In continuation of my studies of falsehood of all Abrahamic religions

from 2008 to 2014

Complete historical study to indicate Jesus is a fictional character

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The

power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars,

that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and

outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and

why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for

a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling,

works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of

other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a

man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that

mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from

either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent,

mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from

fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did

not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus,

simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern

scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you

know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that

there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand

present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case,

everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness

themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind

you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied,

or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about

witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of

evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in

a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable

number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from

these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go

against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far

removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to

the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who

writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can

provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the

historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as

hearsay.

THE BIBLE GOSPELS

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of

the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from

the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most

influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many

heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical

reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world,

the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures--

the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the

Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other

claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag

Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them."

[Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the

alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus.

Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at

sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This

would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel

writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably

written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom

we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels,

1995]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John,

but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the

gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today,

we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many

Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark,"

"St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's

establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence

for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find

out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider the low life

expectancy of humans in the first century. According to the religious scholar, J.D. Crossan, "the

life expectancy of Jewish males in the Jewish state was then twenty-nine years." [Crossan] Some

people think this age appears deceptive because of the high infant mortally rates at birth.

However, at birth the inhabitants of the Roman Empire had an even lower life expectancy of

around twenty-five years. [source] According to Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the early third century

C.E., the average life expectancy at birth came even lower to around twenty-one. [Potter] Of

course these ages represent averages and some people lived after the age of 30, but how many?

According to the historian Richard Carrier: "We have reason to believe that only 4% of the

population at any given time was over 50 years old; over age 70, less than 2%. And that is under

normal circumstances. But the Gospels were written after two very devastating abnormal events:

the Jewish War and the Neronian Persecution, both of which would have, combined, greatly

reduced the life expectancy of exactly those people who were eye-witnesses to the teachings of

Jesus. And it just so happens that these sorts of people are curiously missing from the historical

record precisely when the Gospels began to be circulated." [Carrier] Even if they lived to those

unlikely ages, consider the mental and physical toll (especially during the 1st century) which

would have likely reduced their memory and capability to write. Moreover, those small

percentages of people who lived past 50 years were usually wealthy people (aristocrats,

politicians, land and slave owners, etc.). However, the Gospels suggest that the followers of

Jesus lived poorly, and this would further reduce the chances for a long life span. Although the

New Testament does not provide the ages of the disciples, most Christians think their ages came

to around 20-30 years old. Jesus' birth would have to have occurred before Herod's death at 4

B.C.E. So if Jesus' birth occurred in the year 4 B.C.E., that would put the age of the disciples, at

the time of the writing of the first gospel, at around age 60-70 and the last gospel at around age

90-100! Based on just life expectancies alone, that would make the probability unlikely they

lived during the writing of the first gospel, and extremely unlikely any of them lived during the

writing of the last gospel (and I have used only the most conservative numbers).

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears

deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before

Matthew. From its own words, one can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus

nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel simply accepted the story of Jesus

without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time.

Historians tell us of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Mark served as the

common element between Matthew and Luke and provided the main source for both of them. Of

Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel

Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth

remove. [Helms]

* Most Bibles show 678 verses for Mark, not 666, but many Biblical scholars think the last 12

verses came later from interpolation. The earliest manuscripts and other ancient sources do not

have Mark 16: 9-20. Moreover the text style does not match and the transition between verse 8

and 9 appears awkward. Even some of today's Bibles such as the NIV exclude the last 12 verses.

The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them

for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He

improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and

heightened the miracles and magic.

The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness

(Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a

Hellenized Jew. Some scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke came from the Mark

gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source").

[Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly

determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship.

Moreover, other scholars challenge its existence and those who do think Q existed have

problems explaining it. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.

John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus

and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John

disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the unknown author(s)

of this gospel wrote it in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby

Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John

21:23)." [Spong]

Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts

since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters

themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person.

People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the

third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the

invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from

him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the

evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly,

the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve,

at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.

OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

Even in antiquity people like Origen and Eusebius raised doubts about the authenticity of other

books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James, John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude, and Revelation.

Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James calling it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and

questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. Nevertheless, all New Testament

writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors (with the possible

exception of Paul, although still after the alleged death).

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts,

written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some

of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and

even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that

he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth

(except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only

have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Epistle to the Galatians: In this letter Paul describes a meeting with Peter and James, the Lord's

brother (Gal: 1:18-20). The problem here involves the meaning of "Lord's brother." Some

scholars think this means the biological brother of the Lord while others think it means brother in

a communal spiritual sense, as all Christians are the Lord's brothers and sisters. Note, never does

any epistle refer to the brother of Jesus. In all cases, Paul uses the word "Lord," consistent with

the spiritual sense. In any case, even if this phrase did mean a biological brother, Paul could not

have known that James had a brother. At best he could only have believed it because his

information could only have come from another person, most likely James himself. That makes

this letter hearsay.

Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James?

Many claim him as the gospel disciple but the gospels mention several different James. Which

one? Or maybe this James has nothing to do with any of the gospel James. Perhaps this writer

comes from any one of innumerable James outside the gospels. James served as a common name

in the first centuries and Biblical scholars simply have no way to tell who this James refers to.

More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief.

Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from a historical

account. [1]

Epistles of John: Scholars tell us the epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear

so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that

these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a

"John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the

Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name).

No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention

a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do

we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts. [2]

Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the

first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as

unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full

edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985). The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote

long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an

ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of

determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know

what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.

Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you

see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words:

hearsay. [3], [4]

Epistle of Jude: Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book

called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible

for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it

during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would

have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude

wrote in fluent high quality Greek.

Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched claims or

eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of them here for this

deliberation.

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New

Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and

copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears

it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more

than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard;

Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the

New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and

fifth. [Schonfield]

LYING FOR THE CHURCH

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since

the fathers of the Church possessed the scriptoria and determined what would appear in the

Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that

might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined

the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the

Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major

heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what

Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith."

[Romer] If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of

their heretical nature. We will never know.

In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has

written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New

Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising

from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment;

Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal

considerations. [Metzger]

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death.

Regardless of what the Church claimed, most people simply believed what their priests told

them.

In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked

him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it

in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to

know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down

for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a

common crowd or an uneducated congregation."

In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And

often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas

he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not

deceived."

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything,

we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so

decides it."

Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the

good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies

would not be against God, he would accept them."

With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations,

how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less

using extraneous texts that support a Church's intransigent and biased position, as reliable

evidence?

GNOSTIC GOSPELS

In 1945, an Arab made an archeological discovery in Upper Egypt of several ancient papyrus

books. They have since referred to it as The Nag Hammadi texts. They contained fifty-two

heretical books written in Coptic script which include gospels of Thomas, Philip, James, John,

Thomas, and many others. Archeologists have dated them at around 350-400 C.E. They

represent copies from previous copies. None of the original texts exist and scholars argue about a

possible date of the originals. Some of them think that they can hardly have dates later than 120-

150 C.E. Others have put it closer to 140 C.E. [Pagels, 1979]

Other Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Judas, found near the Egyptian site of the Nag

Hammadi texts, shows a diverse pattern of story telling, always a mark of myth. The Judas

gospel tells of Judas Iscariot as Jesus' most loyal disciple, just opposite that of the canonical

gospel stories. Note that the text does not claim that Judas Iscariot wrote it. The Judas gospel, a

copy written in Coptic, dates to around the third-to fourth-century. The original Greek version

probably dates to between 130 and 170 C.E., around the same time as the Nag Hammadi texts.

Irenaeus first mentions this gospel in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) written around 180

C.E., so we know that this represented a heretical gospel.

Since these Gnostic texts could only have its unknown authors writing well after the alleged life

of Jesus, they cannot serve as historical evidence of Jesus anymore than the canonical versions.

Again, we only have "heretical" hearsay.

NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating

to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from

authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the

hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus.

Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from

interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37

C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account.

Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if

his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his

information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range

as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus.

He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote

around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the

authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged

Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only

provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name.

Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius

had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius'

birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish

civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim

that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a

disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may

refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets

this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the

Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged

crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot

possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they

believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian)

come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.),

Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin

Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of

Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? -

254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of

them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively

violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event

itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material

about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian

sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply

determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what

these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no

detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic

writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers

themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or

evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence,

and nothing more.

FAKES, FRAUDS, AND FICTIONS

Because the religious mind relies on belief and faith, the religious person can inherit a

dependence on any information that supports a belief and that includes fraudulent stories,

rumors, unreliable data, and fictions, without the need to check sources, or to investigate the

reliability of the information. Although hundreds of fraudulent claims exist for the artifacts of

Jesus, I will present only three examples which seem to have a life of their own and have spread

through the religious community and especially on internet discussion groups.

The Shroud of Turin

Many faithful people believe the shroud represents the actual burial cloth of Jesus where they

claim the image on the cloth represents an actual 'photographic' image left behind by the

crucified body.

The first mention of the shroud comes from a treatise (written or dictated) by Geoffroi de Charny

in 1356 and who claims to have owned the cloth (see The Book of Chivalry of Geoffroi De

Charny). Later, in the 16th century, it suddenly appeared in a cathedral in Turin, Italy. (Note that

thousands of claimed Jesus relics appeared in cathedrals throughout Europe, including the wood

from the cross, chalices, blood of Jesus, etc. These artifacts proved popular and served as a

prosperous commercial device which filled the money coffers of the churches.) [See The Family

Jewels for some examples.]

Sadly, many people of faith believe that there actually exists scientific evidence to support their

beliefs in the shroud's authenticity. Considering how the Shroud's apologists use the words,

"science," "fact," and "authentic," without actual scientific justification, and even include

pseudo-scientists (without mentioning the 'pseudo') to testify to their conclusions, it should not

come to any surprise why a faithful person would not question their information or their motives.

Television specials have also appeared that purport the authenticity of the shroud. Science,

however, does not operate though television specials who have a commercial interest and have

no qualms about deceiving the public.

Experts around the world consider the 14-foot-long linen sheet, which has remained in a

cathedral in Turin since 1578, a forgery because of carbon-dating tests performed in 1988. Three

different independent radiocarbon dating laboratories in Zurich, Oxford and the University of

Arizona yielded a date range of 1260-1390 C.E. (consistent with the time period of Charny's

claimed ownership). Joe Zias of Hebrew University of Jerusalem calls the shroud indisputably a

fake. "Not only is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery." The shroud actually depicts a man whose

front measures 2 inches taller than his back and whose elongated hands and arms would indicate

that he had the affliction of gigantism if he actually lived. (Also read Joe Nickell's, Inquest On

The Shroud Of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings)

Walter C. McCrone, et al, (see Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin) discovered red ochre (a

pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages) on the cloth which

formed the body image and vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, used to represent

blood. The actual scientific findings reveal the shroud as a 14th century painting, not a two-

thousand year-old cloth with Christ's image. Revealingly, no Biblical scholar or scientist (with

any credibility), cites the shroud of Turin as evidence for a historical Jesus.

The Burial box of James

Even many credible theologians bought this fraud, hook-line-and-sinker. The Nov./Dec. 2002,

issue of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine announced a "world exclusive!" article about

evidence of Jesus written in stone, claiming that they found the actual ossuary of "James, Brother

of Jesus" in Jerusalem. This story exploded on the news and appeared widely on television and

newspapers around the world.

Interestingly, they announced the find as the "earliest historical reference of Jesus yet found."

Since they claimed the inscribing on the box occurred around 70 C.E., that agrees with

everything claimed by this thesis (that no contemporary evidence exists for Jesus). Even if the

box script proved authentic, it would not provide evidence for Jesus simply because no one knew

who wrote the script or why. It would only show the first indirect mention of a Jesus and it could

not serve as contemporary evidence simply because it didn't come into existence until long after

the alleged death of Jesus.

The claim for authenticity of the burial box of James, however, proved particularly embarrassing

for the Biblical Archaeology Review and for those who believed them without question. Just a

few months later, archaeologists determined the inscription as a forgery (and an obvious one at

that) and they found the perpetrator and had him arrested (see 'Jesus box' exposed as fake and A

fake? James Ossuary dealer arrested, suspected of forgery).

Regrettably, the news about the fraud never matched the euphoria of the numerous stories of the

find and many people today still believe the story as true.

Letters of Pontius Pilate

This would appear hilarious if not for the tragic results that can occur from believing in fiction:

many faithful (especially on the internet) have a strong belief that Pontius Pilate actually wrote

letters to Seneca in Rome where he mentions Jesus and his reported healing miracles.

Considering the lack of investigational temper of the religious mind, it might prove interesting to

the critical reader that the main source for the letters of Pilate come from W. P. Crozier's 1928

book titled, "Letters of Pontius Pilate: Written During His Governorship of Judea to His Friend

Seneca in Rome." The book cites Crozier as the editor as if he represented a scholar who edited

Pilate's letters. Well, from the title, it certainly seems to indicate that Pilate wrote some letters

doesn't it? However, unbeknownst or ignored by the uncritical faithful, this book represents

Crozier's first novel, a fictionalized account of what he thought Pilate would have written.

During the first publication, no one believed this novel represented fact and reviews of the day

reveal it as a work of fiction.

Crozier, a newspaper editor, went to Oxford University and retained an interest in Latin, Greek

and the Bible. He wrote this novel as if it represented the actual letters of Pilate. Of course no

scholar would cite this as evidence because no letters exist of Pilate to Seneca, and Seneca never

mentions Jesus in any of his writings.

The belief in Pilate's letters represents one of the more amusing fad beliefs in evidential Jesus,

however, it also reveals just how myths, fakes, and fictions can leak into religious thought.

Hundreds of years from now, Crozier's fictionalized account may very well end up just as

'reliable' as the gospels.

WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what

people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or

follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that

stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide,

not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate,

and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read

Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from

Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan."

The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of

people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke

12:1 alleges that an "innumerable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says

that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The

persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes,

including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged

crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of

Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with

great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and

the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If

the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not

have heard of him?

Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone

interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour,

and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the

veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic

event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world,

including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also

that, for obvious reasons, solar eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur

during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described

in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus.

Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this

magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no

capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing

capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior."

But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record

keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the

gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected

with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity

and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a

religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous

Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus (also known as Philo of Alexander) whose birth

occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher

and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He

wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once,

in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus* "the Christ." Nor do we

find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny

the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

* Note, Philo did write about a pre-Christian celestial "Jesus," but this had nothing to do with the

Christian Jesus (unless Christians "stole" Philo's ideas). See Philo's On the Confusion of Tongues

(62-63, 146-147)

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it

reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of

these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the

Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed

life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare

mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through

nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention

of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and

historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing

but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that

Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his

existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid

evidence.

HISTORICAL SCHOLARS

Many problems occur with the reliability of the accounts from ancient historians. Most of them

did not provide sources for their claims, as they rarely included bibliographic listings, or

supporting claims. They did not have access to modern scholarly techniques, and many times

would include hearsay as evidence. No one today would take a modern scholar seriously who

used the standards of ancient historians, yet this proves as the only kind of source that

Christology comes from. Couple this with the fact that many historians believed as Christians

themselves, sometimes members of the Church, and you have a built-in prejudice towards

supporting a "real" Jesus.

In modern scholarship, even the best historians and Christian apologists play the historian game.

They can only use what documents they have available to them. If they only have hearsay

accounts then they have to play the cards that history deals them. Many historians feel compelled

to use interpolation or guesses from hearsay, and yet this very dubious information sometimes

ends up in encyclopedias and history books as fact.

In other words, Biblical scholarship gets forced into a lower standard by the very sources they

examine. A renowned Biblical scholar illustrated this clearly in an interview when asked about

Biblical interpretation. David Noel Freeman (the General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and

many other works) responded with:

"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant

of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the

evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a

little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)

The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical Jesus, he or she must

accept this based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact that all of the claims come from

hearsay, and we have a foundation made of sand, and a castle of information built of cards.

CITING GEOGRAPHY, AND KNOWN HISTORICAL FIGURES AS "EVIDENCE"

Although the New Testament mentions various cities, geological sites, kings and people that

existed or lived during the alleged life of Jesus, these descriptions cannot serve as evidence for

the existence of Jesus anymore than works of fiction that include recognizable locations, and

make mention of actual people.

Homer's Odyssey, for example, describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands.

The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take

Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply

because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. The authors of

mythical stories, fictions, and novels almost always use familiar landmarks as placements for

their stories. The authors of the Greek tragedies not only put their stories in plausible settings as

happening in the real world but their supernatural characters took on the desires, flaws and

failures of mortal human beings. Consider that fictions such as King Kong, Superman, and Star

Trek include recognizable cities, planets, and landmarks, with their protagonists and antagonists

miming human emotions.

Likewise, just because the Gospels mention cities and locations in Judea, and known historical

people, with Jesus behaving like an actual human being (with the added dimension of

supernatural curses, miracles, etc.) but this says nothing about the actuality of the characters

portrayed in the stories. However, when a story uses impossible historical locations, or

geographical errors, we may question the authority of the claims.

For example, in Matt 4:8, the author describes the devil taking Jesus into an exceedingly high

mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world. Since there exists no spot on the spheroid

earth to view "all the kingdoms," we know that the Bible errs here.

John 12:21 says, "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee. . . ."

Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which

resided west of the river.

John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." Critics agree that no such

place as Aenon exists near Salim.

No one has evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. [Gauvin]

Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's

writings (even though he provides a list of cities in Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament

epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles

appeared before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first

one didn't come into existence until about 40 years after the alleged death of Jesus. If a city

named Nazareth existed during the 1st century, then we need at least one contemporary piece of

evidence for the name, otherwise we cannot refer to it as established history. According to John

Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, "The only epigraphic evidence for Nazareth comes from

a Jewish synagogue inscription, written in Hebrew. A small dark gray marble fragment from a

third, or fourth century C.E. synagogue plaque was discovered at Caesarea Maritima in 1962,

containing the earliest occurrence of the name Nazareth in a non-Christian source. This fragment

and two others unearthed with it preserve a list of the traditional locations where Jewish priests

resettled after the Roman emperor Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem in 135 C.E."

[Grossan, 2001] And given the past history of made up objects for Jesus, even this might turn out

as a forgery.

Some historians do not agree with this of course. Some think Nazareth existed, some don't think

it existed, and some remain skeptical, but the fact that historians still debate it should tell you

that that we should not use this as a certainty. Moreover, some scholars think it as a moot point

because they believe "Nazareth" refers to a Christian movement, not a city. For one example,

Acts 24:5 refers to a sect of the Nazarenes. The Gospel writers then might have confused the

term to mean the city (which by the time they wrote the gospels, a city did exist with that name).

We have a lot of educated guesses by scholars, but no certainty.

Many more kinds of errors and uncertainties like this appear in the New Testament. And

although one cannot use these as evidence against a historical Jesus, we can certainly question

the reliability of the texts. If the scriptures make so many factual errors about geology, science,

and contain so many contradictions, falsehoods could occur any in area.

If we have a coupling with historical people and locations, then we should also have some

historical reference of a Jesus to these locations and people. But just the opposite proves the case.

The Bible depicts Herod, the Ruler of Jewish Palestine under Rome as sending out men to search

and kill the infant Jesus, yet nothing in history supports such a story. Pontius Pilate supposedly

performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a

trial. The gospels portray a multitude of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a

teacher, prophet, and healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or years after, ever records such a

human figure. The lack of a historical Jesus in the known historical record speaks for itself.

COMPARING JESUS TO OTHER HISTORICAL FIGURES

Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack of evidence by

claiming that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis of Jesus, then we cannot establish a

historical foundation for other figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Napoleon,

etc. However, there sits a vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs

either artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas, for Jesus we have

nothing.

Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind. We have buildings,

libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We have treaties, and even a letter from

Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Augustus Caesar,

we have the Res gestae divi augusti, the emperor's own account of his works and deeds, a letter

to his son (Epistula ad Gaium filium), Virgil's eyewitness accounts, and much more. Napoleon

left behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters. We can establish some historicity to these

people because we have evidence that occurred during their life times. Yet even with

contemporary evidence, historians have become wary of after-the-fact stories of many of these

historical people. For example, some of the stories of Alexander's conquests, or Nero starting the

fire in Rome always gets questioned or doubted because they contain inconsistencies or come

from authors who wrote years after the alleged facts. In qualifying the history of Alexander,

Pierre Briant writes, "Although more than twenty of his contemporaries chronicled Alexander's

life and campaigns, none of these texts survive in original form. Many letters and speeches

attributed to Alexander are ancient forgeries or reconstructions inspired by imagination or

political motives. The little solid documentation we possess from Alexander's own time is

mainly to be found in stone inscriptions from the Greek cities of Europe and Asia." [Briant]

Inventing histories out of whole cloth or embellished from a seed of an actual historical event

appears common throughout the chronicle of human thought. Robert Price observes, "Alexander

the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What

keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some

residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does

not form part of any legend cycle." [Price, pp. 260-261]

Interestingly, almost all important historical people have descriptions of what they looked like.

We have the image of Augustus Caesar cast on denarius coins, busts of Greek and Roman

aristocrats, artwork of Napoleon, etc. We have descriptions of facial qualities, height, weight,

hair length & color, age and even portraits of most important historical figures. But for Jesus, we

have nothing. Nowhere in the Bible do we have a description of the human shape of Jesus. How

can we rely on the Gospels as the word of Jesus when no one even describes what he looked

like? How odd that none of the disciple characters record what he looked like, yet believers

attribute them to know exactly what he said. Indeed, this gives us a clue that Jesus came to the

gospel writers and indirect and through myth. Not until hundreds of years after the alleged Jesus

did pictures emerge as to what he looked like from cult Christians, and these widely differed

from a blond clean shaven, curly haired Apollonian youth (found in the Roman catacombs) to a

long-bearded Italian as depicted to this day. This mimics the pattern of Greek mythological

figures as their believers constructed various images of what their gods looked like according to

their own cultural image.

Historical people leave us with contemporary evidence, but for Jesus we have nothing. If we

wanted to present a fair comparison of the type of information about Jesus to another example of

equal historical value, we could do no better than to compare Jesus with the mythical figure of

Hercules.

IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?

If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then

shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?

To take one example, examine the evidence for Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find

it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to

deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a

historical Jesus.

Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and chaste Alcmene, the

mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Similar to Herod who

wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a

mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to

heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of

perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually

lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people

like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Similar to the way the gospels tell

a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of

Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention

of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than

Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so

does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have

no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All

information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then

believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have

stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold

any consistency to historicity.

Some critics doubt that a historicized Jesus could develop from myth because they think there

never occurred any precedence for it. We have many examples of myth from history but what

about the other way around? This doubt fails in the light of the most obvious example-- the

Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc.,

assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus,

Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc. These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented

historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived. As Robert

M. Price revealed, "The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who

originated it." [Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized

mythologies: UFO adherents whose beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily invasion, and then

expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of

urban legends which started as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which

stem from fiction but believed by their constituents.

People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the

Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so do their gods. Christianity and its church

authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and

colleges. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else

risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian

friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs,

even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can

create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many

Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should

accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent

skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or

simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. Historical review has yet to achieve the

reliability of scientific investigation, (and in fact, many times ignores it). If a scholar makes a

historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just

because he or she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably

without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.

THEN WHY THE MYTH OF JESUS?

Some people actually believe that just because so much voice and ink has spread the word of a

character named Jesus throughout history, that this must mean that he actually lived. This

argument simply does not hold. The number of people who believe or write about something or

the professional degrees they hold say nothing at all about fact. Facts derive out of evidence, not

from hearsay, not from hubris scholars, and certainly not from faithful believers. Regardless of

the position or admiration held by a scholar, believer, or priest, if he or she cannot support a

hypothesis with good evidence, then it can only remain a hypothesis.

While a likely possibility exists that an actual Jesus lived, another likely possibility reveals that a

mythology could have derived out of earlier mythologies or possibly independent archetypal

hero worship. Although we have no evidence for a historical Jesus, we certainly have many

accounts of mythologies from the Middle East during the first century and before. Many of these

stories appear similar to the Christ saviour story.

Just before and during the first century, the Jews had prophesied about an upcoming Messiah

based on Jewish scripture. Their beliefs influenced many of their followers. We know that

powerful beliefs can create self-fulfilling prophesies, and surely this proved just as true in

ancient times. It served as a popular dream expressed in Hebrew Scripture for the promise of an

"end-time" with a savior to lead them to the promised land. Indeed, Roman records show

executions of several would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). Many

ancients believed that there could come a final war against the "Sons of Darkness"-- the Romans.

This then could very well have served as the ignition and flame for the future growth of

Christianity. Biblical scholars tell us that the early Christians lived within pagan communities.

Jewish scriptural beliefs coupled with the pagan myths of the time give sufficient information

about how such a religion could have formed. Many of the Hellenistic and pagan myths parallel

so closely to the alleged Jesus that to ignore its similarities means to ignore the mythological

beliefs of history. Dozens of similar savior stories propagated the minds of humans long before

the alleged life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about Jesus "the Christ" came to the Christians as

original or new.

For example, the religion of Zoroaster, founded circa 628-551 B.C.E. in ancient Persia, roused

mankind in the need for hating a devil, the belief of a paradise, last judgment and resurrection of

the dead. Mithraism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism probably influenced early Christianity. The

Magi described in the New Testament appears as Zoroastrian priests. Note the word "paradise"

came from the Persian pairidaeza.

Osiris, Hercules, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, Romulus, and others compare to the Christian

myth. According to Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus, all served as pre-Christian sun

gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers, virgins for mothers; had their births announced by

stars; got born on the solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their

infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got worshiped by "wise men" and

had allegedly fasted for forty days. [McKinsey, Chapter 5]

Even Justin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and Paganism. To the Pagans,

he wrote: "When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual

union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and

ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those

whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]

Virtually all of the mythical accounts of a savior Jesus have parallels to past pagan mythologies

which existed long before Christianity and from the Jewish scriptures that we now call the Old

Testament. The accounts of these myths say nothing about historical reality, but they do say a lot

about believers, how they believed, and how their beliefs spread.

In the book The Jesus Puzzle, the biblical scholar, Earl Doherty, presents not only a challenge to

the existence of an historical Jesus but reveals that early pre-Gospel Christian documents show

that the concept of Jesus sprang from non-historical spiritual beliefs of a Christ derived from

Jewish scripture and Hellenized myths of savior gods. Nowhere do any of the New Testament

epistle writers describe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of the epistles mention a Jesus from

Nazareth, an earthly teacher, or as a human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find these writers

quoting Jesus. Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jesus' life on earth or his

followers. Nowhere do we find the epistle writers even using the word "disciple" (they of course

use the term "apostle" but the word simply means messenger, as Paul saw himself). Except for a

few well known interpolations, Jesus always gets presented as a spiritual being that existed

before all time with God, and that knowledge of Christ came directly from God or as a revelation

from the word of scripture. Doherty writes, "Christian documents outside the Gospels, even at

the end of the first century and beyond, show no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life

and ministry of Jesus were in circulation."

Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews (8:4), makes it explicitly clear that the epistle writer did

not believe in a historical Jesus: "If He [Jesus] had been on earth, He would not be a priest."

Did the Christians copy (or steal) the pagan ideas directly into their own faith? Not necessarily.

They may have gotten many of their beliefs through syncretism or through independent hero

archetype worship, innate to human story telling. If gotten through syncretism, Jews and pagans

could very well have influenced the first Christians, especially the ideas of salvation and beliefs

about good and evil. Later, at the time of the gospels, other myths may entered Christian beliefs

such a the virgin birth and miracles. In the 4th century, we know that Christians derived the

birthday of Jesus from the pagans. If gotten through independent means, it still says nothing

about Christian originality because we know that pagans had beliefs about incarnated gods, long

before Christianity existed. The hero archetypes still exist in our story telling today. As one

personal example, as a boy I used to read and collect Superman comics. It never occurred to me

at the time to see Superman as a Christ-figure. Yet, if you analyze Superman and Jesus stories,

they have uncanny similarities. In fact the movie Superman Returns explicitly tells the Superman

story through a savior's point of view without once mentioning Jesus, yet Christians would

innately know the connection. Other movies like Star Wars, Phenomenon, K-PAX, The Matrix,

etc. also covertly tell savior stories. So whether the first Christians borrowed or independently

came up with a savior story makes no difference whatsoever. The point here only aims to

illustrate that Christians did not originate the savior story.

The early historical documents can prove nothing about an actual Jesus but they do show an

evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse concepts of Christianity, starting from a

purely spiritual form of Christ to a human figure who embodied that spirit, as portrayed in the

Gospels. The New Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized

and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience for their particular

religious times.

A NOTE ABOUT DATING:

The A.D. (Anno Domini, or "year of our Lord") dating method derived from a monk named

Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Little), in the sixth-century who used it in his Easter tables.

Oddly, some people seem to think this has relevance to a historical Jesus. But of course it has

nothing at all to do with it. In the time before and during the 6th century, people used various

other dating methods. The Romans used A.U.C. (anno urbis conditae, "year of the founded city,"

that being Rome). The Jews had their own dating system. Not until the tenth century did most

churches accept the new dating system. The A.D. system simply reset the time of January 1, 754

A.U.C. to January 1, of year one A.D., which Dionysius obliquely derived from the belief of the

date of "incarnation" of Jesus. The date, if one uses the Bible as history, can't possibly hold true.

*

Instead of B.C. and A.D., I have used the convention of B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and

C.E. (Common Era) as often used in scholarly literature. They correspond to the same dates as

B.C. and A.D., but without alluding to the birth or death of an alleged Christ.

* Dionysius believed that the conception (incarnation) of Jesus occurred on March 25. This

meant that the conception must have occurred nine months later on December 25, probably not

coincidentally, the very same date that the Emperor Aurelian, in 274 C.E., declared December 25

a holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336 C.E., Christians replaced

Mithras with Jesus' birth on the same date. Dionysius then declared the new year several days

later on January 1, probably to coincide with the traditional Roman year starting on January 1st.

Dionysius probably never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus because the Matthew

gospel says his birth occurred while Herod served as King. That meant that if he did exist, his

birth would have to occur in 4 B.C.E. or earlier. He made another 'mistake' by assigning the first

year as 1 instead of 0 (everyone's birthday starts at year 0, not 1). The concept of zero (invented

from Arabia and India) didn't come into Europe until about two hundred years later.

QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS:

Although the majority of scholars today believe that a Jesus lived on earth, the reasons for this

appear suspicious once you consider the history and evolution of Jesus scholarship. Hundreds of

years ago all Biblical scholars believed in God. Considering their Christian beliefs, they would,

of course, believe in a historical Jesus. In the last two centuries, the school has loosened up a bit,

and today they even allow atheists into their study rooms. But even today you had better allude

to a historical Jesus even if you question the reliability of the sources, otherwise, you may not

have a job. If, indeed, Bible scholars did allow skeptics of a historical Jesus into their studies,

and they presented a convincing case, that could threaten the very branch of Jesus scholarship

that studied a historical Jesus. It could very well disappear like that of euhermerism.

Although some secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus (minus the miracles),

they, like most Christians, simply accept the traditional view without question. As time goes on,

more and more scholars have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or

should I say, the lack of evidence. So for those who wish to rely on scholarly opinion, I will give

a few quotes from Biblical researchers and scholars, past and present:

When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they

could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us

whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are

in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered,

abridged or dressed them up.

-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books

has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of

these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of

contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of

Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age

historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the

name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.

-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not

belong to history at all.

-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)

Many people-- then and now-- have assumed that these letters [of Paul] are genuine, and five of

them were in fact incorporated into the New Testament as "letters of Paul." Even today, scholars

dispute which are authentic and which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul actually

wrote only eight of the thirteen "Pauline" letters now included in the New Testament. collection:

Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually

all scholars agree that Paul himself did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus-- letters written in a

style different from Paul's and reflecting situations and viewpoints in a style different from those

in Paul's own letters. About the authorship of Ephesias, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, debate

continues; but the majority of scholars include these, too, among the "deutero-Pauline"--

literally, secondarily Pauline-- letters."

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (Adam, Eve, and the Serpent)

We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and John.

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that

sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of

independent evidence."

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University

The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.

-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the forth remove from Jesus.

-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus.

-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew,

Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good

historical reason to accept these attributions.

-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto

(Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)

The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel.

-Bishop John Shelby Spong

But even if it could be proved that John's Gospel had been the first of the four to be written

down, there would still be considerable confusion as to who "John" was. For the various styles of

the New Testament texts ascribed to John- The Gospel, the letters, and the Book of Revelations--

are each so different in their style that it is extremely unlikely that they had been written by one

person.

-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)

It was not until the third century that Jesus' cross of execution became a common symbol of the

Christian faith.

-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)

What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things.

-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)

When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that

is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern

historiographic requirements or professional standards.

-David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible

Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)

Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and

it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the

canonical books ascribed to them.

-Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June

1994)

A generation after Jesus' death, when the Gospels were written, the Romans had destroyed the

Jerusalem Temple (in 70 C.E.); the most influential centers of Christianity were cities of the

Mediterranean world such as Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Damascus, Ephesus and Rome.

Although large number of Jews were also followers of Jesus, non-Jews came to predominate in

the early Church. They controlled how the Gospels were written after 70 C.E.

-Bruce Chilton, Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College (Bible Review, Dec. 1994, p. 37)

James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, "is in fact not

historical."

How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus'

baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other

event written about in the Gospels, is historical?

-Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)

David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read

as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later

redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and

legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as

sources of historical information.

-Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39

The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories

to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts.

-Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the

identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries

of translation and editing.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Wrote the Bible," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals-

who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the

writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or

traveled with Jesus.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Once written, many experts believe, the Gospels were redacted, or edited, repeatedly as they

were copied and circulated among church elders during the last first and early second centuries.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The tradition attributing the fourth Gospel to the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, is first noted

by Irenaeus in A.D. 180. It is a tradition based largely on what some view as the writer's

reference to himself as "the beloved disciple" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Current

objection to John's authorship are based largely on modern textural analyses that strongly suggest

the fourth Gospel was the work of several hands, probably followers of an elderly teacher in Asia

Minor named John who claimed as a young man to have been a disciple of Jesus.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no

one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words

the authors attributed to Jesus himself.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Three letters that Paul allegedly wrote to his friends and former co-workers Timothy and Titus

are now widely disputed as having come from Paul's hand.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The Epistle of James is a practical book, light on theology and full of advice on ethical behavior.

Even so, its place in the Bible has been challenged repeatedly over the years. It is generally

believed to have been written near the end of the first century to Jewish Christians. . . but

scholars are unable conclusively to identify the writer.

Five men named James appear in the New Testament: the brother of Jesus, the son of Zebedee,

the son of Alphaeus, "James the younger" and the father of the Apostle Jude.

Little is known of the last three, and since the son of Zebedee was martyred in A.D. 44, tradition

has leaned toward the brother of Jesus. However, the writer never claims to be Jesus' brother.

And scholars find the language too erudite for a simple Palestinian. This letter is also disputed on

theological grounds. Martin Luther called it "an epistle of straw" that did not belong in the Bible

because it seemed to contradict Paul's teachings that salvation comes by faith as a "gift of God"--

not by good works.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The origins of the three letters of John are also far from certain.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Christian tradition has held that the Apostle Peter wrote the first [letter], probably in Rome

shortly before his martyrdom about A.D. 65. However, some modern scholars cite the epistle's

cultivated language and its references to persecutions that did not occur until the reign of

Domitian (A.D. 81-96) as evidence that it was actually written by Peter's disciples sometime

later.

Second Peter has suffered even harsher scrutiny. Many scholars consider it the latest of all New

Testament books, written around A.D. 125. The letter was never mentioned in second-century

writings and was excluded from some church canons into the fifth century. "This letter cannot

have been written by Peter," wrote Werner Kummel, a Heidelberg University scholar, in his

highly regarded Introduction to the New Testament.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The letter of Jude also is considered too late to have been written by the attested author-- "the

brother of James" and, thus, of Jesus. The letter, believed written early in the second century.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

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

and words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels; but it is impossible to reconcile this with the

existence in the text of contradictions, improbabilities, things which are materially impossible or

statements which run contrary to firmly established reality.

-Maurice Bucaille (The Bible, the Quran, and Science)

The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.

-Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels,"

(U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous

followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus'

life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion.

-David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" (Time, April 8, 1996)

So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost nothing concerning the

life and personality of Jesus."

-Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926

The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction.

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII,

Number 3, p. 43)

Josephus says that he himself witnessed a certain Eleazar casting out demons by a method of

exorcism that had been given to Solomon by God himself-- while Vespasian watched! In the

same work, Josephus tells the story of a rainmaker, Onias (14.2.1).

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII,

Number 3, p. 43)

For Mark's gospel to work, for instance, you must believe that Isaiah 40:3 (quoted, in a slightly

distorted form, in Mark 1:2-3) correctly predicted that a stranger named John would come out of

the desert to prepare the way for Jesus. It will then come as something of a surprise to learn in

the first chapter of Luke that John is a near relative, well known to Jesus' family.

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII,

Number 3, p. 43)

The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical

record of that year.

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII,

Number 3, p. 54)

Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of

ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived

and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.

-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies.

-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS

documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts

-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

We are led to conclude that, in Paul's past, there was no historical Jesus. Rather, the activities of

the Son about which God's gospel in scripture told, as interpreted by Paul, had taken place in the

spiritual realm and were accessible only through revelation.

-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.83

Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of

Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.

-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141

Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If

there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to

be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of

somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction.

-Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John

Rankin," Opening Statement

It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic

from first to last."

-Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute

(Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)

CONCLUSION

Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hearsay do not

amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with eyewitness accounts we must tread

carefully. Simply because someone makes a claim, does not mean it represents reality. For

example, consider some of the bogus claims that supposedly come from many eyewitness

accounts of alien extraterrestrials and their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses but

present blurry photos to boot! If we can question these accounts, then why should we not

question claims that come from hearsay even more? Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes

from ancient and unknown people that no longer live.

Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds and nothing,

even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possibly change their minds. We

have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history,

we cannot even begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least an eyewitness

account or a contemporary artifact that points to a biological Jesus.

Of course a historical Jesus might have existed, perhaps based loosely on a living human even

though his actual history got lost, but this amounts to nothing but speculation. However we do

have an abundance of evidence supporting the mythical evolution of Jesus. Virtually every major

detail in the gospel stories occurred in Hebrew scripture and pagan beliefs, long before the

advent of Christianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of

a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence for the belief of Jesus.

So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a historical Jesus, simply ask

for the author's birth date. Anyone whose birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an

eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.

Sources (click on a blue highlighted title if you'd like to obtain it or read it):

Briant, Pierre, "Alexander the Great: Man of Action Man of Spirit," Harry N. Abrams, 1996

Carrier, Richard, "Reply to McFall on Jesus as a Philosopher (2004)"

Crossan, J.D., "Jesus: a revolutionry biography," HarperOne, 1995

Crossan, J.D, & Reed, Jonathan L., "Excavating Jesus," HarperSanFrancisco, 2001

Doherty, Earl, "The Jesus Puzzle," Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999

Flavius, Josephus (37 or 38-circa 101 C.E.), Antiquities

Gauvin, Marshall J., "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" (from: www.infidels.org/)

Gould, Stephen Jay "Dinosaur in a Haystack," (Chapter 2), Harmony Books, New York, 1995

Graham, Henry Grey, Rev., "Where we got the Bible," B. Heder Book Company, 1960

Helms, Randel McCraw , "Who Wrote the Gospels?", Millennium Press, 1997

Irenaeus of Lyon (140?-202? C.E.), Against the Heresies

McKinsey, C. Dennis "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy," Prometheus Books, 1995

Metzger, Bruce,"The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption, and

Restoration," Oxford University Press, 1968

Pagels, Elaine, "The Gnostic Gospels," Vintage Books, New York, 1979

Pagels, Elaine, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," Vintage Books, New York, 1988

Pagels, Elaine, "The Origin of Satan," Random House, New York, 1995

Potter, David Stone, Mattingly, Dr. David J., "Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman

Empire, Univ. of Michigan Press, 2010

Price, Robert M.," Deconstructing Jesus," Prometheus Books, 2000

Pritchard, John Paul, "A Literary Approach to the New Testament," Norman, University of

Oklahoma Press, 1972

Robertson, J.M. "Pagan Christs," Barnes & Noble Books, 1966

Romer, John, "Testament : The Bible and History," Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988

Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, "A History of Biblical Literature," New American Library, 1962

Spong, Bishop Shelby, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," HarperSanFrancisco, 1991

Tacitus (55?-117? C.E.), Annals

Wilson, Dorothy Frances, "The Gospel Sources, some results of modern scholarship," London,

Student Christian Movement press, 1938

The Revell Bible Dictionary," Wynwood Press, New York, 1990

King James Bible, 1611

U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990

Various issues of Bible Review magazine, published by the Biblical Archaeology Society,

Washington D.C.

Online sources:

[1] Epistle of James, from Theopedia

[2] Epistles of John, Wikipedia

[3] First Epistle of Peter, from Theopedia

[4] Second Epistle of Peter, from Theopedia

Also read: Why do historians rely on hearsay for evidence of Jesus? by Jim Walker