Did a Historical Jesus Exist?

Did a Historical Jesus Exist?
                                                         by Jim Walker
                                             originated: 12 June 1997 / additions: 22 Sep. 2007

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 got written 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 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 provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we
should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a 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 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 lies, or simply bases 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 that
the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few
people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the
alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least
70 years old, and John at over 110.

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, we can deduce that the author of
Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the
gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a
crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful
reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark
served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main source
for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300
in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at a third
remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

* Most Bibles show 678 verses for Mark, not 666, but many Biblical scholars 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 and even possibly a woman. He (or she) wrote at a
time of tension in the Roman empire along with its fever of persecution. Many
modern scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke got derived 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. 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. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of
Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any
reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have
come from other believers or his imagination. 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 we simply have
no way to tell who this James refers to. More to the point, the Epistle of James
mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle
reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account. [1]

Epistles of John: 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, and [3]).
In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from
fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a common name) or from someone
trying to further the aims of the Church.

Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched
claims or eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of 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 questionalbe 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 texts 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.

Take, for example, Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and
bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use
of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first
mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers
mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that
Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall
introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to
ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio
Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use
Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived"
(book 12, chapter 32).

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in
death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, people had to take it as "truth." St.
Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: "We should always be disposed to
believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the
church so decides."

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] The early Church
burned many heretics, along with their sacred texts. 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 judgement; Clearing up historical and geographical
difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]

With such intransigence from the Church and the admitting to lying for its cause, 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 intolerant 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 tine 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, a Roman official, got born in 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 the range of eyewitness accounts.

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 (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud
refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a
disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus.
[Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written
between 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 and pagan 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.)

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 inscription on the box occured around 70 C.E., that
would agree with everything claimed by this thesis (that no contemporary evidence
exists for Jesus). (Note that 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 an alleged 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 Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." 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 "innumberable 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, 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 who's 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.).

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 scholor 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) responed 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. Mythical stories, fictions, and narratives 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.

There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the
alleged Jesus. [Leedom; 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
detailed list of the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers
ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles got
written 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 hypothetical
death of Jesus. Apologists attempt to dismiss this by claiming that Nazareth existed as
an insignificant and easily missed village (how would they know?), thus no one
recorded it. However, whenever the Gospels speak of Nazareth, they always refer to
it as a city, never a village, and a historian of that period would surely have noticed a
city. (Note the New Testament uses the terms village, town, and city.) Nor can
apologists fall on archeological evidence of preexisting artifacts for the simple reason
that many cities get built on ancient sites. If a city named Nazareth existed during the
1st century, then we need at least one contemporary piece of evidence for the name,
otherwise we cannot refer to it as historical.

Many more errors and unsupported geographical locations 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 several decades 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 Agustus 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 get questioned or doubted because they
contain inconsistencies or come from authors who wrote years after the alleged facts.
In qualifying the history of Alexander, Pierre Briant writes, "Although more than
twenty of his contemporaries 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.

Historial 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 who's 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 go 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 their hypothesis with
good evidence, then it can only remain a hypothesis.

While the possibility exists that an actual Jesus lived, a more likely possibility reveals
that a mythology could have arrived totally out of earlier mythologies. Although we
have no evidence for a historical Jesus, we certainly have many accounts for the
mythologies of the Middle East and Egypt 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. We know 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.

The Egyptian mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to Jesus.
[Leedom, Massey] For some examples:

Horus and the Father as one
Horus, the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.
Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)

According to Massey, "The mythical Messiah is Horus in the Osirian Mythos; Har-
Khuti in the Sut-Typhonian; Khunsu in that of Amen-Ra; Iu in the cult of Atum-Ra;
and the Christ of the Gospels is an amalgam of all these characters."

Osiris, Hercules, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and others compare to the
Christian myth. According to Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus, all served as
pre-Christian sun gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers, virgins for 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]

The pre-Christian cult of Mithra had a deity of light and truth, son of the Most
High, fought against evil, presented the idea of the Logos. Pagan Mithraism mysteries
had the burial in a rock tomb, resurrection, sacrament of bread & water (Eucharist),
the marking on the forehead with a mystic mark, the symbol of the Rock, the Seven
Spirits and seven stars, all before the advent of Christianity.

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