted
by Christians who altered it substantially and added Christian
ideas to it. In the earliest versions it is clear that the
"twelve apostles" are the twelve sons of Jacob representing the twelve tribes of Israel. The Christians later considered the
"twelve apostles" to be allegorical disciples of Jesus.
In Egyptian mythology, Osiris was betrayed at his last
supper by the evil god Set, whom the Greeks identified with
Typhon. This seems to be the origin of the idea that Jesus's
betrayer was present at his last supper. The idea that this
betrayer was named "Judas" goes back to the time when the twelve apostles were still understood to be the sons of Jacob. The
idea of Judas (= Judah, Yehuda) betraying Jesus (the "son" of Joseph) is strongly reminiscent of the story of the Torah Joseph being betrayed by his brothers with Yehuda as the ringleader.
This allegory would have been particulary appealing to the
Samaritan Notzrim who considered themselves to be sons of Joseph betrayed by mainstream Jews (represented by Judas/Yehuda).
However, the story of the twelve apostles lost its
original allegorical interpretation and the Christians began to
think that the "twelve apostles" were twelve real people who followed Jesus. The Christians attempted to find names for
these twelve apostles. Matthew and Thaddaeus were based on
Mattai and Todah, two of Yeishu's disciples. One or both of the apostles named Jacobus (James) is possibly based on Jacob of
Kfar Sekanya, an early Christian known to Rabbi Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus, but this is just a guess. As we have seen, the
character of Judas is mostly based on the Judah of the Torah but there might also be a connection with Yeishu's contemporary,
Yehuda ben Tabbai the disciple of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah.
As already mentioned, the idea of the betrayer at the last
supper is derived from the mythology of Osiris who was betrayed
by Set-Typhon. Set-Typhon had red hair and this is probably the origin of the claim that Judas had red hair. This idea has led
to the Christian stereotypical portrayel of Jews as having red
hair, despite the fact that in reality, red hair is far more
common among Aryans than among Jews.
Judas is often given the nickname "Iscariot." In some places where English New Testaments have "Iscariot," the Greek text actually has "apo Kariotou" which means "from Karyot." Karyot was the name of a town in Israel, probably the modern
site known in Arabic as Karyatein. We thus see that the name
Iscariot is derived from the Hebrew "ish Karyot" meaning "man from Karyot." This is in fact the accepted modern Christian understanding of the name. However, in the past, the Christians misunderstood this name and legends arose that Judas was from
the town of _Sychar_, that he was a member of the extremist
party known as the _Sicarii_ and that he was from the tribe of
_Issacher_. The most interesting misunderstanding of the name
is its early confusion with the word _scortea_ meaning a leather money bag. This led to the New Testament myth that Judas
carried such a bag, which in turn led to the belief that he was
the treasurer of the apostles.
The apostle Peter appears to be a largely fictitious
character. According to Christian mythology, Jesus chose him to be the "keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven." This is clearly based on the Egyptian pagan deity, Petra, who was the
door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife ruled over by Osiris.
We must also doubt the story of Luke "the good healer" who was supposed to be a friend of Paul. The original Greek for "Luke" is "Lykos" which was another name for Apollo, the god of healing.
John the Baptist is largely based on an historical
person who practised ritual immersion in water as a physical
symbol for repentence. He did not perform Christian style
sacramental baptisms to cleanse people's souls - such an idea
was totally foreign to Judaism. He was put to death by Herod
Antipas who feared that he was about to start a rebellion.
John's name in Greek was "Ioannes" and in Latin "Johannes." Although these names were usually used for the Hebrew name
Yochanan, it is unlikely that this was John's actual Hebrew
name. "Ioannes" closely resembles "Oannes" the Greek name for the pagan god Ea. Oannes was the "God of the House of Water." Sacramental baptism for magically cleansing souls, was a
practice which apparently originated in the worship of Oannes.
The most likely explanation of John's name and its connection
with Oannes is that John probably bore the nickname "Oannes" since he practised baptism which he had adapted from the worship of Oannes. The name "Oannes" was later confused with "Ioannes." (In fact, the New Testament legend concerning John provides a
clue that his real name might have been Zacharia.) It is known
from Josephus's writings that the historical John rejected the
pagan "soul-cleansing" interpretation of baptism. The Christians, however, returned to this original pagan
interpretation.
The god Oannes was associated with the constellation
Capricorn. Both Oannes and the constellation Capricorn were
associated with water. (The constellation is supposed to depict a mythical sea-creature with the body of a fish and the
foreparts of a goat.) We have already seen that Jesus was given
the same birthday as the sun god (25 December), when the sun is
in the constellation of Capricorn. The pagans thought of this
period as one where the sun god is immersed in the waters of
Oannes and emerges reborn. (The Winter Solstice, when days
start getting longer, occurs near 25 December.) This
astrological myth is apparently the origin of the story that
Jesus was baptised by John. It probably started as an
allegorical astrological story, but it appears that the god
Oannes later became confused with the historical person
nicknamed Oannes (John).
The belief that Jesus had met John contributed to the
belief that Jesus's ministry and crucifixion occured when
Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea. It should be noted
that most dates for Jesus quoted by Christians are completely
nonsense. Jesus was partly based on Yeishu and ben Stada who
probably lived more than a century apart. He was also based on
the three false Messiahs, Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, who were crucified by the Romans at various different times. Another
fact that contributed to confused dating of Jesus was that Jacob of Kfar Sekanya and probably other Notzrim as well, used
expressions like "thus was I taught by Yeishu ha-Notzri," even though he had not been taught by Yeishu in person. We know from the Gemara that Jacob's statement led Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus to incorrectly conclude that Jacob was a disciple of Yeishu.
This suggests that there were rabbis who were unaware of the
fact that Yeishu had lived in Hashmonean times. Even after
Christians placed Jesus in the first century C.E., confusion
continued among non-Christians. There was a contempory of Rabbi Akiva named Pappus ben Yehuda who used to lock up his unfaithful wife. We know from the Gemara that some people who confused
Yeishu and ben Stada, confused the wife of Pappus with Miriam
the unfaithful mother of Yeishu. This would place Yeishu more
than two centuries after he actually lived!
The New Testament story confuses so many historical
periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history.
The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was
supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered
the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before 12
April 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have
been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took
place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after
Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptised by
John soon after John had started baptising and preaching in the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias i.e. 28 - 29 C.E.,
when Pontius Pilate was governer of Judaea i.e. 26 - 36 C.E.
According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high
priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he
was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before
the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed
birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests,
in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas.
Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E
after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became
high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He
held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are
consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas
or Lysanias.) Although the book of _Acts_ presents Yehuda of
Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it
incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda
who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the
census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities
seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of
Josephus's book _Jewish Antiquities_ which was used as
reference by the author of _Luke_ and _Acts_.
The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious.
It clearly tries to placate the Romans while defaming the Jews.
The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He
hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them.
However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a
concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations
against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands
of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover,
the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of
freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of
the year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the
choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus
Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically
chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic
lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament
(largely written by antisemites). What is particularly
disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is
apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed
that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The
name "Barabbas" is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic "bar Abba" which means "son of the Father." Thus "Jesus Barabbas" originally meant "Jesus the son of the Father," in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story claimed that
the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring
to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming
that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and
this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the
meaning of the name "Barabbas."
Lastly, the claim that the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples is also based on pagan superstition. In Roman
mythology, the virgin born Romulus appeared to his friend on
the road before he was taken up to heaven. (The theme of being
taken up to heaven is found in scores of pagan myths and legends and even in Jewish stories.) It was claimed that Apollonius of
Tyana had also appeared to his disciples after having been
resurrected. It is interesting to note that the historical
Apollonius was born more or less at the same time as the
mythical Jesus was supposed to have been born. In legends
people claimed that he had performed many miracles which were
identical to those also ascribed to Jesus, such as exorcisms of
demons and the raising to life of a dead girl.
When confronted with Christian missionaries one should
point out as much information as possible about the origins of
Christianity and the Jesus myth. You will almost never succeed
in convincing them that Christianity is a false religion. You
will not be able to prove beyond all doubt that the story of
Jesus arose in the way we have claimed it has, since most of
the evidence is circumstancial. Indeed we cannot be certain about the precise origin of many particular points in the story of
Jesus. This does not matter. What is important is that you
yourself realize that logical alternatives exist to blind
belief in Christian myths and that reasonable doubt can be
cast on the New Testament narrative.
Part 2: The Lack of Historial Evidence for Jesus
The usual Christian response to those who question the
historicity of Jesus is to palm off various documents as
"historical evidence" for the existence of Jesus. They usually start with the canonical gospels of _Matthew_,
_Mark_, _Luke_ and _John_. The usual claim is that these
are "_eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus made by his disciples_." The reply to this argument can be summed up
in one word - *pseudepigraphic*. This term refers to works of
writing whose authors conceal their true identities behind the
names of legendary characters from the past. Pseudepigraphic
writing was particularly popular among the Jews during
ashmonean and Roman periods and this style of writing was adopted by the early Christians.
The canonical gospels are not the only gospels. For
example, there are also gospels of _Mary_, _Peter_, _Thomas_
and _Philip_. These four gospels are recognized as being
pseudepigraphic by both Christian and non-Christian scholars.
They provide no legitimate historical information since they
were based on rumours and belief. The existence of these
obviously pseudepigraphic gospels makes it quite reasonable to
suspect that the canonical gospels might also be
pseudepigraphic. The very fact that early Christians wrote
pseudepigraphic gospels suggests that this was in fact the
norm. It is thus the missionaries' claim that the canonical
gospels are *not* pseudepigraphic which requires proof.
The _Gospel of Mark_ is written in the name of Mark, the
disciple of the mythical Peter. (Peter is largely based
on the pagan god Petra, who was door-keeper of heaven and
the afterlife in Egyptian religion.) Even in Christian
mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend
of Paul and Luke. _Mark_ was written before _Matthew and
_Luke_ (c. 100 C.E.) but after the destruction of the Temple
in 70 C.E. which it mentions. Most Christians believe it
was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history
but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel
in his old age. This is not possible since the style of
language used in _Mark_ shows that it was written
(probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose
first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.
Indeed, since all the other gospels are written in the name
of legendary characters from the past, _Mark_ was probably
written long after any historical Mark (if there was one)
had died. The contents of _Mark_ is a collection of myths
and legends put together to form a continuous narrative.
There is no evidence that it was based on any reliable
historical sources. _Mark was altered and edited many times
and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained
about the alternative versions of this gospel which were
still circulating in his lifetime. (The Carpocratians, an
early Christian sect, considered paederasty to be a virtue
and Clement complained about their versions of _Mark_ which
told of Jesus's homosexual exploits with young boys!)
The _Gospel of Matthew_ was certainly not written by the
apostle Matthew. The character of Matthew is based on the
historical person named Mattai who was a disciple of Yeishu ben
Pandeira. (Yeishu, who lived in Hashmonean times, was one of
several historical people upon whom the character Jesus is
based.) The _Gospel of Matthew _ was originally anonymous and
was only assigned the name _Matthew_ some time during the first
half of the second century C.E. The earliest form was probably
written at more or less the same time as the _Gospel of Luke_
(c. 100 C.E.) since neither seems to know of the other. It was
altered and edited until about 150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing with the virgin birth, were not in the original version
and the Christians in Israel of Jewish descent prefered this
earlier version. For its sources it used _Mark_ and a
collection of teachings referred to as the _Second Source_ (or
the _Q Document_). The _Second Source_ has not survived as a
separate document, but its full contents are found in _Matthew_
and _Luke_. All the teachings contained in it can be found in
Judaism. The more reasonable teachings can be found in
mainstream Judaism, while the less reasonable ones can be found
in sectarian Judaism. There is nothing in it which would
require us to suppose the existence of a real historical Jesus.
Although _ Matthew_ and _Luke_ attribute the teachings in it to
Jesus, the _Epistle of James_ attributes them to James. Thus
_Matthew_ provides no historical evidence for Jesus.
The _Gospel of Luke_ and the book of _Acts_ (which were
two parts of a single work) were written in the name of the
Christian mythological character Luke the healer (who was
probably not an historical person but a Christian adaptation
of the Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology,
Luke was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. _Luke_
and _Acts_ use Josephus's _Jewish Antiquities_ as a reference,
and so they could not have been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul would be either dead or well into
senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian scholars
agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written
by an anonymous Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and
edited until c. 150 - 175 C.E. Besides Josephus's book,
_Luke_ and _Acts _also use the _Gospel of Mark_, and the
_Second Source_ as references. Although Josephus is
considered to be more or less reliable, the anonymous
author often misread and misunderstood Josephus and
moreover, none of the information about Jesus in _Luke_
and _Acts _ comes from Josephus. Thus _Luke _and _Acts_
is of no historical value.
The _Gospel of John_ was written in the name of the
apostle John the brother of James, son of Zebedee. The author
of Luke used as many sources as he could get hold of but hewas
unaware of _John_. Thus _John could not have been written
before _Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently _John_ could not have
been written by the semi-mythical character John the Apostle
who was supposed to have been killed by Herod Agrippa shortly
before his own death in 44 C.E. (John the Apostle is apparently based on an historical disciple of the false Messiah Theudas
who was crucified by the Romans in 44 C.E. and whose disciples were murdered.) The real author of the _Gospel of John_ was
in fact an anonymous Christian from Ephesus in Asia Minor.
The oldest surviving fragment of _John_ dates to c. 125 C.E.
and so we can date the gospel to c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based
on stylistic considerations many scholars narrow down the date
to c. 110 - 120 C.E. The earliest version of _John _ did not
contain the last chapter which deals with Jesus appearing to
his disciples. Like the other gospels, _John_ probably only
attained its present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The author
of _John_ used _Mark_ sparingly and so one suspects that he
did not trust it. He either had not read _ Matthew_ and
_Luke_ or he did not trust them since he does not use any
information from them which was not found in _Mark_. Most
of _John_ consists of legends with obvious underlying
allegorical interpretations and one suspects that the
author never intended them to be history. _John _ does
not contain any information from reliable historical sources.
Christians will claim that the _Gospel of John _itself
states that it is an historical document written by John.
This claim is based on the verses _John 19.34 - 35 and
_John_ 21.20 - 24. _John_ 19.34 - 35 does not claim that
the gospel was written by John. It claims that the events
described in the immediately preceding verses were accurately
reported by a witness. The passage is ambiguous and it is
not clear whether the witness is supposed to be the same
person as the author. Many scholars are of the opinion
that the ambiguity is deliberate and that the author of
_John_ is trying to tease his readers in this passage as
well as in the passages which tell miraculous stories
with allegorical interpretations. _John_ 21.20 - 24 also
does not claim that the author is John. It claims that the
disciple mentioned in the passage is the one who witnessed
the events described. It is again notably ambiguous as
regards the question of whether the disciple is the same
person as the author. It should be noted that this passage
is in the last chapter of _John _which was not part of the
original gospel but was added on as an epilogue by an
anonymous redactor. One should beware the fact that many
"easy to understand" translations of the New Testament distort the passages mentioned so as to remove the
ambiguity found in the original Greek. (Ideally one needs
to be familiar with the original Greek text of the New
Testament in order to avoid biased and distorted
translations used by fundamentalist Christians and missionaries.)
In order to back up their claims that the gospels of
_Mark_ and _Matthew_ were written by the "real" apostles Mark and Matthew and that Jesus is an historical person, missionaries
often point to the so-called "testimony of Papias." Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis(near Ephesus) during the middle of the
second century C.E. None of his writings have survived but the
Christian historian Eusebius (c. 260 - 339 C.E.) in his book,
_Ecclesiastical History (written c. 311 - 324 C.E.) paraphrased
certain passages from Papias's book _ Exposition of the Oracles
of the Lord _(written c. 140 - 160 C.E.). In these passages,
Papias claimed that he had known the daughters of the apostle
Philip and also reported several stories which he claimed came
from people named Aristion and John the Elde