New Indian-Chennai News + more

The Gospel of Mark is the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it

The origin of the Gospels has always been unknown. At no point has anyone (that we know of) really known who wrote any of the Gospels, when they were written, or even where they were written. Each of the Gospels could have been written anywhere from Egypt to Rome, and the estimated dates for their writing range from around 50 CE at the earliest estimates to about 150 CE at the latest, with a minority of people proposing dates into the 4th century.

The traditional explanation for the origin of the Gospels has been that they were each written independently by people who were either disciples of Jesus or who received their information from disciples of Jesus. This is called the apostolistic tradition, and according to the apostolistic tradition a Gospel could only be considered "authentic" if it had a direct lineage to an apostle, thus the names assigned to each of the Gospels were given in order to help establish their authenticity.

It has not always been believed, however, that each of the Gospels is an eyewitness account. Indeed, the Gospel of Luke explicitly states that it is compiled from the research of the author.

The earliest account for the origin of some of the Gospels comes to us from the early church leader Papias, from about 130 CE:

Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses. Wherefore Mark has not erred in any thing, by writing some things as lie has recorded them; for lie was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely in these accounts. ... Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able.
- Papias, 130 CE

Here Papias states that the Gospel called Mark was written by someone named Mark, and that Mark recorded his Gospel from the apostle Peter. He then goes on to state that the Gospel called Matthew was written by someone named Matthew who wrote his Gospel in "the Hebrew dialect", which would have been Aramaic. We'll go ahead and look at one more early explanation for the origin of the Gospels and then analyze these statements.

Around 175 CE the early church leader Irenaeus expounded upon the information of Papias when he gave an account of the origin of each of the four Gospels that later became canon.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
- Irenaeus; Against Heresies, 175 CE

Here Irenaeus basically repeats the statement of Papias, most likely getting his information from Papias, and then adds a statement about the Gospel called Luke and the Gospel called John. There are several problems with what Papias and Irenaeus state, but first let's see what they are saying and why they are saying it.

Early Christian theologians believed the Gospel of Matthew to be the first Gospel that was written, and, by many accounts, the most important (of course there was disagreement among them, as there was on all doctrinal issues). The reason that Matthew was viewed by many as the earliest Gospel and the most important was because it contained the virgin birth story and the lineage to David, and the Gospel of Luke was self-described as not an eyewitness account, so it could not have been the first. Some people claimed that they had seen the original copy of Matthew, and that it was in Aramaic, but the real motivation behind this story of being written "in the language of the Hebrews" was an effort to establish its primacy and authority. It makes sense that an account would be written in the same language that Jesus spoke to his followers, yet all of the Gospels were written in Greek, so this idea of an original Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel had a lot of draw to it. Jesus was presumed to have spoken in Aramaic because the Gospels "quote him" as saying things in Aramaic, such as his last words in the crucifixion scenes.

Mark was said to have been a second-hand account which was out of order because events in the Gospel of Mark are the same as in the Gospel of Matthew, but in a different order, and Mark does not contain the virgin birth story so it was seen as less valuable, thus, to resolve the contradiction between the order of events in Mark and Matthew, the idea that Mark was a second-hand account gained favor. The attribution of Peter as the source of information for Mark comes from the fact that in order to be viewed as legitimate the Gospel had to be tied back to an apostle, and the Gospel of Mark seemed to come from Rome due to linguistic reasons, where the "apostle Peter" supposedly preached, as well as the fact that Peter was the most highly esteemed apostle, so Peter was proposed as Mark's source of information.

The Gospel of Luke was obviously not a first-hand account, but the author of Luke is also thought to be the author of the Acts of the Apostles, in which there are several "we" passages that refer to Paul, thus the conclusion was that the author of Luke was in the company of Paul and got his information from Paul.

The Gospel of John states, "Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them...This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true," from which from which Irenaeus and others believed that the author of the Gospel was the disciple John son of Zebedee, the "Beloved Disciple".

There are several problems with all of these explanations however.

Scholars are now certain that the Gospel called Mark was actually the first Gospel that was written, for reasons which will be explained. The idea that Mark got his information from "Peter" does not make sense because the apostle Peter is poorly portrayed in the Gospel of Mark. In Mark's Gospel Peter is portrayed as a fool who doesn't understand the message of Jesus, and thus him being Mark's authoritative source is unlikely at best.

The Gospel of Matthew cannot have been originally written in any language but Greek, because the Gospel of Matthew is copied from the Gospel of Mark (or some version of the Gospel of Mark), which was written in Greek. We will explore this shortly, but the word-for-word similarities between Matthew and Mark are so strong that Matthew had to have been copied directly from either the current version of Mark or a similar earlier version of Mark or from a third source common between the two, but at any rate, Matthew is clearly dependent on Markan text. The biggest change that the author of Matthew made to the Gospel of Mark was the addition of the virgin birth story.

The author of Luke also shares a large quantity of text with both Mark and Matthew, showing that much of Luke is copied from these sources in some fashion. (The dominant theory now is that Matthew and Luke both independently use Mark and a document called "Q") It also would not make sense that Luke got his information from Paul, because Paul plainly stated in his letters that he never saw Jesus, other than through visions. Paul was definitely not a witness to anything in the Gospel stories, which is clear in his own writings. Luke may also be dependent on the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus.

The Gospel of John seems to have been the latest of the Gospels that was written, putting it out of range for having been written by anyone living during the supposed time of Jesus and the supposed signatory passage is really a third party statement, not a self-description, in addition to the fact that Chapter 21, in which it exists, was almost certainly added by a later hand, not the same person who wrote the bulk of the Gospel. On top of this the Gospel of John, unlike the synoptic Gospels of Mark and Matthew, is written by someone whose first language appears to have been Greek. The Gospel also does not seem to have been written by a Jew, as it frequently referrers to "the Jews" as another group of people and in a demeaning way. The dialog of Jesus presented in John is also more complex than the synoptic Gospels and written in such a way that it would not make sense for it to be a Greek interpretation of speeches given in Aramaic or Hebrew, based on the use of things like Greek alliteration. In other words, John uses eloquent Greek prose for the speeches of Jesus. If he were simply giving a literal Greek translation of speeches given in a different language, this wouldn't be the case. All of these things lead to the conclusion that John was most likely written by a native Greek speaking non-Jew after the other Gospels had been written and is most likely influenced by one or more of the synoptic Gospels itself. The Gospel certainly does not appear to have been written by an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, which is who John the disciple is portrayed as in Gospel stories.

Why do we say that Mark was written first and the others were copied from it? This has to do with what is called the "synoptic problem". Basically, so much of the text of Mark, Matthew, and Luke is shared word-for-word that the only explanation can be that there has been extensive copying between the texts. An example of this is shown below:

Mark 11:
28 "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"
29 Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"
31 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 32But if we say, 'From men'...." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

Matthew 21:
"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?"
24 Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?"
They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 26 But if we say, 'From men'—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet."

Luke 20:
2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?"
3 He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?"
5 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' 6 But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet."

These types of similarities are prevalent throughout these three works.

While the Gospel called John is different from the synoptics and does not share the same type of word-for-word copying with the others, it does share many specific elements and references that indicate the author of John had read at least one of the other synoptics.  One example of this can be seen in the crucifixion scene, shown below:

John 19:

23 When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

24 "Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it."
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did.

Here the author of John is explicitly drawing a reference to Psalm 22, which is implicitly referenced in Mark and Matthew. John builds on the passage and creates a narrative around it in order to justify the passage, which is a typical trait of John. Whereas the writers of Mark and Matthew often just quoted or paraphrased passages from the "Old Testament", the writer of John builds scenarios that he then relates back to those same passages. The thing is that John ends up referencing many of the same passages that Mark and Matthew reference, the author just does it in a different way. But many of these passages are obscure, such as the casting of lots for clothing, and thus indicate that the author of John is working from one or more of the synoptic narratives.

Of the four Gospels, obviously one of them had to come first, and one of the reasons that Mark is considered the first of the four is indeed the fact that it is the shortest and least detailed. The author of Mark is evidently unaware of any virgin birth story, making no mention whatsoever of it, and the birth stories in Matthew and Luke are both completely different from one another, while they both contain the core of Mark.

It is almost universally accepted by New Testament scholars today that Mark was the first of the narrative Gospels that was written, and that Matthew and Luke are copied from it in some fashion, however this position has only been adopted within the last 200 years. For the majority of time Christians have believed that Matthew was written first, hence the reason that it is the first book in the New Testament. Not only this, but Christians believed that each of the Gospels was written independently.

Why would "Matthew" and "Luke" copy from Mark, and why do we have four different Gospels, each of which share many points but also contradict each other in critical ways? Because the Gospels after Mark were actually written in opposition to one another. The three other Gospels all build on the story of Mark, but they introduce theological differences. The authors of the other Gospels wrote their versions because of theological differences or enhancements that they wished to introduce to the story. For example, many of the changes made by the authors of Matthew and Luke deal with making Mark's account more compatible with the virgin birth story, since Mark contains story elements which infer that Jesus is the naturally born son of Joseph and Mary.

Far from being four separate eyewitness accounts that just happen to slightly disagree with each other, these four Gospels are a product of theological disagreements among the early Christian community. The writers of these Gospels obviously could not have known that these works would later be compiled together into a single book side by side. The fact that this was done is actually quite ironic, since the writers of these Gospels evidently viewed other Gospels as flawed, hence the reason that they created new versions.

The fact that all three of the other narrative Gospels in the Bible are based directly or indirectly on the Gospel of Mark demonstrates the lack of other narrative information about Jesus. The Gospel of Mark became the root of the other Gospels because it was the only writing that provided narrative details about Jesus. The additions that the authors of Matthew and Luke made to the Gospel of Mark are primarily just the virgin birth narratives and some additional post-resurrection narratives.

There is also language that is shared between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which is not in the Gospel of Mark. The most well known proposed explanation for this is the "Q" document theory, which purposes that there was some other source document which both the authors of Matthew and Luke used, but was not used by the author of Mark. An equally valid explanation is that both Matthew and Luke are simply based on an expanded version of Mark, or that what we call the Gospel of Mark is a shortened version of the original, which the authors of Matthew and Luke used.

The Gospel of John adds a few additional narrative elements to the synoptic template, but the Gospel of John is a much later Gospel, probably written some 40 to 50 years after the Gospel of Mark. The additional elements in John are basically a gnostic theology element and a "miraculous signs" element, both of which appear to be inventions of the author himself. Some scholars propose that the "miraculous signs" narrative in the Gospel of John is derived from yet another source, but it actually seems to be a narrative element designed by the author as a polemic against the Jews. The "miraculous signs" narrative in John shows Jesus doing many "miraculous signs", but then at the end says that even after all of this the Jews still didn't believe that he was the Son of God. Thus, this narrative advances one of the agendas of the Gospel of John, which is portraying the Jews as unreasonable betrayers of Christ.

The parallels between the four Gospels can be seen here: Four Gospels Parallel

More on the Synoptic Problem can be seen here: The Synoptic Problem (Catholic Resources)

The Return to Nazareth:
T1: Matthew 2:23 - Judges 13:5:
"because you will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite, set apart to God from birth, and he will begin the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Philistines." (Note: Jesus was called a Nazorean in the gospels because he supposedly lived in a place called Nazareth, but this refers to Samson being from a Nazirite sect. The author himself made the reference however)

John the Baptist Prepares the Way:
T1: Matthew 3:3 - Isaiah 40:3:
"A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the LORD ;make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God."
T3: Matthew 3:4 - 2 Kings 2:8:
"They replied, 'He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist.'  The king said, 'That was Elijah the Tishbite.'" (Note: Matthew 3:4 says: "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist." Later in the story Jesus indicates that John was Elijah.)

The Temptation of Jesus:
T1: Matthew 4:6 - Psalm 91:11,12
T1: Matthew 4:7 - Deuteronomy 6:16
T1: Matthew 4:10 - Deuteronomy  6:13

Jesus Begins to Preach in Galilee:
T1: Matthew 4:12 - Isaiah 9:1:
"Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan"

Jesus Heals the Sick:
T2: Matthew 4:23 - Isaiah 53

Sermon on the Mount:
T2: Matthew 5-7 - Exodus 19...:
(Note: The Sermon on the Mount {which is only in the Gospel of Matthew} refers to how only Moses was allowed up the mountain in Exodus, but Jesus brings everyone up the mountain. Jesus then gives new interpretations of the Commandments and Laws {from Exodus 20...})

Jesus Heals Many:
T2: Matthew 8 - Isaiah 53

Jesus Calms the Storm:
T2: Matthew 8:27 - Psalm 107 28-29:
"Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed."

Jesus Heals a Paralytic:
T2: Matthew 9:6 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 9:6 - Isaiah 35:5-6:
"Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy."

Jesus Consorts with Sinners:
T1: Matthew 9:12 - Hosea 6:6:
"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman:
T2: Matthew 9:22 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 9:25 - Isaiah 26:19:
"But your dead will live; their bodies will rise"

Jesus Heals the Blind and Mute:
T2: Matthew 9:29 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 9:6 - Isaiah 35:5-6

Jesus Sends Out the Twelve:
T2: Matthew 10 - Joshua 4:1-2
"...the LORD said to Joshua, 'Choose twelve men from among the people, one from each tribe...'" (Note: The number 12 is used throughout the "Old Testament" to represent 12 people, 12 rulers, 12 tribes, 12 special objects, etc. Also, Joshua and Jesus are the same name in Hebrew.)
T1: Matthew 10:34 - Micah 7:6

Jesus and John the Baptist:
T2: Matthew 11:5 - Isaiah 53
T1: Matthew 11:10 - Malachi 3:
"'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the LORD Almighty."

Woe on Unrepentant Cities::
T2: Matthew 11:20 - Genesis 19

God's Chosen Servant:
T2: Matthew 12:17 - Isaiah 53
T1: Matthew 12:17 - Isaiah 42:1-4::
"'Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope.'"

Jesus and Beelzebub:
T2: Matthew 12:24 - 2 Kings 1:1-4

The Sign of Jonah:
T1: Matthew 12:40 - Jonah 1:17

Jesus Walks on the Water:
T2: Matthew 14:25 - Isaiah 43:5-6:
"When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. ... For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;" (Note: Walking on water was also a theme in Greek hero literature)

The Demand for a Sign:
T2: Matthew 16:4 - Jonah 1:17
T2: Matthew 16:1 - Genesis 19

Jesus Predicts His Death:
T2: Matthew 16:21 - Isaiah 53

The Transfiguration:
T2: Matthew 17:2 - Exodus 34:29:
"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD."
T2: Matthew 17:2 - Daniel 12:2-4:
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the dome, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end."  (Note: This shows the transfiguration as a foreshadowing of the resurrection)
T2: Matthew 17:11 - Isaiah 40:3
(Note: The symbolism in the transfiguration scene also reflects stories about Moses in the Hebrew midrash, as well as typical the sun-god imagery of the Greeks. See also: Philo, On the Life of Moses II, (288) "And some time afterwards, when he was about to depart from hence to heaven, to take up his abode there, and leaving this mortal life to become immortal, having been summoned by the Father, who now changed him, having previously been a double being, composed of soul and body, into the nature of a single body, transforming him wholly and entirely into a most sun-like mind;")

The Healing of a Boy With a Demon:
T2: Matthew 17:17 - Isaiah 53

Jesus Again Predicts His Death:
T2: Matthew 20:18 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 20:18 - Jonah 1:17
T2: Matthew 20:19 - Psalm 22

Two Blind Men Receive Sight:
T2: Matthew 20:29 - Isaiah 53
T2: Matthew 9:6 - Isaiah 35:5

The Triumphal Entry:
T1: Matthew 21:2 - Zechariah 9:9:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
T3: Matthew 21:9 - Psalm 118:26

Jesus at the Temple:
T1: Matthew 21:12 - Isaiah 56:7
"...for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." 
T2: Matthew 21:12 - Zechariah 14.21:
"Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a merchant in the house of the LORD Almighty."
T2: Matthew 21:12 - Nehemiah 13:4-9:
"And I was very angry, and I threw all the household furniture of Tobiah out of the room [in the temple]. Then I gave orders and they cleansed the chambers, and I brought back the vessels of the house of God, with the grain-offering and the frankincense."
T2: Matthew 21:12 - Hosea 9:15
"Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house."

The Fig Tree Withers:
T2: Matthew 21:19 - Hosea 9
"1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; ... 7 The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. Let Israel know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac. 8 The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God. 9 They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins. 10 'When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved. 15'... Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious. 16 Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.' 17 My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him; they will be wanderers among the nations." (Note: Many scholars have interpreted the cursing of the fig tree as a metaphor for Jesus' rejecting of those Jews who reject him and as a foreshadowing of his second coming and judgment. Hosea 9 provides the scriptural basis for this symbolism)

Signs of the End of the Age:
T3: Matthew 24 - Daniel 9:24-27:
"'Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two week, the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.  In the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.'"
T3: Matthew 24 - Daniel 11:31, 12:11
T3: Matthew 24 - Isaiah 13:8-11
"Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame. See, the day of the LORD is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless."
T3: Matthew 24 - Isaiah 34
"1 Come near, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it! 2 The LORD is angry with all nations; his wrath is upon all their armies. He will totally destroy them, he will give them over to slaughter. 3 Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will send up a stench; the mountains will be soaked with their blood. 4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. 5 My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; see, it descends in judgment on Edom, the people I have totally destroyed. 6 The sword of the LORD is bathed in blood, it is covered with fat— the blood of lambs and goats..."

Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus:
T2: Matthew 26:14 - Amos 2
"4 This is what the LORD says: 'For three sins of Judah, even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath]. ... 5 I will send fire upon Judah that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.' 6 '... They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. ... 11 I also raised up prophets from among your sons and Nazirites from among your young men. Is this not true, people of Israel?' declares the LORD. 12 'But you made the Nazirites drink wine and commanded the prophets not to prophesy. 13 Now then, I will crush you as a cart crushes when loaded with grain. (Note: The distinction between "Judas" and "Judah" is a part of English translation. In the original Greek they were both written as "Ioudas", thus these names were the same.)

The Lord's Supper:
T2: Matthew 26:20 - Psalm 41:9:
"Even the friend whom I trusted, who ate at my table, exults in my misfortune."

Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial:
T1: Matthew 26:31 - Zechariah 13:7:
"'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!' declares the LORD Almighty. 'Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones"

Jesus' Prayers of the Cup at Gethsemane:
T2: Matthew 26:36 - Zechariah 12:2:
"I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. 3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations."
T2: Matthew 26:36 - Psalm 16:5
"LORD, you have assigned me my portion and my cup; you have made my lot secure."

Jesus Arrested:
T2: Matthew 26:55 - Isaiah 53:7-8:
"...he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. "

Peter Disowns Jesus:
T1: Matthew 27:72 - Zechariah 13:7

Judas Hangs Himself:
T1: Matthew 27:4-10 - Zechariah 11:12-13:
T2: Matthew 27:4-10 - Jeremiah 19, Jeremiah 32

The Soldiers Mock Jesus :
T3: Matthew 27:27 - Flaccus IV ; Philo  (Note: The mocking of people as kings was a common practice at the time, one such event was recorded by the Jewish writer Philo, and may be the basis for the mocking of Jesus scene):
"(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a scepter they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state. (39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa [King Herod of the Jews] was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;"
T3: Matthew 27:30 - Isaiah 50

The Crucifixion of Jesus:
T2: Matthew 27:32-44 - Isaiah 53
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Psalm 22
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Amos 2
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Psalm 69
T3: Matthew 27:45 - Amos 8

The Death of Jesus:
T2: Matthew 27:32-44 - Isaiah 53
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Psalm 22
T3: Matthew 27:32-44 - Psalm 69
T2: Matthew 27:52 - Ezekiel 37:11-13

The Burial of Jesus:
T2: Matthew 26:57 - Deuteronomy 21:22-23:
"If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree [or plank], his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day, for he who is hanged is the curse of God, so that you do not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance."
T2: Matthew 26:57 - Isaiah 53:9:
"They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth." (Note: Jesus was placed in the tomb of a rich man)

The Resurrection
T2: Matthew 28:7 - Isaiah 26:19:
"Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead."
T2: Matthew 28:7 - Ezekiel 37:
"1 The hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out by the spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me all round them; there were very many lying in the valley, and they were very dry. 3 He said to me, ‘Mortal, can these bones live?’ I answered, ‘O Lord God, you know.’ 4 Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to these bones, and say to them: O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones: I will cause spirit to enter you, and you shall live. 6 I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put spirit in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.’"
T2: Matthew 28:7 - Daniel 12:2-4:
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the dome, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end." 
(Note: The resurrection of Jesus was portrayed as a sign of the end and as proof of the time of resurrections for all people)

As you can see, essentially the entire story of Jesus can be told from the writings that preceded it. The Jesus character in the Gospels is an archetypal figure drawn straight from the Hebrew scriptures, with an influence from the surrounding Greek culture as well.

Because of the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the root of all the Gospels, especially the synoptic Gospels, it is interesting to note how specific scriptural references made by the author of Mark became changed and somewhat lost by the later authors who copied from the Gospel of Mark. Perhaps the best example of this is the cursing of the fig tree.

The cursing of the fig tree in the Gospel of Mark is clearly based on an Old Testament scripture, but the writer of Matthew does not seem to have recognized this and lost the reference. Here is the cursing of the fig tree from the Gospel of Mark.

Mark 11:
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:

"'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

19 When evening came, they went out of the city.

20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"

This entire scene is based on Hosea 9, and refers to the destruction of Israel.

Hosea 9:
1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; ... 
7 The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. Let Israel know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac. 
8 The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God. 
9 They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins. 
10 'When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved. 
11 Ephraim's glory will fly away like a bird—no birth, no pregnancy, no conception. 
12 Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one. Woe to them when I turn away from them!
13 I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre, planted in a pleasant place. But Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer." 
14 Give them, O LORD—what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry. 
15 "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious. 
16 Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.' 
17 My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him;

We can clearly see here that the author of Mark uses Hosea 9 for his motif, because in Mark 11 the fig tree is in leaf but not in season, meaning that it was early in the growing season. Then Jesus goes to the temple to drive the people "out of his house". After that they return to the fig tree where they see that it was withered "from the root." This makes the parallel between Mark and Hosea 9 very clear, and shows that Hosea 9 was obviously the inspiration for all of these scenes. The author of Mark was also clearly making a reference to the meaning in the text of Hosea 9. Hosea 9 is talking about the destruction of Israel in no uncertain terms. The reader is supposed to make this connection and understand this as the meaning in the story.

But, let's look at how the writer of Matthew, the only other Gospel to include this scene, recorded this passage.

Matthew 21:
12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

14 The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

16 "Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.

"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read," 'From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise'?"

17 And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.

18 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.

Here the entire scene is obviously changed around in such a way that it no longer mirrors the template from Hosea 9 and the references to being out of season are lost, as well as the reference to the root. The parallel with the Hosea 9 is pretty much lost here, so it would seem that the author of Matthew didn't recognize the parallel himself. It is also likely that the the author of Matthew thought that the original text of Mark seemed absurd, for why would Jesus have expected to see fruit on a tree before the season in the first place? In Matthew the deeper symbolism is lost and this now looks like a recounting of some historical event instead of what it really is, which is a literary allusion. The author of Matthew also added additional details to a story that was clearly contrived in the first place, so we can see here the growing of legend.

Despite this, there are still many recognizable parallels between the Hebrew scriptures and all of the Gospel texts. Christians claim that the parallels between the Gospels and the "Old Testament" texts are due to the fact that all of the parallels are prophecies that Jesus was fulfilling, but close inspection of the references shows that many of them are not even prophecies and that few of them actually could relate to the Jesus story. Regardless, even if they did all relate to the story there is nothing to show that the story was not simply crafted from the existing scriptures at the time, and indeed, for reasons that will be further discussed, this is by far the most reasonable explanation for the story of Jesus. If I took a copy of the works of Nostradamus today I could sit down and write a story about a character who fulfills hundreds of "his prophecies". Would that make either his predictions or my story "true"? Of course not, but this isn't what the early Church fathers and Christian apologists thought, they viewed the correlations between the Hebrew scriptures (which they typically read in Greek translations) and the story of Jesus as "proof that the religion is true." One of the best examples of this comes from Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote on this subject in the early 4th century in The Proof of the Gospel:

Grant then, dear friend, my request, and labor with rue henceforward in your prayers in my effort to present the Proof of the Gospel from the prophecies extant among the Hebrews from the earliest times. ... I propose to show, by quotations from them, how they forestalled events that came to the light long ages after their time, the actual circumstances of the Saviour's own presentment of the Gospel.... It shall be my task to prove that they saw that which was not present as present, and that which as yet was not in existence as actually existing; and not only this, but that they foretold in writing the events of the future for posterity, so that by their help others can even now know what is coming....

It seems now time to say what I consider to be desirable at present to draw from the prophetic writings for the proof of the Gospel. They said that Christ, [Whom they named] the Word of God, and Himself both God and Lord, and Angel of Great Counsel, would one day dwell among men, and would become for all the nations of the world, both Greek and Barbarian, a teacher of true knowledge of God, and of such duty to God the Maker of the Universe, as the preaching of the Gospel includes. They said that He would become a little child, and would be called the Son of Man, as born of the race of Mankind. They foretold the wondrous fashion of His birth from a Virgin, and—strangest of all—they did not omit to name Bethlehem the place of His birth, which is to-day so famous that men still hasten from the ends of the earth to see it, but shouted it out with the greatest clearness. As if they stole a march on history these same writers proclaimed the very time of His appearance, the precise period of His sojourn on earth.

It is possible for you, if you care to take the trouble, to see with your eyes, comprehended in the prophetic writings, all the wonderful miracles of our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, that are witnessed to by the heavenly Gospels, and to hear His divine and perfect teaching about true holiness. How it must move our wonder, when they unmistakably proclaim the new ideal of religion preached by Him to all men, the call of His disciples, and the teaching of the new Covenant. Yes, and in addition to all this they foretell the Jews' disbelief in Him, and disputing, the plots of the rulers, the envy of the Scribes, the treachery of one of His disciples, the schemes of enemies, the accusations of false witnesses, the condemnations of His judges, the shameful violence, unspeakable scourging, ill-omened abuse, and, crowning all, the death of shame. They portray Christ's wonderful silence, His gentleness and fortitude, and the unimaginable depths of His forbearance and forgiveness.

The most ancient Hebrew oracles present all these things definitely about One Who would come in the last times, and Who would undergo such sufferings among men, and they clearly tell the source of their foreknowledge. They bear witness to the Resurrection from the dead of the Being Whom they revealed, His appearance to His disciples, His gift of the Holy Spirit to them, His return to heaven, His establishment as King on His Father's throne and His glorious second Advent yet to be at the consummation of the age. In addition to all this you can hear the wailings and lamentations of each of the prophets, wailing and lamenting characteristically over the calamities which will overtake the Jewish people because of their impiety to Him Who had been foretold. How their kingdom, that had continued from the days of a remote ancestry to their own, would be utterly destroyed after their sin against Christ; how their fathers' Laws would be abrogated, they themselves deprived of their ancient worship, robbed of the independence of their forefathers, and made slaves of their enemies, instead of free men; how their royal metropolis would be burned with fire, their venerable and holy altar undergo the flames and extreme desolation, their city be inhabited no longer by its old possessors but by races of other stock, while they would be dispersed among the Gentiles through the whole world, with never a hope of any cessation of evil, or breathing-space from troubles. And it is plain even to the blind, that what they saw and foretold is fulfilled in actual facts from the very day the Jews laid godless hands on Christ, and drew down on themselves the beginning of the train of sorrows.
- THE PROOF OF THE GOSPEL; Eusebius, 4th century

Amazingly, Eusebius didn't seem to consider the possibility that the reason there are so many parallels between the Gospels and the Hebrew scriptures is that the Gospel writers based their stories on the scriptures.

Prior to Eusebius, Justin Martyr also attributed the "truth" of the Gospels and the "truth" of Jesus Christ to the parallels between the Gospels and the earlier Hebrew scriptures, and he even went so far as to state that the Hebrews themselves were not the authors of their own scriptures, God was, and the Hebrews themselves couldn't understand their own scriptures, since they weren't the true authors, and that the prophecies for Jesus are not all straightforward or self-evident because God presented them in a variety of ways and embedded them in stories. Justin Martyr gave his fullest description of this in his work First Apology, written in the 2nd century. Sections read:

CHAPTER XXXVI -- DIFFERENT MODES OF PROPHECY.

But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired themselves, but by the Divine Word who moves them. For sometimes He declares things that are to come to pass, in the manner of one who foretells the future; sometimes He speaks as from the person of God the Lord and Father of all; sometimes as from the person of Christ; sometimes as from the person of the people answering the Lord or His Father, just as you can see even in your own writers, one man being the writer of the whole, but introducing the persons who converse. And this the Jews who possessed the books of the prophets did not understand, and therefore did not recognize Christ even when He came, but even hate us who say that He has come, and who prove that, as was predicted, He was crucified by them.

Here Justin Martyr is basically justifying the fact that many of the parallels between the Gospels and the Hebrew scriptures are parts of other stories, songs, and things that by all accounts don't appear to be prophesies. Justin Martyr simply says that everything in the old scriptures is prophecy, thus there are "different modes" of prophecy in the scriptures.

CHAPTER XLII -- PROPHECY USING THE PAST TENSE.

But when the Spirit of prophecy speaks of things that are about to come to pass as if they had already taken place,--as may be observed even in the passages already cited by me,--that this circumstance may afford no excuse to readers [for misinterpreting them], we will make even this also quite plain. The things which He absolutely knows will take place, He predicts as if already they had taken place. And that the utterances must be thus received, you will perceive, if you give your attention to them. The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ became a man and was crucified; and no one of those who lived before Him, nor yet of His contemporaries, afforded joy to the Gentiles by being crucified. But our Jesus Christ, being crucified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven, reigned; and by those things which were published in His name among all nations by the apostles, there is joy afforded to those who expect the immortality promised by Him.

Here Justin Martyr is specifically justifying parallels between the Gospels and the Hebrew scriptures where the parallels reference phrases that are written in the past tense, which are usually parts of other stories. He also talks about a "prediction of the crucifixion" by David, but there is a major problem here. What he is referring to is Psalm 22, where it says "a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet." The problem here is that the phrase "they have pierced my hands and my feet" is a mistranslation or interpolation, this is not a part of the scriptures in Hebrew, this is only found in later Greek translations of the text. This line originally read as follows: "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me like a lion, my hands and feet."

More information on the translation of this line can be found here: Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?

Even if the traditional Christian translation of this passage were correct, "they have pierced my hands and my feet" can apply to many things and it has been confirmed many times that the Roman's didn't actually crucify people by putting spikes through their hands because the hands couldn't support the weight. This passage is also the source for the portrayal of Jesus as crucified by putting spikes through his hands and the author of Luke's claim that Jesus proved he had been resurrected by showing the disciples the holes in his hands.

So what we can see is that from the very beginning scholars and theologians have been aware of many of the parallels between the story of Jesus and the Hebrew scriptures, and that early Christians, especially, believed that it was these parallels that proved that the religion was "true". Far from proving the "truth" of the religion, however, these parallels actually show us how the story of Jesus was crafted and demonstrate that the basis of the Jesus story is not reality, but scripture

The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record

Unlike the writings of the Old Testament, which cover a time span of hundreds, if not thousands, of years, the writings of the New Testament cover a very brief period of time. Most of the books, as well, don't make any significant historical statements that could even be checked against the historical record, but the Gospels and the book of Acts do make some. The book of Acts is now widely accepted by scholars as mythologized, though some aspects of it may be loosely based on real events.

Of primary importance, however, are the Gospels. Though the Gospels only cover a short time-span, there are a few claims which are made that can be checked against the known historical record. It must be noted that the Gospels do, of course, get some history correct. Herod was a real king, Pontius Pilate was a real governor of Judea, and Galilee was a real place, but beyond the basics several of the details that are part of the Gospel stories are either completely without evidence or are contradicted by the evidence that we do have. Here are a few examples of claims that are made in the Gospels which are either contradicted by the historical record or are unconfirmed outside of the Gospels.

• “Star of Bethlehem” - No record of such a celestial event outside the Gospel of Matthew.
• Roman census in Jesus birth story – No record of any census that matches this description.
• “Massacre of the Innocents” - No record of this event outside the Gospel of Matthew.
• John the Baptist – Killed early in the Gospels, died in 36 CE according to Josephus.
• Death of Jesus – Accompanied by blackout of sun, earthquakes, and raising of the dead in the Gospels, no record of this by others.

The Star of Bethlehem

There is perhaps no event in the Gospels that has been surrounded by more speculation and attempts at explanation than the "Star of Bethlehem". Yet, with almost 2,000 years of attempts at explanation, no legitimate historical explanation has ever come forward. Many people have claimed that they have figured out what the Star of Bethlehem is, and hundreds of books have been published on the subject, yet when it comes down to it scholars still acknowledge that there is nothing in the historical record that verifies any celestial event that can be correlated to the "Star of Bethlehem".

There are only two accounts of the birth of Jesus in the Gospels, one in Matthew and one in Luke. There is nothing in either of these accounts that allows us to positively date the year in which the stories are supposedly taking place. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke state that King Herod the Great is alive and near the end of his reign during the events of their account, so we know that these accounts have to be set shortly before he died. The death of King Herod is pretty strongly dated to 4 BCE. Bible scholars today generally agree that some time between 6 and 4 BCE is when Jesus was born according to what can be inferred from the Gospel account of Matthew.

From the early days of Christianity, however, people believed that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel written, but we know today that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel written, and that the authors of both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and added on two separate birth stories for Jesus, both of which disagree with each other and have almost nothing in common. Not only this, but the Gospel of Mark contains elements which imply that Jesus had a natural normal family and the author of Mark says nothing about a special birth. Could the first person who wrote a narrative about Jesus, who serves as the primary source for both Matthew and Luke, not have known about Jesus' special birth? If he did know about it, why didn't he say anything about it? Why does the Gospel of John also completely avoid any birth narrative and simply say that "the Word was made flesh"?

In addition to these issues consider this problem: How are the writers the Gospels of Matthew and Luke supposed to have gotten the details of their stories? Who witnessed these events? Was the author of Matthew riding along with the Magi? Was he at Herod's palace listening in on his conversations?

This problem has long been recognized by Christians, which is why early apologists said that the writers of the Gospels got their information from divine revelation, so now we are reduced back to miracles to account for how these accounts even came down to us, because, of course, there is no natural explanation for how these events could have been recorded by the writers of the Gospels.

The "Star of Bethlehem" is only mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, it isn't mentioned in Luke or any other book in the Bible. Here is exactly what the Gospel of Matthew says:

Matthew 2:
1 In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, magi from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 asking, ‘Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising in the east, and have come to pay him homage.’ 3 When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet:

6 “And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who is to rule my people Israel.” ’

7 Then Herod secretly called for the magi and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. 8 Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, ‘Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage.’ 9 When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising in the east, until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.  11 On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure-chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road.

At least one story element here is clearly drawn from the Hebrew scriptures, the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Jesus is said to have been born in Bethlehem because the scriptures said that a ruler would come from Bethlehem. But we also know that the Gospel writers, especially Mark and Matthew, not only made explicit references to scriptures, but also implicit references as well.

There is only one reference to a star as a sign in the Old Testament and this is in the book of Numbers. This reference to a star is part of a supposed prophesy by Balaam, who was not a Jew, but who foretold good things for the Jewish people. It's not certain that the writer of Matthew was referring to this passage, but even if not it demonstrates the ideas that surrounded stars as oracles in the ancient world, in a context that the writer of Matthew would have been familiar with. In truth these types of oracles were quite common during this time.

Numbers 24:
17 I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near—
a star shall come out of Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;

Since the magi were presumably not Jewish, this could well be a way that the writer of Matthew was tying into this non-Jewish oracle in the Hebrew scriptures, and it fits the typical pattern of the types of references that the writer of Matthew made. Most likely, this scripture is the source of the "Star of Bethlehem", not any ancient observation of a real phenomenon. The author had just made an explicit reference to Micah 5:2 regarding Bethlehem and a coming ruler and this passage also refers to a star and a coming ruler, indicated by the scepter. The gifts of frankincense and myrrh are also references to Old Testament passages, as is the "flight to Egypt" that follows this scene.

The supposed star in the passage in Matthew is apparently traveling and stopping over a location, things which hardly seem realistic and can hardly be correlated to comets, supernova, or even planetary alignments, as various people have suggested. In the story the magi said that they knew the child was born in Bethlehem because of a prophecy, so they didn't need a star to direct them to the town, this star directed them precisely to the house of the child.

The fact is that we do have significant astronomical records from various groups of people that cover this time-span and none of these people record anything that could resemble the "Star of Bethlehem". We have records from the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, and the Chinese for starters, and many celestial events were even recorded by different groups in the Americas, Australia, and Africa, as well as various other tribes throughout Europe and Asia. In all this data nobody records anything resembling this star and nobody else in the Bible even mentions it. The closest possible record that could be correlated to this star is a small nova event that was recorded by the Chinese in 5 BCE, but they state that the light was faint and hardly noticeable. Novas are not seen differently from different locations, so it wouldn't have been any more noticeable around Bethlehem, and if it was then we would expect someone else from the region to have recorded it.

As with so many things in the Gospels, the "Star of Bethlehem" is best explained as a fictional story element that was crafted to correlate to the Hebrew scriptures.

Roman census in Jesus birth story

While the Gospel of Matthew makes the only mention of the "Star of Bethlehem", the Gospel of Luke makes the only mention of a census of the whole Roman "world". The Gospel of Luke states:

Luke 2:
1 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. 5 He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

The first issue here is that Quirinius definitely was not even governor of Syria during the reign of King Herod, so the possibility that Jesus was born while Herod was king and also during the governorship of Quirinius is completely impossible.

The second issue is that there was a census taken under the rule of Quirinius, but it was nothing like the one described in Luke, and it took place in 6 CE, some 9 or 10 years after the death of Herod.

The third issue is that no census has ever been recorded that resembles the one described by Luke.

The important thing to note in all of this is that we do have records from this time that do describe Roman censuses and the Jewish historian Josephus recorded the census of Quirinius. According to Luke the census required everyone, or at least males, to go to the town of their ancestors. The problem here should be apparent. Which ancestors? Joseph went to Bethlehem because this is where David was from, but David lived over a thousand year prior supposedly, so Joseph went to where his great, great, great, .... etc., grandfather was from?

Not only does this not make sense, but no census would demand that anyone go to a place of their ancestry, that would defeat the whole purpose of a census.

Indeed, even Christian scholars recognize that there is no confirmation of this census, and that it in fact raises major contradictions. The Harper Collins New Revised Standard Edition Study Bible states in relation to this census:

Luke 2.1: A general decree of this sort is not otherwise attested.
Luke 2.2: ... According to Josephus, Quirinius became governor of Syria only in 6 CE, while Luke's story is still set in the time of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.

This is a major irreconcilable contradiction, but how did this problem arise? Well, there is growing evidence that the writer of Luke used the writings of Josephus as a source for his Gospel, indeed the evidence for this is now quite strong and is accepted by some scholars. The source material for Luke, then, is probably the Gospel of Mark, "Q", Josephus, and perhaps the letters of Paul. These four sources can account for pretty much every detail of the material in Luke, and this would explain why the writer of Luke, probably writing some time in the early 2nd century, would make this mistake. This was old history by the time that the author of Luke got around to writing his story and he didn't have anything but other writings to go by and presumably didn't realize that Quirinius was governor after Herod had died.

Josephus talks about the census during the reign of Quirinius as an introduction to events that befell the Jews, and thus the author of Luke probably read Josephus and picked-up on this theme and used it for his story about the birth of Jesus as well.

Massacre of the Innocents

According to the Gospel of Matthew, King Herod ordered all of the male children two or younger around the town of Bethlehem to be killed when he learned of the birth of Jesus. As with the Star of Bethlehem, the author of Matthew is the only person in all of ancient literature to record this supposed event. The Gospel of Matthew states:

Matthew 2:
16 When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the magi. 17 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

18 ‘A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.’

We can see here that the author of Matthew explicitly references Jeremiah 31:15, but he also implicitly makes reference to the Exodus story about the birth of Moses. In the story of Moses the Pharaoh says that the Israelites are increasing in number too rapidly, so he requests that midwives kill the boys who are born. They decline to do so, so the Pharaoh orders all of the boys to be killed.

Exodus 1:
22 Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."

According to the story a Levite women then placed her son into a basket and put him into the Nile, where he was found by an Egyptian woman and raised. This boy was Moses.

In the typical fashion of Matthew, the event draws multiple parallels to the older scriptures, crafting a story that draws on familiar themes in the Hebrew stories, but changing them to create a new narrative.

That King Herod would have had hundreds or thousands of infants killed in Bethlehem without anyone recording the event aside from the author of Matthew is well beyond our expectation of history. Josephus provided a very detailed account of the reign of King Herod, even listing the bad things that he did. Other writers also gave accounts of the rule of King Herod and yet neither Josephus nor anyone else recorded anything about a mass slaughter of infants, something that surely would have been  worthy of note. There is also no archeological evidence to support this event either.

Once again, the best explanation for this event is that the author of Matthew is writing fiction based on the Old Testament, he isn't writing history.

Death of Jesus

The Gospels provide us with four accounts of the death of Jesus. Of these accounts only the three synoptic accounts, all based on the Gospel of Mark, provide us with claims that we could reasonably expect to be able to verify against the historical record. The one major claim that is repeated in all three synoptic accounts is the darkening of the sun from noon to 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The Gospel of Matthew also makes two other claims that we should expect to be able to verify via the historical record, the claims that there was an earthquake when Jesus died and that many dead people were brought back to life, rose up from their graves, and went into the cities to tell people about Jesus.

If any of these three things happened, the darkening of the sun, an earthquake, or the raising of the dead, it's reasonable to expect that other people would have also documented these events.

Let's see exactly what the four Gospels state:

Mark 15:
33 At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah."

36 One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said.

37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the son of God!"

40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

Matthew 27:
45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."

48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Luke 23:
44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

John 19:
28 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," 37 and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

As has already been discussed, each of these accounts is based heavily on the Hebrew scriptures. Virtually every event in each of these accounts alludes back to the earlier scriptures, and this is the case for each of the three potentially verifiable claims that we find in the synoptics. First let's look at the scriptural basis for each of these claims.

1) Darkness over the land:

The Gospel accounts all state that darkness came over the land from the sixth hour until the ninth hour. The sixth hour, according to how they told time, was noon and the ninth hour was 3 o'clock pm. We find the scriptural basis for this story element in Amos 8:

Amos 8:
9 "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.

The book of Amos talks about how God will destroy Israel because its people have forsaken the poor and are no longer holy. It talks about various things that will happen on the day that God decides to destroy Israel, and then goes on to say that after God has destroyed Israel he will restore Israel through "David's fallen tent".

2) The earth shook:

Only the Gospel of Matthew mentions an earthquake that accompanied the death of Jesus, but the scriptural source for this claim comes from the same place as the darkness claim, Amos 8:

Amos 8:
8 Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? The whole land will rise like the Nile; it will be stirred up and then sink like the river of Egypt."

3) The dead rise:

The only place where the rising of the dead upon the death of Jesus is mentioned is also in the Gospel of Matthew. As with the other claims, this claim also has a scriptural basis, Ezekiel 37:

Ezekiel 37:
12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.' "

Of course there are no records from anyone else that document a day when dead people rose from their graves and began going into the cities. It is reasonable to expect, however, that if this really happened someone else would have written about it. Instead, this claim is made by only one person, the author of Matthew, and we can see that there is a scriptural basis for this story element.

The issues of the darkening of the sun and an earthquake are more complex however. We have no clear primary source attestations to either a darkening of the sun or an earthquake anywhere around the time that Jesus supposedly died, between about 27 and 33 CE. There are, however, some claims made by Christian apologists that records of these two events were made by non-Christians.

We have second and third hand passages that report to record statements made by non-Christians regarding a darkening of the sun and earthquakes. The first of these comes to us from a 9th century monk who quotes the 3rd century Christian chronicler Julius Africanus, who comments on statements attributed to Thallus and Phlegon . None of the quoted works by Thallus or Phlegon remain, nor does the work by Julius Africanus that presumably makes these references.

Here is what George Syncellus, the 9th century monk, records Africanus as having said:

This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun? In fact, let it be so. Let the idea that this happened seize and carry away the multitude, and let the cosmic prodigy be counted as an eclipse of the sun according to its appearance.Phlegon reports that in the time of Tiberius Caesar, during the full moon, a full eclipse of the sun happened, from the sixth hour until the ninth. Clearly this is our eclipse! What is common about an earthquake, an eclipse, rocks torn apart, a rising of the dead, and such a huge cosmic movement? At the very least, over a long period, no conjunction this great is remembered. But it was a godsent darkness, because the Lord happened to suffer, and the Bible, in Daniel, supports that seventy spans of seven years would come together up to this time.

Here we see that Julius Africanus claims that the darkening of the sun covered the "whole world". This is an added belief of his own that isn't specified in the Gospels, and, of course, he would have no way to know if this even happened. This claim fits the typical early Christian pattern of exaggerating and making-up claims to suit their whims. Africanus also claims that there was an earthquake and that much of Judea was "torn down". No one else reports this and there is no evidence of an earthquake in Judea at this time. This, again, is just another made-up claim by Africanus. Then Africanus refers to the external source Thallus, where he says that Thallus claims that "this darkness" was an eclipse of the sun. We don't actually have any idea of what Thallus actually wrote, because we don't have a copy of this work, nor do we have a quotation of this part of this supposed work by anyone else. All that we have here is a claim by Africanus, who just told two tall tales, that Thallus said something about an eclipse. We don't know if Thallus just reported an eclipse that Africanus is himself associating with the death of Jesus, if Thallus made a comment himself about Jesus, or really anything else at all, because we don't have any more information. We do, however, know that there was supposedly a history written by a Thallus that covered the time from the Trojan War to the 167th Olympiad, which equates to 109 BCE, over 100 years before the supposed death of Jesus, so this book hardly seems like a potential source of confirmation for this event. Other than this small amount of information, we aren't really sure what Africanus is talking about here and have no way to even see the context of what this supposed Thallus was saying.

Africanus goes on to state that it is not reasonable to call the darkness during the death of Jesus an eclipse, because Jesus was supposedly killed on a Passover in which there was a full moon (because Passover was moved to a specific date, not all Passovers are during full moons). Solar eclipses cannot happen during a full moon, so this makes an eclipse physically impossible, but Africanus goes on to claim that someone called Phlegon recorded an eclipse that took place during a full moon, lasted three hours, and started at noon during the reign of Tiberius.

Both Origen and Eusebius also apparently referenced Phlegon as a corroborator of the events that occurred after the death of Jesus. Eusebius' account of what Phlegon wrote also comes down to us from only George Syncellus, where he quotes Eusebius as having written:

Jesus Christ..underwent his passion in the 18th year of Tiberius [32 AD]. Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

In this case we see that Eusebius apparently quoted Phlegon instead of paraphrasing him, and in this case there is no mention of a full moon, but rather there is mention of an earthquake.

Eusebius goes on to quote Phlegon stating that the eclipse lasted for three hours and started at noon, and that the eclipse was so dark that you could see the stars.

Here are the issues with all this. Firstly, we don't actually have the works of Phlegon to confirm anything that he did write, but secondly, Phlegon was writing in the second century and we know that his works were not of an accurate historical nature, but rather he was like a tabloid writer who wrote sensational things about supernatural events. The two surviving works of Phlegon are Book of Marvels and On Long-lived Persons.

William Hansen, who provided the first English translation of Phlegon's Book of Marvels, noted that the work was perhaps, "the earliest surviving work of pure sensationalism in Western literature," and that Phlegon sought out, "written and oral sources for items of sensationalistic import."

The fragments of Phlegon's historical works that survive have led scholars to regard him as one of the least reliable and more outrageous writers of his time. A review of Hansen's translation and commentary on Phlegon notes the following:

Phlegon's untypicality lies in the sensational quality of his material. Other paradoxographers maintained at least a pretence of purveying "scientific" information, generally relating to the physical world. Phlegon on the other hand gives us a superb ghost-story, evinces an interest in side-show freaks and includes other "facts" (like a thousand-year old Sibyl or items drawn from mythology) which fall outside even the most elastic definitions of plausibility.
- Review of Phlegon of Tralles' Book of Marvels

So, the great source of conformation for the events following the death of Jesus is a second century writer, who wrote after the Gospels had been published, who collected bizarre tales from around the empire and collated them into even more fantastic stories. Obviously this isn't the type of confirmation that one would look for in an ancient source, but there are more problems here than just this. Phlegon talks about events that supposedly took place in Bithynia, an area in what is now northern Turkey. Even if an earthquake and eclipse really did happen there, such an earthquake couldn't have been felt in Jerusalem, unless it was the largest earthquake ever known, and if it was then not only should we expect someone else to have written about it but we would also expect to have archeological evidence of it as well. The map below, which incidentally also shows the supposed travel path of Paul, has Bithynia circled in red, which you can see is quite a long distance from Jerusalem.

Actually, earthquakes were, and are, so common in the this region that even if there were records of earthquakes that occurred some time between 27 and 33 CE in this area it would not be a surprise, but alas the closest thing that we can find is this one reference by Phlegon of a supposed earthquake that occurred in Bithynia.

The map below shows earthquakes over 4.0 on the Richter Scale recorded in the Mediterranean region between 1964 and 1992. As you can see, earthquakes are extremely common around Greece and Turkey, but not so common in the area of Israel. Even if Phlegon's account has some basis in fact, he is only talking about an earthquake in Bithynia, not Judea, and earthquakes in this region are quite common.

source: SEISMICITY OF THE MEDITERRANEAN AREA

As for the "eclipse", Phlegon's statements are physically impossible. A solar eclipse can only last about seven minutes, not hours, and they are only visible from specific areas, they can't be seen from multiple places in the world when they occur, you have to be at the right place at the right time. If a solar eclipse did take place at Bithynia, it wouldn't have been visible in Judea. This could mean that what Phlegon recorded wasn't an eclipse, but rather the supernatural power of God blacking out the sun, but if this is the case then why does the only conformation of this come from one person who is a known writer of tall tales, some time after the Gospels have already been in circulation?

All in all, we have three major events that we should expect to be able to confirm by the historical record: A blackout of the sun, an earthquake, and mass raising of the dead. None of these things are confirmed by the historical record, despite Christian apologists clearly making efforts to search for sources of confirmation. As with the other Gospel claims that we have discussed, there are clear scriptural sources for these claims, and the most reasonable explanation for why these claims were made in the Gospels is that the writers of the Gospels based their stories on the Hebrew scriptures, not reality.

This is significant because it strengthens the challenge to the historicity of all of the other passages in the Gospels that are based on scriptures. Even in cases where events in the Gospels can be shown to have a scriptural basis, some Christians claim that a scriptural basis does not preclude an additional historic basis. Since many of the events in the Gospels are historically unverifiable this is difficult to counter, but what this demonstrates is that for each event in the Gospels that has both a scriptural basis and is reasonably historically verifiable, the historical evidence goes against the Gospels. Since every potentially verifiable story element in the Gospels that is based on scriptures is not confirmed by the historical evidence, a strong case is made that events in the Bible that have a scriptural basis do not have a corresponding historical basis, thus the burden of proof is on those proposing that such events are historical.

The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life

The earliest writings that we have (presumably) which actually mention Jesus Christ come from someone called Paul. The only reliable information that we really have about Paul comes from the letters in his name. Acts of the Apostles also talks about Paul, but the reliability of Acts is dubious. The letters of Paul were written by him to various other early "Christian" communities, though the term Christian is not found in any of the works of Paul, nor indeed in any of the books of the Bible except Acts and 1 Peter, both works that were written later. Many different letters were falsely attributed to Paul, which scholars over the past 500 years have attempted to weed out, though there is still not 100% certainty about all of the letters. In addition to falsely attributing letters to Paul, some editing of Paul's letters took place as well, as happened with all of the works of the Bible. It is actually more difficult to detect changes that were made to the letters of Paul than it is to detect changes that were made to the Gospels because we have fewer copies of the letters of Paul. Though the letters of Paul are estimated to have been written around the middle of the 1st century, the earliest knowledge of these letters that we have comes from the 2nd century, and the earliest copies of these letters that we have comes from the 3rd and 4th centuries. In addition, we do know that different copies of these letters were in circulation. The Gnostic leader Marcion had copies of the letters of Paul that he claimed were original and he wrote that his Catholic opponents had inserted statements into their copies to make them comply with their doctrine. Likewise, the Catholics charged that Marcion had deleted passages from his copies. We also know that there were at least three different copies of the letter to the Romans in circulation prior to the 4th century, a 14 chapter version, a 15 chapter version, and a 16 chapter version. A 16 chapter version is what we currently have in the Bible. There are also differences between quoted passages by early Church fathers and what we have now, as well as glaring omissions of quotes that we currently have in the works of Paul that could have been used to establish doctrinal points by early Church fathers. An excellent example of this is the passage from 1 Thessalonians 2, which states:

1 Thessalonians 2:
13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.

This passage is widely accepted by scholars as a later addition to the Pauline text for the purpose of establishing a later doctrine, for several reasons. One reason is that there is no evidence that these types of strong divisions between Jews and non-Jews existed among the early Christians. Another is that this is the only statement to this effect in all of the Pauline letters and it goes against many of his other statements about unity between Jews and Gentiles. It also breaks the continuity of the chapter, and if you take it out the chapter reads just fine without it. Yet another reason is that there were no "churches" in Judea at this time. Lastly, the statement that God's wrath has overtaken the Jews makes sense referring to the destruction of Judea in 70 CE. There is no significant event that Paul could have been referring to here when he wrote around 50 CE. There is also ample motive for later Roman Church fathers to have inserted such a passage when they were trying to establish these principles as a doctrine of the Church, which they did do. What else is important about this passage is that it is one of the passages in the letters of Paul that would seem to establish a historical view of Jesus, however, as mentioned, this is regarded as a later addition. This is important to understand for people who read the letters of Paul uncritically, because some of the passages, such as this one, which seem to put Jesus in a historical context, are actually later additions.

For more information on this see: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation

All of this makes relying on the works of Paul to build a case or to understand the early views of Jesus difficult, but not impossible. We do know one thing, which is that any potential changes to the texts of Paul that have come down to us today are most likely changes that would have been used to establish the doctrines of Catholicism. It should also be noted that prior to their inclusion in the Bible, the letters of Paul were not considered scripture or divine, and thus modifications to them were not viewed as "changing scripture". This is certainly something to keep in mind when dealing with the works of Paul, but despite this, the letters of Paul are still critical as the earliest writings about Jesus.

Between the works of Paul and the writing of the four canonical Gospels several other Christian works were written. Neither the works of Paul nor any of these other works give us details about the life of Jesus. Prior to the Gospels there are various works that talk about Jesus in a variety of ways, but none of them provide any details about a birth, life, ministry, or death of Jesus.

The table below lists known early Christian works in the order that they are most widely believed by Biblical scholars to have been written, along with the dates that they are most widely believed to have been originally written within, the order in which they actually appear in the Bible, and who the most widely accepted authors of the books are. This information comes from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/.

 When these sources do mention things that seem to relate to the Gospel stories, they invariably contradict the Gospels. For example, 1 Peter discusses the death of Christ, but does so in a way that is incompatible with the Gospels.

1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring us to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

The Gospels take a very strong position in making it clear that Jesus' resurrection was "in the flesh", not "in the spirit". After his resurrection Jesus is depicted as walking around, touching people, having dinner, etc., in the Gospels, which supports a major doctrine for Christians: that they are to expect to be bodilyresurrected. This passage flies in the face of such a doctrine and clearly contradicts the Gospel accounts. It would be inconceivable that someone would teach that Jesus were "made alive in the spirit" if he had actually been witnessed to have come back to life "in the flesh". Examples like this abound in the early epistles.

Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person

By the 1st century there were an abundance of religions in the Greco-Roman world known as "mystery religions". There were hundreds of these different mystery religions, which were like cults that worshiped specific heroes or gods, such as Adonis, Dionysus, Mithras, and Osiris. Many of these gods were savior type gods, who were said to take on various problems of individuals or the world, and people were initiated into these religions often through secret ceremonies, that included various rituals, such as sacrifices, special meals, anointing, washings, etc.

We don't know a whole lot about these mystery religions, both because most of them did not have written doctrines and their views were kept somewhat secret, and also because what little original information there was about them was not preserved or was destroyed by Christians once they came to power, but we do know a little bit about them from some comments made about them by early Christians. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian made comments that compare the Christian rites to the "mysteries" of other religions.

And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body"; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood"; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
- First Apology; Justin Martyr, 150 CE

Here Justin Martyr states that "wicked devils" have "imitated" these mysteries in the Mithric religions because these rituals existed before the Christian religion, so the claim was that Satan had "imitated" these mysteries in advance of Jesus. Hopefully you can see the problem with this logic, but, at any rate, it does tell us that the rituals of Christianity are similar to the rituals of Mithraism.

Tertullian also commented on this subject:

Chapter XL.-No Difference in the Spirit of Idolatry and of Heresy. In the Rites of Idolatry, Satan Imitated and Distorted the Divine Institutions of the Older Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures Corrupted by Him in the Perversions of the Various Heretics.

The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius [legendary king of Rome, 8th-7th century BCE], and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has sown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints.
- The Prescription Against Heretics; Tertullian

He made the argument again in another work:

"Well, but the nations, who are strangers to all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy." (So they do) but they cheat themselves with waters which are widowed. For washing is the channel through which they are initiated into some sacred rites of some notorious Isis or Mithras. The gods themselves likewise they honor by washings. Moreover, by carrying water around, and sprinkling it, they everywhere expiate country-seats, houses, temples, and whole cities: at all events, at the Apollinarian and Eleusinian games they are baptized; and they presume that the effect of their doing that is their regeneration and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among the ancients, again, whoever had defiled himself with murder, was wont to go in quest of purifying waters. Therefore, if the mere nature of water, in that it is the appropriate material for washing away, leads men to flatter themselves with a belief in omens of purification, how much more truly will waters render that service through the authority of God, by whom all their nature has been constituted! If men think that water is endued with a medicinal virtue by religion, what religion is more effectual than that of the living God? Which fact being acknowledged, we recognize here also the zeal of the devil rivaling the things of God, while we find him, too, practicing baptism in his subjects.
- On Baptism; Tertullian

So we know from this that many of the practices, such as baptism and sacred meals, that were a part of the teachings of Paul were already in use among the mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world. We also see that the mysteries of Mithras "introduces an image of a resurrection". This is important to understand when reading the works of Paul. Is it the case that Paul's gospel and the early teachings about "Christ Jesus" were a Jewish form of this same type of mystery religion? Let's look at the writings of Paul to get an idea.

Romans 11:
5 So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so  all Israel will be saved; as it is written:

‘Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.’
27‘And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.’

28 As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Here Paul seems to be talking about the coming of a future "Deliverer", but he makes no mention at all of Jesus here. If Jesus had just been here then why is Paul talking about old scriptures instead of Jesus Christ, who had just been here?

This is similar to something that is also said in Philippians.

Philippians 3:
12 Not that I have already obtained this or have already been made perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on towards the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.

17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. 18 For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. 19 Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20 But our commonwealth is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21 He will transform our humble bodies so that it may be conformed to his glorious body, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.

Here Paul says that they are expecting a Savior from heaven, which is Jesus. He doesn't say that they are expecting him to come back, or anything like that, but that they are expecting a Savior from heaven.

Back to Romans and the talk of mysteries:

Romans 16:
25 Now to the one who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ,according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory for ever! Amen.

This sounds like a very odd thing to say if one is talking about a Jesus Christ that had just recently been on earth and proclaimed his message from his own mouth, witnessed by thousands of people. Paul is saying that ancient mysteries are being revealed and made known through prophetic writings, but why wouldn't he be saying that these things were made known by Jesus himself?

Romans 10, from prior to this passage, also highlights this problem.

Romans 10:
1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [the Israelites] is that they may be saved. 2 I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

... 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. 13 For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’ 16 But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’ 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word about Christ.

The question with this passage is, if Jesus had just been on earth and been ministering to the Jews and performing miracles in Galilee and Judea and drawing large crowds, as the Gospels claim, then why does Paul ask here if Jews cannot be blamed for not believing in Christ because they haven't heard about him? Paul then says that faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard is the word "about Christ". (Some translations also read "of God") All of these things don't make sense if Jesus had just been here on earth proclaiming his own message and demonstrating his own miracles. This passage is followed by a passage where Paul asks again"have they not heard", to which he rhetorically replies, "indeed they have", followed by a passage from the Old Testament that says, "Their voice has gone out to all the earth", meaning the message of Christ through the messengers. Nowhere in this address, where it would make perfect sense to state that Jesus had made himself known to the Israelites, does Paul say anything about Jesus, he just quotes old scriptures and talks about messengers of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:
1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

Here Paul is calling Jesus Christ, "and him crucified," a mystery of God.

1 Corinthians 15:
50 What I am saying, brothers, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:

‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’
55‘Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?’
56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

Here Paul claims that he is telling these people a "mystery", but why would this be a mystery if Jesus Christ had just been on earth a few years earlier to bring this very message to people, a message that he supposedly proclaimed several times according to the Gospels, and which he demonstrated by raising Lazarus, and then himself, from the dead himself? Beyond that, why would Paul then refer to scripture as support for eternal life instead of referring to Jesus himself?

Ephesians 3:
1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— 2 for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, 4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: 6 that is, the Gentiles have become fellow-heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

There is uncertainly as to whether or not Ephesians is an authentic letter from Paul, but regardless, how could a statement such as this be made if Jesus Christ had just been here on earth? This states that Christ is a mystery, and that the mystery of Christ has, "been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." It would not be said that Jesus was revealed to his apostles by the Spirit if he had just recently been on earth as a walking, talking, human being.

Colossians 1:
24 I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. 25 I became its servant according to God’s commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has now been revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 It is he whom we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone in all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ.

Colossians is another work that may not be an authentic letter of Paul, but here we are told that the "body of Christ" is "the church"! We are told that God has chosen Paul to make his "mystery" known, which is "Christ in you". The church is also called the body of Christ in Ephesians as well.

Ephesians 4:
7 But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said,

‘When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.’

9 (When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended first into the depths of the earth? 10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) 11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

Here we see several things. For one thing this passage quotes the Old Testament scriptures (Psalm 68:18) in order to describe Christ, something quite odd if Jesus had just been here. In interpreting the scriptures that talk about ascension it says that he had to have descended first, but where did he descend to? "The depths of the earth," in other words Hades, the underworld, what we now call Hell. This is all metaphorical and mythical talk based on scriptures, by why go into this if Jesus had just been incarnated "in the flesh" on earth, walking around some 15-20 years ago? If Jesus were just on earth walking and talking to people, why talk about descending into the underworld here? It's not just that this talks about Christ descending into the underworld, but nowhere in the letter does it ever say anything about an earthly ministry of Jesus. If this were something that were said in addition to a discussion of his earthly activity and his teachings that would be one thing, but all of these letters just quote from scripture and talk about Jesus in metaphorical ways like this.

The passage goes on to talk about the community as the "body of Christ". Paul described the community or the church as the body of Christ in almost all of his letters.

All of this mystery talk (and there is more of it in the various epistles of the New Testament) is not only similar to what we believe was preached in the other mystery religions, but much of it also precludes a prior earthy ministry of Jesus!

Paul specifically tells us that his knowledge of Jesus Christ has not come from any human, but has come to him directly by "revelation" from Jesus Christ himself.

Galatians 1:
11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

If Jesus Christ had just been on earth some 15 to 25 years prior to the writing of this letter by Paul (presumably to present his message), then why is it that the first person to write about the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ is someone who never witnessed his existence and who neither received his message from him while he was on earth, nor received it from of any of his supposed followers? Furthermore, if Jesus had just been here then why would Paul be so adamant about saying that he received his gospel from revelation? If Jesus were just here then the gospel from the mouth of Jesus should have been seen as the most legitimate and authoritative, yet Paul presents his message as more authoritative because it hasn't come from anyone else. How could Paul's message from "revelation" compete with Peter's message straight from the mouth of Jesus?

Of course, the whole idea that Jesus had come to earth and spread his message is not presented until the Gospels are written, some 10 to 60 years after the evangelism of Paul.

Critically, Paul also never used the term "disciple", he referred to Peter and others as "apostles". This is actually very important.

There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime

Like the supposed founders of many religions, Jesus left no personal writings of any kind, nor any trace of his existence. Indeed his supposed bodily ascension into heaven precludes the possibility of there even being any bodily evidence for his existence, if that story were to be believed. No writing, graffiti, or evidence of any kind has ever been found from the period in which he supposedly lived that establishes the existence of Jesus.

If we take the view that Jesus was indeed God, then it would be peculiar that he was unable to write and chose to write nothing himself. Of course the counter argument to this is that God wanted people to have faith so he intentionally didn't leave any evidence of himself. Okay...

If we take the view of Jesus was a real person who was a teacher and the leader of a religious movement, then we could expect that this person would have produced his own writings, since other rabbis, theologians, and teachers did. However, it is always possible that this person may not have been able to write or that none of his writings were preserved. Still, if we did have writings from Jesus that would certainly clear many things up, but we don't.

If we are to take the Gospels as our guide to the life of Jesus Christ, then we must look at Pontius Pilate as the figure who solidifies the period in which Jesus must have lived. Pilate was the governor of Judea from 26 to 36 CE, a ten year period. The Jesus of the Gospels, then, had to have lived and been killed during this period if the Gospels are true accounts.

Scholars go further and state that based on the information given in the Gospels Jesus had to have died in either the year 27, 30, or 33 CE. Since, aside from the dubious birth stories in Matthew and Luke, the Gospels deal strictly with a supposed ministry of Jesus that lasted from 1 to 3 years, we are looking at a date range from about 24 CE to 36 CE as the period during which we could look for writings about Jesus that were produced during his "lifetime".

Indeed the Gospels themselves state many times that "scribes" were present during the various acts of Jesus, yet we have no records from these supposed scribes. Nothing in the Jewish midrash of the time mentions anything about Jesus Christ or any of the events in the Gospels.

Not only this, but there are many people that lived during the supposed lifetime of Jesus, whose written works have been preserved, and whom we could expect to have written about him. Here are some of the primary persons who lived during the supposed lifetime of Jesus, whose works we have, and who we could reasonably expect would have mentioned Jesus had he existed, yet they do not:

All of the people mentioned above lived during the same time that Jesus supposedly lived and are prime candidates for being potential witnesses and documenters of the existence of Jesus. Obviously not all of these people are equally likely to have known of Jesus, but the two major candidates are the Jewish writers, Justus and Philo. Philo is such a special case that I will address him more fully in the next section.

The fact that Justus of Tiberias made no mention of the Christian Jesus has "baffled" scholars for centuries, and for a long time some Christians dismissed this as an early Jewish conspiracy to erase him from history. The fact remains, however, that in the works of Justus of Tiberias there was a well preserved history of the region, written by someone from Galilee around the time that Jesus was supposedly alive and who lived many years beyond that time, in which no mention of the Christian Jesus was made. Surely a Jew from Galilee would have made at least some comment about Jesus if he existed as described in the Gospels, or anything even remotely close to the Gospels, would he not?

The overwhelming lack of commentary about Jesus in the historical sources of his supposed time has troubled Christians from the very beginning. As early as the 2nd century this lack of acknowledgement was noticed. Indeed it was not long before forgeries attesting to the existence of Jesus were produced. Other such evidences were either intentionally manufactured or inadvertently created through the eye of the beholder.

Suetonius - The Lives of the Caesars

First let us tackle the reference in the work by Suetonius.

3 He forbade men of foreign birth to use the Roman names so far as those of the clans were concerned. Those who usurped the privileges of Roman citizenship he executed in the Esquiline field. He restored to the senate the provinces of Achaia and Macedonia, which Tiberius had taken into his own charge. He deprived the Lycians of their independence because of deadly intestine feuds, and restored theirs to the Rhodians, since they had given up their former faults. He allowed the people of Ilium perpetual exemption from tribute, on the ground that they were the founders of the Roman race, reading an ancient letter of the senate and people of Rome written in Greek to king Seleucus, in which they promised him their friendship and alliance only on condition that he should keep their kinsfolk of Ilium free from every burden. 4 Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. He allowed the envoys of the Germans to sit in the orchestra, led by their naïve self-confidence; for when they had been taken to the seats occupied by the common people and saw the Parthian and Armenian envoys sitting with the senate, they moved of their own accord to the same part of the theatre, protesting that their merits and rank were no whit inferior. 5 He utterly abolished the cruel and inhuman religion of the Druids among the Gauls, which under Augustus had merely been prohibited to Roman citizens; on the other hand he even attempted to transfer the Eleusinian rites from Attica to Rome, and had the temple of Venus Erycina in Sicily, which had fallen to ruin through age, restored at the expense of the treasury of the Roman people. He struck his treaties with foreign princes in the Forum, sacrificing a pig and reciting the ancient formula of the fetial priests. But these and other acts, and in fact almost the whole conduct of his reign, were dictated not so much by his own judgment as that of his wives and freedmen, since he nearly always acted in accordance with their interests and desires.
- The Lives of the Caesars (The Life of Claudius); Suetonius, 120

The one line in bold above is the only potential reference to "Jesus Christ" that we get from Suetonius. This is a passage talking about the treatment of foreigners in Rome by the Emperor Claudius. Of this, one line deals with the Jews, whom Suetonius says were expelled from Rome in 49 CE by Claudius. As "evidence for Jesus" this passage is fraught with problems. First of all, we can only assume that Suetonius is talking about "Jesus Christ" by the use of the name "Chrestus", which corresponds to nothing and is not a proper Latin translation of the Greek Christos, though it is a proper Latin name. Secondly, this passage implies that these Jews were being instigated by someone in Rome in 49 CE, which would be impossible for the Jesus of the Gospels since he was supposedly already dead by then.

Of course it is possible that some Jews in Rome in 49 CE were making disturbances "in the name of Jesus Christ", but if that is what this is indeed talking about then that certainly isn't evidence for the existence of Jesus, it's only evidence for people doing things in the name of a god or hero figure, which was not at all uncommon. Importantly, however, if this did actually refer to Christians in Rome in 49 CE then this reference alone would be evidence of the earliest existence of followers of Jesus in Rome. All of these things make it highly unlikely that this is even refereeing to "Jesus Christ" at all. The majority of Jews didn't believe in the Jesus stories, thus it would be unlikely that "the Jews" would get expelled for disturbances on behalf of Jesus because the majority of the Jews in Rome wouldn't have participated in such an event in the first place.

Some Christians try to claim that the name Chrestus by itself could only being talking about "Jesus Christ" because that is the only person that would have been well known enough that a single reference to his name could have been self-explanatory, but as we have already seen Jesus Christ was certainly not well known at this time at all, thus this argument fails.

Even if this were referring to "Jesus Christ" it's obviously nothing more than a hearsay comment being made in 120, it's hardly "evidence" for the existence of Jesus.

Pliny the Younger - Letter to Trajan

Next we have the letter from Pliny the Younger, written in 112. From 111 to 113 Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontious and Bithynia, regions in what is now northern Turkey. During his governorship Pliny the Younger came into contact with Christians for the first time. As a governor Pliny was responsible for seeing to it that all of the citizens paid their taxes, recognized the Emperor as the head of the government, and worshiped the state gods. Some Christians refused to honor the Roman gods and thus they were charged with crimes. In his letter to Trajan, Pliny discussed his contact with Christians.

The segment of the letter that mentions Christ is as follows:

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
Letter to Trajan; Pliny the Younger, 112

As you can see, this letter does nothing to establish the historical existence of Jesus, it merely talks about Pliny's interrogation of Christians and the fact that some of them were willing to denounce Christ to avoid punishment. There is no attestation to the existence of Jesus here. This is no different than people who were later forced to denounce Zeus under the Christians, or similar such things. By all indications Pliny doesn't even show here that Christ is regarded as a person, he states that Christ is treated as a god and that all he found of the religion was nothing but "depraved, excessive superstition."

It should be noted that Trajan's reply to Pliny stated that he was not to seek out Christians and that accusations against them be treated with care. He went on to warn that, "this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

Tacitus - The Annals

Next we move on to the statement by Tacitus in The Annals, written in 109 CE. The Annals is a large historical work that documents the reigns of Roman Emperors. Tacitus gives a detailed mention of "Christus" in a section discussing Nero and the fire of Rome.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
- The Annals; Tacitus, 109

Though the name "Christus" is used here, this is clearly a reference to the "Jesus Christ" of the Gospels. There are several things of interest in this reference, but it doesn't establish the historical existence of Jesus. Indeed Tacitus is clearly relaying information that originally came from Christians themselves.

It is peculiar that Nero would have laid the blame on Christians in 64 CE. This passage has puzzled historians for some time, because by all other accounts Christians were still an extremely small and barely distinct group of people by 64 CE. It's not certain what exactly would set Christians apart from others so much in Rome at this time, how they would have been distinguished from ordinary Jews, why they would have been hated, or if the Christians persecuted by Nero were even the same Christians as those who were believers in Jesus Christ since the term Christians was also considered to derive from people calling themselves "anointed ones". Rome was filled with literally hundreds of different religions and cults at this time and it's somewhat astonishing that Christians of all these groups would have been singled out, for we have nothing else that tells us realistically what they would have been doing to draw attention to themselves.

Regardless of this peculiarity, this passage is generally deemed authentic but it is widely recognized that it's not an independent witness to the existence of Jesus. Some Christians have tried to claim that Tacitus would have gotten his details about the death of Jesus from the Roman archives, thereby establishing the historical reality of the crucifixion. Not only is there no reason to think this, but there are good reasons to conclude that this is not possible.

First of all, Tacitus uses the name "Christus", as though it is a given first name. Tacitus apparently doesn't realize that "Christos" is a religious title, meaning "Anointed One". If "Christus" is the name that Tacitus is working from, which it is, then even if there were Roman records to be looked at he could never have found them under that name and if he had found them otherwise he would have seen another name on them, presumably Yeshua or Iēsous, the Hebrew and Greek variants of "Jesus". "Christus" corresponds to nothing, it's a mistake of translation, or an assumption based on working backwards from the name "Christians".

Secondly, it's doubtful that there would have been any archival material to even look at if it ever existed, since Tacitus is writing in 109, some 40 years after the military destruction of Judea.

Thirdly, there would have been no reason for Tacitus to go to an archive to write this passage. The information that he is passing on would have been common knowledge by 109 CE, and this is an insignificant point amidst the larger subject of this work, which is Nero himself. Christians aren't the subject here, just a side note. We can't even say that the information Tacitus is passing on would have been known in 64 CE. Since Tacitus is writing in 109, his information is likely more detailed than what would have been known in 64, since by 109 the Gospels had probably already been in circulation for several decades.

That this statement by Tacitus is not evidence for the existence of Jesus is admitted to even by Christian scholars.

New Testament scholar John P. Meier acknowledges that here Tacitus is only passing on information gleaned from Christians, he isn't making an independent attestation to the existence of Jesus.

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger reflect instead what they have heard Christians of their own day say. Despite various claims, no early rabbinic text (the earliest being the Mishna, composed ca. A.D. 200) contains information about Jesus, and later rabbinic texts simply reflect knowledge of, and mocking midrash on, Christian texts and preaching.
- The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain; J.P. Meier, 1999

What is important to note here is that this is a passage that is definitely talking about at least one Jesus, the son of Damneus. Indeed, the name "Jesus" was quite common at the time. In fact the whole issue of the name of Jesus is quite confusing, because Jesus and Joshua are really two different interpretations of the exact same Hebrew name. "Jesus" is the English form of the Latin form of the Greek translation of Yeshu'a, while Joshua is the direct English translation of Yeshu'a, without going through the Greek variant. So, in reality Jesus and Joshua are the exact same name, or would have been the exact same name as far as Jews were concerned, because to them both of these names would have been Yeshu'a.

That's not critically important here, but what is important is the fact that both "Jesus" and "James" (in their Greek and Hebrew forms) were extremely common names at the time. Indeed there are at least 19 or so "Jesuses" listed between the Bible and the works of Josephus. Josephus himself lists about 14.

1. Jesus son of Naue (Joshua of Nun)
2. Jesus son of Saul
3. Jesus, high priest, son of Phineas
4. Jesus son of the high priest Jozadak
5. Jesus son of Joiada
6. Jesus, high priest, son of Simon
7. Jesus, high priest, son of Phabes
8. Jesus, high priest, son of See
9. Jesus, high priest, son of Sirach (writer of Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach)
10. Jesus Christ
11. Jesus son of Damnaeus, became high priest
12. Jesus son of Gamaliel, became high priest
13. Jesus son of high priest Sapphas and military general
14. Jesus, chief priest, probably to be identified with 10 or 11
15. Jesus son of Gamalas, high priest
16. Jesus, brigand chief on borderland of Ptolemais
17. Jesus son of Sapphias
18. Jesus brother of Chares
19. Jesus a Galilean, perhaps to be identified with 15
20. Jesus in ambuscade, perhaps to be identified with 16
21. Jesus, priest, son of Thebuthi
22. Jesus, son of Ananias, rude peasant, prophesies the fall of Jerusalem.

Of the 28 high priests between the reign of King Herod the Great and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, four of them were named Jesus.

So, it's important here to understand that both Jesus and James were very popular names, and that the mere coupling of these names by themselves would not in any way identify a Jesus as the same Jesus who is the subject of the Gospels; one has to consider the passage and the subject of the writing.

This chapter is discussing events that were taking place around 60 CE, some time between about 60 and 66 CE. Nothing in this chapter or the passage has any relationship to "Jesus Christ", and the use of "Christ" as an identifier is quite odd, for Josephus never explains what this term means. One could argue that if theTestimonium Flavianum is authentic, then the Testimonium Flavianum is what provides the explanation for who this Jesus is, but if the Testimonium Flavianum as we have it is not authentic, at least including the reference to "Christ", then this would be a completely oddball and unsupported reference. Josephus also never uses the term "Christ" in any of this other works.

There is nothing else in Antiquity of the Jews that would indicate that this James has any relationship to Jesus Christ, or that anything in this discussion has any relationship to him. In addition, since this is something that is occurring around 60 CE, it would seem quite odd to identify James by his association to a person whom the Jews had supposedly killed as a common criminal some 30 years prior to the event, and 60 years prior to this writing.

Christians argue that this was done because "Jesus Christ" was so well known that it makes the passage make sense, but as we have seen, no one prior to Josephus had even written about Jesus Christ aside from some Christians, so it certainly does not seem that he was well known.

A much more likely case here is that the Jesus mentioned as the brother of James is the same Jesus who is  the son of Damneus.

There are two possible explanations, then, for the inclusion of the phrase "who is called Christ".

• The passage is authentic, but Jesus son of Damneus was also called "Christ", which simply means anointed
• The phrase "who is called Christ" is a later insertion into the text

The first thing to consider is that Jesus the son of Damneus was called "Christ", which is actually quite possible. "Christ" is just a transliteration of the Greek wordChristos (Χριστου), which is a translation of the Hebrew Mashiah, which simply means anointed, or one who is anointed.

Jewish kings and high priests were called anointed ones, and this is used many times in the Hebrew scriptures. It is only Christians who assume that the term means "the one and only anointed one", but this passage could also be translated:

...and brought before them the brother of Jesus, called The Anointed, whose name was James, and some others...

Indeed, the Jewish Encyclopedia discusses the issues surrounding Christ, Messiah, and anointing and states:

Septuagint translation of Hebrew "Mashiah" ("Messiah"=The Anointed), applied by Christians exclusively to Jesus as the Messiah.
- Christ - Jewish Encyclopedia

In post-exilic times, the high priest, filling the place formerly occupied by the king, is spoken of as "ha-Kohen ha-Mashiah" (the anointed priest; Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vi. 5), also (Dan. ix. 25, 26) as "Mashiah Nagid" (an anointed one, a ruler) and simply "Mashiah" (an anointed one), referring to Onias III.
- Messiah - Jewish Encyclopedia

The most important use of mashah is in connection with certain sacred persons. The principal and oldest of these is the king, who was anointed from the earliest times (Judges, ix. 8, 15; I Sam. ix. 16, x. 1; II Sam. xix. 10; I Kings, i. 39, 45; II Kings, ix. 3, 6, xi. 12). So exclusively was Anointing reserved for the king in this period that "the Lord's anointed" became a synonym for king (I Sam. xii. 3, 5, xxvi. 11; II Sam. i. 14; Ps. xx. 7). This custom was older than the Hebrews. El-Amarna Tablet No. 37 tells of the anointing of a king.

In that section of the Pentateuch known as the Priestly Code the high priest is anointed (Ex. xxix. 7; Lev. vi. 13, viii. 12), and, in passages which critics regard as additions to the Priestly Code, other priests as well (Ex. xxx. 30, xl. 13-15). It appears from the use of "anointed priest," in the sense of high priest (Lev. iv. 5-7, 16; Num. xxxv. 25, etc.), that the high priest was at first the only one anointed, and that the practice of anointing all the priests was a later development (compare Num. iii. 3; Dillman on Lev. viii. 12-14; Nowack, "Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Archäologie," ii.
...
Rabbinical tradition distinguishes also between the regular high priest and the priest anointed for the special purpose of leading in war—mashuah milhamah (Sotah, viii. 1; Yoma, 72b, 73a). According to tradition (see Josippon, xx.; Chronicle of Jerahmeel, xci. 3; compare I Macc. iii. 55), Judas Maccabeus was anointed as priest for the war before he proclaimed the words prescribed in Deut. xx. 1-9.

Anointing stands for greatness (Sifre, Num. 117; Yer. Bik. ii. 64d): consequently, "Touch not mine anointed" signifies "my great ones."
- Anointing - Jewish Encyclopedia

Other issues that are related to this are the fact that Josephus is writing around 95 CE, so is he saying explicitly that this Jesus was called Mashiah before this event took place, or is he using a term that this Jesus came to be known by, even though he may not have been known by that name at this point in history? This is similar to a situation where someone writes a passage about someone like Ronald Reagan today, and writes, "Ronald, who was called the Gipper," even though they may be talking about a point in his life prior to him having acquired that nickname.

This passage could simply be saying that Jesus son of Damneus was considered a great person, or an already holy person, hence the reason that he, the brother of James who was put to death, is being given the high priesthood. This could also simply be using a description of Jesus son of Damneus that he was later called. This event supposedly happened around 62 CE, which is getting very close to the Jewish War with Rome, and this is a term that was even more heavily used in relation to "war priests", or high priests during a time of war, or priests who, in the Jewish tradition, actually acted as generals. Jesus son of Damneus was not a high priest during the war, but Jesus son of Sapphas was the son of a high priest and a general in the war, it could be talking about him.

All in all, however, this is probably not the case. The phrase, '"who was called Christ," was probably inserted into the text later.

One argument against this being authentic is that Josephus doesn't use the term Christos anywhere else, so it does not appear likely that this is original. If it were original, however, then there are certainly many possibilities for reading the text, and it can't simply be presumed that this is talking about the Jesus Christ of the Gospels, but more than likely it isn't original in the first place.

The other arguments against this being original deal with the structure of the sentence, the subject matter of the passage, the fact that even if Jesus Christ existed he would be an odd person for Josephus to use as an identifier for someone else, especially by brotherhood, and the fact that if this were talking about "James the Just" (which it almost certainly isn't for reasons we shall see) then this James himself would have been more famous than Jesus at this point in time and this association would have made no sense, as James himself, according to Christian legend, was a community leader and well known person, though there is no reference to him in the non-Christian literature (unless this is a reference to him).

Let's read the passage again, without "who was called Christ" in the passage:

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

What this passage would be saying is that Ananus was a priest who abused his power. Ananus wrongly condemned James and some others to death, but the equitable citizens wrote to Herod to complain about this, so Herod punished Ananus by taking the high priesthood from him and giving it to James' brother, Jesus (son of Damneus).

This story makes perfect sense, follows the typical writing style of Josephus, and now the mention of Jesus as the brother of James has context and relevancy. The story here is about Ananus, and how Jesus son of Damneus obtained the high priesthood. The whole point of the sentence that mentions James is to explain issues relevant to Jesus son of Damneus. If this sentence were talking about Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ would be the one who has no relation to the story, and thus we would expect James to come first in the sentence, because James would be who was being talked about, but in this case Jesus is mentioned first because Jesus is who is being talked about, at it only makes sense that Jesus is the one being talked about if this is Jesus son of Damneus, whom the narrative is about.

We can also break the text down as follows:

[Ananus unlawfully] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; ... Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

"Jesus Christ", some guy that was presumably killed for being a false prophet 30 years prior, is an obscure reference out of the blue that has no relation to the narrative.

The story here makes sense if the James is the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, because giving the high priesthood to Jesus would then be seen as a form of reparation to the family for the wrongful death of James, and as a further punishment to Ananus.

Why wouldn't Josephus put the "son of" identifier in the first reference instead of after the fact? Well, for the very reason that "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" seems odd, because it's a double qualifier and a cumbersome sentence. In addition, the strong point of the passage is the naming of Jesus as the high priest, thus Josephus uses the formality of identifying Jesus by his father when he states that he was named the high priest.

Why didn't he identify James by his father instead? Because if James is related to Jesus son of Damneus then this is implied, and Jesus is the more important figure, he is the one who becomes high priest. It is also possible, by the way, that "whose name was James" is a part of the inserted text as well, and what was really added was "who was called Christ, whose name was James".

The real question, however, is if this is James "the brother of Jesus Christ" of the Gospels, and Christians claim that the Gospels are true, then that would mean that this James would have to be in the line of David as well, and thus if anything it would have made more sense to qualify James by his father Joseph, who would had to have been in the line of David, and thus would have been seen as prestigious name worth mentioning. Likewise, if this was "James the Just", then why not identify him by his supposed prestigious position in society, instead of a link to being the bother of Jesus? Josephus does this when he mentions John the Baptist, whom he calls "John the Baptist", identifying him not by his father, but by a title or by his deeds. This passage really opens up a whole can of worms for Christians, because it simply doesn't make sense if read with "who was called Christ" in it, and it draws many other aspects of Christian lore into question.

There are also no other examples in the works of Josephus of identifying someone in the manner that is used here if "who was called Christ" were talking about a different person from Jesus son of Damneus, i.e. mentioning the person being related first, and then the subject after, with an explanation of who the person being related is in between.

So, if "who was called Christ" is not authentic, then how did it get there? There are two likely possibilities, either it came from the insertion of a note, or it was later inserted into the text as a correction based on references made by Origen, which appear to cite Josephus a source for a link between Jesus and James. Origen's citations, however, are highly problematic and almost certainly spurious.

As with the Testimonium Flavianum, if this was inserted based on a marginal or interlinear note then it was probably a completely innocent mistake. These types of things happened. A Christian reading the work may have seen the names Jesus and James together and jumped to the conclusion that this was "Jesus Christ", and then made a note saying so. A later scribe would have then just incorporated it, assuming it to be true, in order to clarify the passage.

The other, and I believe more likely, possibility is that Origen's passage that attributed to Josephus a claim that Jesus was called Christ is actually a mistake on Origen's part, but this set a precedent leading others believe that Josephus had actually said this.

Let's look again at Origen's citation of this passage from Against Celsus:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine
- Against Celsus; Origen

Origen actually cites Josephus as a source for "brother of Jesus" three times, and in every case, as in this one, he paraphrases and mentions things that no one has ever been able to find in any works of Josephus. In fact in The Jewish War, written about two decades before Antiquity, Josephus attributed the destruction that befell the Jews to the deaths of both Ananus the elder (the father of the corrupt Ananus) and either Jesus son of Damneus or Jesus son of Gamaliel (he does not specify), whom he said were shrewd negotiators and level-headed decision makers who opposed the war against the Romans.

What appears to be the case is that Origen has somehow confused the works of Josephus with the works of the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus. Hegesippus is known as the earliest chronicler of Christian history, and he was also an apologist. His works are universally acknowledged as highly flawed and imaginative, basically inventing "history", but he did also use historical sources. Origen's paraphrase above does correspond to passages in the works of Hegesippus, and thus his citations of "Josephus" were probably really citations of Hegesippus, or citations of commentaries that themselves mixed the sources of Josephus and Hegesippus, or perhaps Hegesippus himself is the source of the error; perhaps he claimed that Josephus made this correlation.

Here is a passage from Hegesippus, which corresponds to Origen's passage in Against Celsus:

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woolen garment, but fine linen only. ... Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defense of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.

...

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David," then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." And they cried aloud, and said: "Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error." Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings." So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: "Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us." But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.

And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.

And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.
- Commentaries on the Acts of the Church; Hegesippus, 165-175

This is the only known account that precedes the writing of Origen which resembles what he cites in Against Celsus, and it resembles his account very well. The mixing up of authors was not uncommon, and these types of confusions are not otherwise unknown. This is especially likely in the case of Josephus and Hegesippus because we know that there was on-going confusion about these two names, and some scholars think that Hegesippus is actually a corruption of the name Josephus, meaning that these two different writers may both have had the same name. In Greek Josephus is written Iosippus, and some people have translated this as Hegesippus while others translated it is Josephus. It is considered proper to translate it as Josephus, but this was a common error that is more well known in relation to later 4th century works that are wrongly attributed to a Hegesippus based on the name Iosippus within the text.

How exactly Origen got confused we cannot know. Maybe he was confused by the names? Maybe he got a scroll of Hegesippus that was wrongly attributed to Josephus by someone else? We also know of another work was that wrongly attributed to Josephus, which was probably written by the 3rd century Christian writer Hippolytus, Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades. Indeed this work is still commonly attributed to Josephus, though scholars do not acknowledge it as such.

These types of mistakes happened, but that only explains Origen's citation, what about the text from Josephus that we have today?

Well, either the phrase "who was called Christ" was an independent insertion into the text of a marginal or interlinear note, or Origen actually set the precedent and later scribes, when looking for clarity, knew of Origen's work and inserted the phrase into Josephus thinking that it was supposed to go there.

This again is not uncommon. Firstly, many scribes were familiar with many works, and it would not be uncommon for later scribes who were copying Josephus to have also read or copied Origen. Secondly, scribes were supposed to make an effort to clarify ambiguous names, or to make corrections based on other references. If they read a work that didn't have a passage that someone else had claimed that it did have, they were then supposed to try and figure out what was original and then make the correction, so if someone had read one of Origen's three works where he claimed that Josephus said that James was the brother of Jesus Christ, then when making their copies of this passage in Josephus it would have looked to them like a mistake if the phrase about Christ was not there, thus they would have added it.

So, what we can say with confidence about the "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" passage, is that the inclusion of "who was called Christ" seems very much out of place and the entire passage makes more sense when "who was called Christ" is removed. This phrase is in the middle of a passage that is discussing Jesus son of Damneus, and the passage is clear and meaningful without this phrase present. Indeed, introducing a separate Jesus that is unrelated to the story seems quite unlikely.

We also know that Origen is cited as the earliest confirmation of this passage, but Origen's reference to Josephus is highly problematic and doesn't comply with anything that we know of that has ever been written by Josephus, and it is pretty unbelievable that Josephus would have made any commentary on "James the Just", since this is just a Christian title and we have no such existing commentary on "James the Just" from Josephus. It appears that Origen somehow got his sources confused and mixed up the works of Hegesippus with Josephus, leading him to falsely attribute to Josephus a phrase that he never wrote.

This mistaken attribution by Origen then led other scribes to insert the text into Josephus at the only place where a James was mentioned as the brother of a Jesus, in a passage that is really clearly talking about a different Jesus.

With all of this we can see that there are certainly no solid independent attestations to the existence of Jesus Christ in the non-Christian literature. Modern scholarship recognizes that the Testimonium Flavianum is the only reasonably possible independent witness to Jesus Christ in the non-Christian literature, and there is nothing else aside from that one passage that could even claim to confirm his existence.

The reality, however, is that even the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be maintained as an affirmation of the existence of Jesus Christ. The Testimonium Flavianum is by far best explained as the full insertion of a later note, and this was the dominant view among Protestant scholars before the rise of the challenge to the existence of Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum has only been strongly defended as at least partly authentic within the past 100 years, which corresponds to when the challenge to the existence of Jesus emerged and became substantial. In short, the Testimonium Flavianum is strongly defended now because Christian scholars know that it is the last thread tying Jesus into history.

Additionally, the arguments related to the Testimonium Flavianum have evolved substantially since it was first challenged. The first challenge to the Testimonium Flavianum was presented by Protestant scholars who believed that it was intentionally inserted by the Catholic historian Eusebius in an attempt to misrepresent history, making the Testimonium Flavianum a product of some conspiracy. This is not likely, and not supported by the nature of the passage, but the innocent insertion of a note, believing that is was a part of the text, is both likely and fits the nature of the passage.

The development of the Jesus Myth

The question then arises, if Jesus did not exist then how did Christianity and the story of Jesus develop? This is an subject that certainly requires more research and the question cannot yet be answered in full detail, nor may it ever be, but a general outline for this development can be laid out:

1. Development of apocalyptic and Messianic traditions in Judaism from the 6th century BCE to the 1st century CE
2. Fusion of apocalyptic and Messianic Judaism with Hellenistic culture
3. Emergence of "Jesus Christ" mystery religion among Hellenistic Jews
4. Development of "flesh" based Christ theology within the mystery religion
5. Writing of allegorical Christ narrative(s?)
6. Writing of pseudo-historical Christ narratives
7. Development and defense of historical Christ theology
8. Development of post-canon dogma
9. Elimination of remaining non-historical Christ theologies

Understanding the development of Christianity of course requires an understanding of Jewish history. The Jewish people were, for most of their known history prior to Christianity (and afterwards for that matter until recent times), the oppressed subjects of other people. This had a certain effect on the character of Jewish religion and cosmology. Because of the oppressed nature of the Jews, themes of suffering, saviors, and salvation became important to their culture. Jewish culture was, at the same time, quite fragmented. The "monotheism" of the Jews actually led to quite a bit of internal conflicts and we see in the Old Testament many stories about conflicts that arose between the Jewish tribes because some group or person was not worshiping God correctly or was worshiping a different god.

Likewise, the Jews developed a very scripturally based religion, unlike many of the religions of the surrounding civilizations, which were less strict in nature. The Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, for example, have no "Bible" that we can refer to to examine their religious beliefs. These cultures didn't have strictly defined religious beliefs, their religions were instead more open and pertained more to ritual. Religion also played a larger role in Jewish culture than it did in other cultures such as the Greeks. Among the Greeks and Romans law was secular, cosmology and the natural world were understood through philosophy and science, and ethics and morality were also under the domain of philosophy. Among the Jews, however, all of these things fell under the domain of religion, as the Jewish historian Josephus noted in his work Against Apion.

Now there are innumerable differences in the particular customs and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly reduce under the following heads: Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; but our legislator had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a Theocracy, by ascribing the authority and the power to God, and by persuading all the people to have a regard to him, as the author of all the good things that were enjoyed either in common by all mankind, or by each one in particular, and of all that they themselves obtained by praying to him in their greatest difficulties. He informed them that it was impossible to escape God's observation, even in any of our outward actions, or in any of our inward thoughts.
- Against Apion; Josephus

Within Jewish literature there were traditions, or tendencies, to reinterpret older stories and to draw references to older stories when writing new stories. There was also a history of writing pseudo-prophetic literature that foretold and "fulfilled" prophecies within the same work, i.e. where the same author wrote of prophecies and then also wrote of their fulfillment. Much of Jewish history is written using prophesy after the fact, where in the telling of the history the actors in the narrative give prophecies and then the narrative plays out those prophecies.

In the 4th century BCE the Jews, who had been semi-independent for about two centuries, were conquered by the Greeks and this began the wider integration of Jewish and Hellenistic culture. From the 6th century through to the 1st century the primary residence of Jews was the region of Israel, but during this whole time Jews also spread throughout the Mediterranean. With the conquest of Alexander the Great integration of Jews into other cultures increased, and the Jewish religion became increasingly weakened through cultural competition and conversion of Jews to other religions.

This process is recoded and discussed in detail in many of the writings of the Hellenistic period, both in scriptures and secular historical documents. One example of this is recorded in the Book of 1 Maccabees, which documents the conquering of the Jews by Alexander the Great:

11: In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, "Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us."
12: This proposal pleased them,
13: and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles.
14: So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom,
15: and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.
...
41: Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people,
42: and that each should give up his customs.
43: All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion;
- 1 Maccabees written ~ 100 BCE

During the Hellenistic period a wide range of Jewish cultural practices developed, with a whole spectrum of Jewish integration into Hellenistic culture, from some Jews who completely abandoned their traditional religion and culture, to some Jews who partially adopted different religions and cultures while also maintaining some of their traditional beliefs and customs, to some Jews, mostly those living in and around Jerusalem, who maintained strict separation from other cultures and held to their traditional culture and religion. This was an issue of on-going conflict within the Jewish culture, with various Jews criticizing one another for their cultural practices. The Jews who integrated into the other cultures criticized those who did not for being obstinate and backwards, and those who didn't integrate criticized those who did for abandoning their god and their heritage.

In the 2nd century BCE, after Greek interference with Jewish religious practices, Judas Maccabees defeated the local Greek army and established an independent Jewish kingdom, known as the Hasmonean Kingdom, which was a theocracy ruled by members of the Maccabees family. This period of independence lasted less than 100 years, after which the Jews were re-conquered by the Romans and ruled as a semi-autonomous province. King Herod the Great was the first of the Rome-backed Jewish kings who presided over Judea, in concert with Roman governors.

By the 1st century CE Jews had spread throughout much of the Roman Empire, this is what is known as the Jewish diaspora. The dominant language of Jews by this time was Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.

Greek was the language that was spoken by virtually all Jews who lived outside of Judea and the surrounding area, and even many Jews in Judea knew at least some Greek. This is why, starting in the 3rd century BCE, Jews in Alexandria, Egypt began translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, a project that was completed in the 1st century BCE producing what is known as the Septuagint, so named because approximately seventy scribes worked on the translation, and legend had it that the translations of all seventy-odd scribes came out exactly the same, word-for-word, thus proving that the work was a flawless translation. In reality, however, not only was the translation flawed, but many Jews knew that it was flawed and in some cases efforts were made by Judean Jews to get some errors corrected but this did not always happen. After its publication the Septuagint became the most widely used scripture among diaspora Jews.

When the Jews were re-conquered by the Romans in the 1st century BCE, a new era of apocalyptic and Messianic literature and theology emerged.

Below is a timeline outlining some of the major events that relate to the development of Christianity. The dates that many of the written works were produced is uncertain, an in some cases the proposed dates of authorship range by more than 100 years, but best estimates based on scholarship are provided. The sources used for information on writings is: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/ and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 We have already looked at 2 Maccabees but we can review a section here again:

While she was still speaking, the young man said, 'What are you waiting for? I will not obey the king’s command, but I obey the command of the law that was given to our ancestors through Moses. But you, who have contrived all sorts of evil against the Hebrews, will certainly not escape the hands of God. For we are suffering because of our own sins. And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own slaves. But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all mortals, do not be elated in vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the children of heaven. You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God. For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of ever-flowing life, under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by trials and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.'

The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being exasperated at his scorn. So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.
- 2 Maccabees 7, ~ 100 BCE

As already noted, the killing of the seven brothers was called a "ransom for the sin of our nation". We see in this the continuing development of the theme of passion narratives and atonement for the sins of a nation through the deaths of men. We also see the expectation of an eternal afterlife.

Getting closer to the time of Christianity we have the Apocalypse of Adam. There is disagreement as to whether the Apocalypse of Adam was written before or after at advent of Christianity, but is generally acknowledged to be independent of Christian tradition, even if it were written during the 1st or 2nd century CE, though dating the work is difficult. The work was presumably written some time between the 1st century BCE and the 2nd century CE and is of a Gnostic nature.

Once again, for the third time, the illuminator of knowledge will pass by in great glory, in order to leave (something) of the seed of Noah and the sons of Ham and Japheth - to leave for himself fruit-bearing trees. And he will redeem their souls from the day of death. For the whole creation that came from the dead earth will be under the authority of death. But those who reflect upon the knowledge of the eternal God in their heart(s) will not perish. For they have not received spirit from this kingdom alone, but they have received (it) from a [...] eternal angel. [...] illuminator [...] will come upon [...] that is dead [...] of Seth. And he will perform signs and wonders in order to scorn the powers and their ruler.

Then the god of the powers will be disturbed, saying, "What is the power of this man who is higher than we?" Then he will arouse a great wrath against that man. And the glory will withdraw and dwell in holy houses which it has chosen for itself. And the powers will not see it with their eyes, nor will they see the illuminator either. Then they will punish the flesh of the man upon whom the holy spirit came.

Then the angels and all the generations of the powers will use the name in error, asking, "Where did it (the error) come from?" or "Where did the words of deception, which all the powers have failed to discover, come from?"

Now the first kingdom says of him that he came from [...]. A spirit [...] to heaven. He was nourished in the heavens. He received the glory of that one and the power. He came to the bosom of his mother. And thus he came to the water.

...

The third kingdom says of him that he came from a virgin womb. He was cast out of his city, he and his mother. He was brought to a desert place. He was nourished there. He came and received glory and strength. And thus he came to the water.

The fourth kingdom says of him that he came from a virgin. [...] Solomon sought her, he and Phersalo and Sauel and his armies, which had been sent out. Solomon himself sent his army of demons to seek out the virgin. And they did not find the one whom they sought, but the virgin who was given them. It was she whom they fetched. Solomon took her. The virgin became pregnant and gave birth to the child there. She nourished him on a border of the desert. When he had been nourished, he received glory and power from the seed from which he was begotten. And thus he came to the water.

...

But the generation without a king over it says that God chose him from all the aeons. He caused a knowledge of the undefiled one of truth to come to be in him. He said, "Out of a foreign air, from a great aeon, the great illuminator came forth. And he made the generation of those men whom he had chosen for himself shine, so that they could shine upon the whole aeon"

...

Then the peoples will cry out with a great voice, saying, "Blessed is the soul of those men because they have known God with a knowledge of the truth! They shall live forever, because they have not been corrupted by their desire, along with the angels, nor have they accomplished the works of the powers, but they have stood in his presence in a knowledge of God like light that has come forth from fire and blood.

"But we have done every deed of the powers senselessly. We have boasted in the transgression of all our works. We have cried against the God of truth because all his works [...] is eternal. These are against our spirits. For now we have known that our souls will die the death."

Then a voice came to them, saying "Micheu and Michar and Mnesinous, who are over the holy baptism and the living water, why were you crying out against the living God with lawless voices and tongues without law over them, and souls full of blood and foul deeds? You are full of works that are not of the truth, but your ways are full of joy and rejoicing. Having defiled the water of life, you have drawn it within the will of the powers to whom you have been given to serve them.

"And your thought is not like that of those men whom you persecute [...] desire [...]. Their fruit does not wither. But they will be known up to the great aeons, because the words they have kept, of the God of the aeons, were not committed to the book, nor were they written. But angelic (beings) will bring them, whom all the generations of men will not know. For they will be on a high mountain, upon a rock of truth. Therefore they will be named "The Words of Imperishability and Truth," for those who know the eternal God in wisdom of knowledge and teaching of angels forever, for he knows all things."

These are the revelations which Adam made known to Seth, his son, And his son taught his seed about them. This is the hidden knowledge of Adam, which he gave to Seth, which is the holy baptism of those who know the eternal knowledge through those born of the word and the imperishable illuminators, who came from the holy seed: Yesseus, Mazareus, Yessedekeus, the Living Water.
- Apocalypse of Adam, ~1st century BCE to 2nd century CE

This story is somewhat difficult to understand, but it is about secret knowledge that Adam gave to his son Seth. This story talks about a "god of the powers", something again similar to the "rulers" mentioned in the Pauline letters. The "illuminator of knowledge" is a man who comes into the world that has greater knowledge than the "gods", or rulers of the middle heavens. Thirteen different kingdoms, presumably of the heavens, put fourth wrong explanations for where the "illuminator of knowledge" came from, but then the story says that the "generation without a king over it", again presumably a spiritual ruler, says that the illuminator was chosen by God. The illuminator brings uncorrupted knowledge of God, which brings salvation to those men who receive this knowledge.

Whether this work was written before the supposed time of Jesus or after makes little difference, because it is clearly of an independent tradition that is not affected by Christianity, on this scholars do generally agree. It was, nevertheless, written around the same time that the Christian stories were written and shares similar themes.

We now turn to Wisdom of Solomon, written some time between the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century CE. Most scholars agree that Wisdom of Solomon was written in the 1st century BCE, just shortly before Jesus was supposedly born. Wisdom of Solomon is included in some Bibles as a deuterocanonical work. Wisdom of Solomon is deuterocanonical because it was originally written in Greek, hence it is not a part of the Hebrew Bible. In fact, the passion story of Jesus is patterned on passages in Wisdom of Solomon, as well as on passages from the protocanonical scriptures. Wisdom of Solomon states that God created life with the intention that all life be immortal, but that the wicked brought death into the world.  The work then goes on to state that those who do not believe in God live for the moment and do not believe in life after death, thus they are sinful and oppress the weak. But, says Wisdom of Solomon, the weak shall be protected by the Lord and have eternal reward.

Chapter 1:
1 Love justice, you who judge the earth; think of the LORD in goodness, and seek him in integrity of heart;
2 Because he is found by those who test him not, and he manifests himself to those who do not disbelieve him.
...
16 It was the wicked who with hands and words invited death, considered it a friend, and pined for it, and made a covenant with it, Because they deserve to be in its possession,

Chapter 2:
1 they who said among themselves, thinking not aright: "Brief and troublous is our lifetime; neither is there any remedy for man's dying, nor is anyone known to have come back from the nether world.
...
12 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15 Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways.
16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
21 These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward.
23 For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.
24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
...

Chpater 3:
1 But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.
2 They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction
3 and their going forth from us, utter destruction. But they are in peace.
4 For if before men, indeed, they be punished, yet is their hope full of immortality;
- Wisdom of Solomon; ~1st century BCE

Compare this to the passion story of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (or any Gospel). As already noted, much of the passion narrative from the Gospels is based on other scriptures as well, but here we will compare only to the Wisdom of Solomon:

Matthew 27:
22 Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus called Messiah?" They all said, "Let him be crucified!"
23 But he said, "Why? What evil has he done?" They only shouted the louder, "Let him be crucified!"
...
39 Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads
40 and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, (and) come down from the cross!"
41 Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said,
42 "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! 25 Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.
43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

As you can see the Gospel of Matthew practically quotes Wisdom of Solomon, but whereas Wisdom of Solomon is talking about a just one and son of God in general terms, the Gospels apply this narrative specifically to Jesus. The closeness of chapters 1 through 3 of Wisdom of Solomon to the Gospels has long been recognized by Christians, with early Christian apologists simply calling Wisdom of Solomon a prophesy for Jesus.

The dating and significance of the next two works that we will look at are controversial, for there is not agreement as to when they were written or their relationship to the Christian tradition. Indeed this difficultly exists because of the nature of the works. Some scholars who see Gospel themes in these works believe that they must have been written after the Gospels. These works are The Odes of Solomon and Didache.

First let's look at The Odes of Solomon, which is very difficult to date. In fact, Biblical scholars date The Odes of Solomon after the writing of the Gospels based primarily on the fact that there are similar themes in The Odes of Solomon and the Gospels and scholars assume that the only explanation can be that the Odes copied from the Gospels, but as we shall see, there are good reasons to reject this claim and actually put The Odes of Solomon before the Gospels, which could have far reaching implications for the Gospels.

The Odes of Solomon never mention the name Jesus, and several of the odes are very different from any known Christian ideas. I will present here the odes that contain seemingly Christian themes.

ODE 19:
1 A cup of milk was offered to me: and I drank it in the sweetness of the delight of the Lord. 2 The Son is the cup and He who was milked is the Father: 3 And the Holy Spirit milked Him: because His breasts were full, and it was necessary for Him that His milk should be sufficiently released; 4 And the Holy Spirit opened His bosom and mingled the milk from the two breasts of the Father and gave the mixture to the world without their knowing: 5 And they who receive in its fullness are the ones on the right hand. 6 The Spirit opened the womb of the Virgin and she received conception and brought forth; and the Virgin became a Mother with many mercies; 7 And she travailed and brought forth a Son, without incurring pain; 8 And because she was not sufficiently prepared, and she had not sought a midwife (for He brought her to bear) she brought forth, as if she were a man, of her own will; 9 And she brought Him forth openly, and acquired Him with great dignity, 10 And loved Him in His swaddling clothes and guarded Him kindly, and showed Him in Majesty. Hallelujah.

ODE 42:
1 I stretched out my hands and approached my Lord: 2 For the stretching of my hands is His sign: 2 My expansion is the outspread tree which was set up on the way of the Righteous One. 4 And I became of no account to those who did not take hold of me and I shall be with those who love me. 5 All my persecutors are dead; and they sought after me who hoped in me, because I was alive: 6 And I rose up and am with them; and I will speak by their mouths. 7 For they have despised those who persecuted them; 8 And I lifted up over them the yoke of my love; 9 Like the arm of the bridegroom over the bride, 10 So was my yoke over those that know me: 11 And as the couch that is spread in the house of the bridegroom and bride, 12 So is my love over those that believe in me. 13 And I was not rejected though I was reckoned to be so. 14 I did not perish, though they devised it against me. 13 Sheol saw me and was made miserable: 16 Death cast me up and many along with me. 17 I had gall and bitterness, and I went down with him to the utmost of his depth: 18 And the feet and the head he let go, for they were not able to endure my face: 19 And I made a congregation of living men amongst his dead men, and I spake with them by living lips: 20 Because my word shall not be void: 21 And those who had died ran towards me: and they cried and said, Son of God, have pity on us, and do with us according to thy kindness. 22 And bring us out from the bonds of darkness: and open to us the door by which we shall come out to thee. 23 For we see that our death has not touched thee. 24 Let us also be redeemed with thee: for thou art our Redeemer. 25 And I heard their voice; and my name I sealed upon their heads: 26 For they are free men and they are mine. Hallelujah.

ODE 24:
1 The Dove fluttered over the Messiah, because He was her head; and she sang over Him and her voice was heard: 2 And the inhabitants were afraid and the sojourners were moved: 3 The birds dropped their wings and all creeping things died in their holes: and the abysses were opened which had been hidden; and they cried to the Lord like women in travail: 4 And no food was given to them, because it did not belong to them; 5 And they sealed up the abysses with the seal of the Lord. And they perished, in the thought those that had existed from ancient times; 6 For they were corrupt from the beginning; and the end of their corruption was life: 7 And every one of them that was imperfect perished: for it was not possible to give them a word that they might remain: 8 And the Lord destroyed the imaginations of all them that had not the truth with them. 9 For they who in their hearts were lifted up were deficient in wisdom and so they were rejected, because the truth was not with them. 10 For the Lord disclosed His way and spread abroad His grace: and those who understood it, know His holiness. Hallelujah.

ODE 39:
1 Great rivers are the power of the Lord: 2 And they carry headlong those who despise Him: and entangle their paths: 3 And they sweep away their fords, and catch their bodies and destroy their lives. 4 For they are more swift than lightning and more rapid, and those who cross them in faith are not moved; 5 And those who walk on them without blemish shall not be afraid. 6 For the sign in them is the Lord; and the sign is the way of those who cross in the name of the Lord; 7 Put on, therefore the name of the Most High, and know Him and you shall cross without danger, for the rivers will be subject to you. 8 The Lord has bridged them by His word; and He walked and crossed them on foot: 9 And His footsteps stand firm on the water, and are not injured; they are as firm as a tree that is truly set up. 10 And the waves were lifted up on this side and on that, but the footsteps of our Lord Messiah stand firm and are not obliterated and are not defaced. 11 And a way has been appointed for those who cross after Him and for those who adhere to the course of faith in Him and worship His name.Hallelujah.
- The Odes of Solomon, ? (Most scholars say after 70 CE due to Gospel parallels)

These are the four main odes that lead scholars to date the work after the Gospels, and perhaps it was written after the Gospels, but there are serious issues to address. The most significant issue, I believe, is in relation to Ode 39. Ode 39 discusses walking on water, and Christian scholars believe that this passage must be patterned after the Gospel accounts of Jesus walking on water. Scholars who believe in the existence of Jesus presume that the story of walking on water in the Gospels was inspired by some real act Jesus performed, and thus this discussion of walking on water would have to be based on that event, it couldn't be the other way around, but let's take a closer look. Isaiah 43, from the Old Testament, reads as follows:

Isaiah 43:5-6:
"When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. ... For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;"

Read Ode 39 again. Now, Christian scholars claim that The Odes of Solomon were most likely influence by the Gospel of John, so I will compare this passage to the walking on water account from the Gospel of John, but you are free to compare it against the other Gospels as well, they compare no more favorably.

John 6:
16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17 where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18 A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19 When they had rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. 20 But he said to them, "It is I; don't be afraid." 21 Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.

22 The next day the crowd that had stayed on the opposite shore of the lake realized that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not entered it with his disciples, but that they had gone away alone. 23 Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus.

Read Ode 39 again. Clearly, if anything, the Gospel account copies from the ode, not the other way around. The ode is clearly, if anything, based on Isaiah 43, not the Gospel account. The ode talks about rivers, not a lake, and it says nothing about a boat. The passage from Isaiah says that the "Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior," is the one who is with you, and that is certainly enough of a passage to arrive at the notion of the Lord Messiah being with you. There is really no question, Ode 39 is closer to Isaiah 43 than it is to John 6 (or Mark, Matthew, or Luke). If anything, the development of this theme seems to be from Isaiah 43 to Ode 39 to the Gospels, or both the Ode and the Gospels are independently derived from Isaiah 43.

Ode 24, if post-Gospel, deviates from the Gospels and is Gnostic in nature. Ode 42 discusses the stretching out of the hands (basically in the form of a cross) and mentions a tree set upon the way of the "Righteous One", but the references are cryptic and the rest of the passage does not really comply with the Gospel accounts. Ode 19 is even more bizarre, talking about the "milking" of God's breasts and a virgin birth.

If you visit the link you will see that the linked translation contains the notes of a Christian commenter, who seems puzzled by the passages. Christians are confused by this work because they feel that it has to come after the Gospels, because they realize that the similarities to the story of Jesus are too close for this to have been written before the life of Jesus, but I would argue that the differences between the odes and the Gospels are too much for the odes to have been based on the Gospels or the Christian story, unless it were a highly different version of the Christian story.

The work never mentions the name Jesus and has no solid  tie-ins to the Gospels. I would argue that The Odes of Solomon are a possible step in the development of the Jesus Myth. The odes may well reflect a set of "pre-Jesus" ideas that later evolved and became a part of the Jesus story. That the ideas in the odes would evolve into the Jesus story seems much more likely than the Jesus story evolving into the odes. This position, however, is of course untenable to those who believe in the reliability of the Gospels.

We can now move on to another controversial work that has received even more attention, Didache. Didache is a work that was known to some of the early Christian apologists, but was later lost. A copy of Didache was rediscovered in the 19th century and the work has puzzled scholars ever since. Scholars do agree that Didacheas we have it today has had some alterations to it over time, but most also agree that there is still much original in the work as well. Most scholars call Didache the oldest non-canon piece of Christian literature, but just how old it is is disputed.

Didache contains many sayings which are similar to those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, especially in Matthew, but these sayings are not attributed to Jesus inDidache. The work is also considered highly Jewish in nature, using several Jewish themes. Didache also goes into extensive discussions about rules concerning the treatment of apostles and prophets, making no mention of disciples of Jesus, but rather apostles in general. Unlike The Odes of Solomon, however, Didache does briefly mention Jesus in two passages dealing with the ritual Thanksgiving meal.

Chapter 9:
1. Now concerning the Thanksgiving [Eucharist], thus give thanks.
2. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever.
3. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever.
4. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
5. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving [Eucharist], but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Chapter 10:
1. But after you are filled, thus give thanks:
2. We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever.
3. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name's sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us Thou freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant.
4. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory for ever.
5. Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory for ever.
6. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen.
7. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.
- The Didache, ?(Most scholars date to some time between 50 and 120 CE)

Christian scholar Burton Mack, of the Claremont School of Theology, had this to say about these passages in Didache:

The prayer of thanksgiving (eucharist) for the community meal in chapters 9 and 10 are also significant. That is because they do not contain any reference to the death of Jesus. Accustomed as we are to the memorial supper of the Christ cult and the stories of the last supper in the synoptic gospels, it has been very difficult to imagine early Christians taking meals together for any reason other than to celebrate the death of Jesus according to the Christ myth. But here in the Didache a very formalistic set of prayers is assigned to the cup and the breaking of bread without the slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The prayers of thanksgiving are for the food and drink God created for all people and the special, "spiritual" food and drink that Christians have because of Jesus. Drinking the cup symbolizes the knowledge these people have that they and Jesus are the "Holy Vine of David," which means that they "belong to Israel." Eating the bread symbolizes the knowledge these people have of the life and immortality they enjoy by belonging to the kingdom of God made known to them by Jesus, God's child. And it is serious business. No one is allowed to "eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's name" (Did. 9:5). We thus have to imagine a highly self-conscious network of congregations that thought of themselves as Christians, had developed a full complement of rituals, had much in common with other Christian groups of centrist persuasions, but continued to cultivate their roots in a Jesus movement where enlightenment ethics made much more sense than the worship of Jesus as the crucified Christ and risen son of God.
- Burton Mack; Who Wrote the New Testament

We can compare the passages from Didache to the Last Supper meal in the Gospel of Matthew to see the differences between the two:

Matthew 26:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

As with The Odes of Solomon, is it more likely that the Gospel account would evolve into what we see in Didache, or that what we see in Didache would evolve into the Gospel account? Didache is a highly Jewish work, which has sayings in it that are similar to those in the Gospels, but not attributed to Jesus, and it contains rituals that cannot conceivably be tied to the Gospel accounts of similar rituals or the Gospel story.

In Didache we again see Jesus mentioned not as a real flesh and blood entity, but as a spiritual mediator, and the eucharist ritual in Didache makes no reference either the body or blood of Jesus.

Instead the eucharist ritual talks about bread that is scattered over the land and then collected together, which actually sounds very similar to the story of the dismemberment and scattering of the body of Osiris (also symbolized by bread), which was later collected together by Isis and resurrected, though this may just be a coincidence. The eucharist rituals in Didache really defy the Gospel account of the Christian story. It's not really conceivable how these rituals could have been inspired by the life, deeds, and words of Jesus if the Gospel accounts are accurate, which is something that most Christian scholars will not consider, so they instead try to gloss over this issue or explain it away as having been written by confused people. What makes far more sense, however, is that Didache represents a step in the evolution of the Christ myth, written by a people who had no concept of a human Jesus who had been on earth, and that these types of eucharistic rituals evolved over time and developed into the rituals that we find in the Gospels, focused on the "body" and "blood" of Christ. It is important to note that a eucharist ritual was also mentioned and practiced by Paul.

Regardless of The Odes of Solomon and Didache, we have seen that there was certainly a developing body of literature and theology within Jewish culture that foreshadowed the story of Jesus Christ. The merger of these apocalyptic and Messianic ideas with the Hellenistic mystery religions could certainly have produced the movement of which Paul was a part. The letters of Paul give little indication of a "flesh and blood" Jesus, but later works, such as the Book of Hebrews, provide theological reasoning for a "flesh and blood" Jesus. The idea that real blood had to be spilled to create a covenant was introduced, and perhaps the drinking of symbolic blood and the eating of symbolic flesh within the mystery religions also contributed to the development of the need for a Jesus with real blood and real flesh.

Whether the Gospel of Mark was written with these issues in mind is not certain, but after it was written the idea of a flesh and blood Christ suddenly had a form onto which it could attach itself. Indeed, the Gospel of Mark seems to have been written as an allegorical tale, along the very same lines as the other apocalyptic and Messianic literature of the Jews. Like the other apocalyptic and Messianic stories of the Jews, the Gospel of Mark was based heavily on the scriptures, probably with no second thoughts about it, for this is how such literature was written within that culture.

The reception of the work, however, was a critical factor, because unlike other Jewish apocalyptic and Messianic literature, the Gospel of Mark was also widely read by a non-Jewish audience, the "Gentiles" who had been participating in the mystery religion. It is also important to note that most of the apocalyptic and Messianic literature prior to the Gospel of Mark was written in Semitic languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and others, while a distinguishing feature of "Christian" literature is that it was all written in Greek. Non-Jews wouldn't have had the cultural background to understand the nature of these writings, and they perhaps took it too literally, not understanding it as allegorical and based on scripture, but viewing it as real history.

Whether the Gospel of Matthew was written with the intent of portraying it as history is questionable, but is it seems that at least the Gospel of Luke was written as a historical document, even though it was based on the Gospel of Mark and other sources.

Following this, in the 2nd century defenders of the "flesh and blood" historical Jesus began to emerge, such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. These defenders of the flesh, then, immediately set out countering the beliefs of the Gnostics and others whose religious traditions were older than theirs. The defenders of the flesh immediately found themselves besieged with many different people who had completely different views of who or what "Jesus Christ" was. The four now canonical Gospels became the key documents for the defense of a flesh and blood historical Jesus and we see that theology and the Gospels are the weapons used in the defense of Jesus' humanity. Pre-Gospel evidence was never appealed to, and yet, even though the defense of the humanity of Jesus began in the 2nd century, this defense began almost as soon as the Gospels were written. In other words, the Gospels were quite new, perhaps less than 20 years old, when they became the primary go-to documents to defend the existence of Jesus. Even when Origen, wrongly it seems, turned to Josephus to defend Jesus, he was still using a source that, even if it had been accurate, would have only been produced near the end of the 1st century. The defenders of the flesh never appealed to any evidence that was actually from the time of Jesus' life, and this was within 100 to 200 years of his supposed existence.

Various dogmas that are not found in the Gospels were developed by the emerging Catholics, such as the trinity, the doctrine of "fully human and fully divine", the "Father is equal to the Son", etc., and when the Catholics came into power within the Roman State they used their power to eliminate all of the other various beliefs about Jesus Christ, passing down only the view (which it was required to believe) that Jesus Christ had come "in the flesh", suffered, died, and bodily ascended to heaven.

CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.

1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.

We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damasus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.

(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.

Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during the Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.

2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Prætorian Prefect.

Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted by Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.

(1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one who believes that Almighty God and Christ, the Son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word .... These things, indeed, do not require further proof, and should be respected.

(2) Let those who do not accept these doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.

Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Ides of January, under the Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.

...

The following is the text of the letter of the Emperor Justinian, Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus, to John, Patriarch, and most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome:

(1) Therefore, We present to Your Holiness the fact that certain infidels and persons who do not belong to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God have, like Jews and apostates, dared to dispute matters which are properly accepted, glorified, and preached by all priests in accordance with your doctrines, denying that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and that Our Lord was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Holy, Glorious, and always Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, and became a man and was crucified, and that he is one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, who are all of one substance, and who should be adored and exalted along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that he is consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with ourselves according to humanity, and susceptible of the sufferings of the flesh, but not susceptible of the same as a deity. For these persons refusing to acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, and Our Lord as one of the Holy Trinity, and of the same substance with the other persons composing it, appear to follow the evil doctrine of Nestor, who asserts that there is one Son of God according to grace, whom he styles the Word of God, and another Son whom he calls Christ.

(2) All the priests of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the most Reverend Abbots of the Holy Monasteries, acknowledging Your Holiness, and solicitous for the prosperity and unity of the Holy Churches of God, which they receive from the Apostolic See of Your Holiness, making no changes in the ecclesiastical condition which has existed up to this time, and still exists; with one voice, confess, glorify, and preach thatOur Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son and the Word of God, and that Our Lord, born of His Father before all centuries and times, Who descended from Heaven in the last days, was born of the Holy Spirit and the Holy and Glorious Virgin Mary, the Mother of God; became a man and was crucified; is of the same substance as the Holy Trinity to be adored and glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit; for we do not acknowledge any other God, Word or Christ, but one alone, and the same of like substance with the Father, in accordance with divinity, and of like substance with us in accordance with humanity, Who could suffer in the flesh, but could not suffer as a deity; and Whom, Himself perfect in divinity as well as humanity, we receive and confess as being what the Greeks call [...]. And, as the only begotten Son and Word of God was born of His Father before centuries and times existed, and as He, in later times, descended from Heaven, was born of the Holy Spirit and the Holy ever Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ having become a man, is properly and truly God. Hence we say that the Holy and Glorious Virgin Mary is properly and truly the Mother of God, not for the reason that God obtained speech and origin from her, but because in the last days He descended from Heaven, and, incarnated through Her, became a man, and was born; whom we confess and believe (as has already been stated), to be of the same substance with the Father according to deity, and of the same substance with ourselves according to humanity, whose miracles and sufferings voluntarily sustained by Him while in the flesh we acknowledge.

(3) Moreover, we recognize four Sacred Councils, that is to say, the one composed of three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers who assembled in the City of Nicea; and that of the hundred and fifty Holy Fathers who met in this Imperial City; and that of the Holy Fathers who first congregated at Ephesus; and that of the Holy Fathers who met at Chalcedony, as your Apostolic See teaches and proclaims. Hence, all priests who follow the doctrine of your Apostolic See believe, confess, and preach these things.

(4) Wherefore We have hastened to bring to the notice of Your Holiness, through the most blessed Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius (so it may not be concealed from Your Holiness), that these tenets are denied by some few wicked and judaizing monks, who have adopted the perfidious doctrines of Nestor.

(5) Therefore We request your paternal affection, that you, by your letters, inform Us and the Most Holy Bishop of this Fair City, and your brother the Patriarch, who himself has written by the same messengers to Your Holiness, eager in all things to follow the Apostolic See of Your Blessedness, in order that you may make it clear to Us that Your Holiness acknowledges all the matters which have been set forth above, and condemns the perfidy of those who, in the manner of Jews, have dared to deny the true Faith. For in this way the love of all persons for you, and the authority of your See will increase, and the unity of the Holy Church will be preserved unimpaired, when all the most blessed bishops learn through you and from those who have been dispatched by you, the true doctrines of Your Holiness. Moreover, We beg Your Blessedness to pray for Us, and to obtain the beneficence of God in Our behalf.
- The Code of Justinian; 529-534 CE

Jesus and the cast of Christian characters were humanized in the traditional manner of Greek and Roman art and the concept of the Christian God was integrated with Greek philosophy, adding concepts such as the omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience of God to the religion, and various aspects of pre-Christian culture were integrated into the religion, such as the celebration of the "birth of Jesus" on December 25th, The Birthday of the Invincible Sun.

Helios surrounded by 12 virgins, 12 disciples, and 12 signs of the zodiac

Center image showing Jesus with disciples and zodiac

Apollo with halo

Apollo with halo

Christ as the sun-god from tomb in St. Peter's Basilica, discovered in 1942

Early image of Christ with Halo as "The Good Shepherd"

Jesus performing "miracle of loaves and fishes" depicted in royal robes

"The Good Shepherd"

Zeus - 4th century BCE

Neptune

Dionysus

Jesus

Isis and Horus mosaic from The House of Dionysus

Eirene the goddess of peace holding her son Ploutos

Messalina with Britannicus - 45 CE, based on Eirene and Ploutos

Madonna and child

Diana of Ephesus shrine with blessing hands

Virgin Mary shrine with blessing hands

Diana of Ephesus with moon goddess symbol on head

Virgin Mary standing on moon goddess symbol

Hera Queen of Heaven

Mary Queen of Heaven

Pre-Christian Roman figure of angel

Greek angels of death, Hypnos (sleeping death) and Thanatos (violent death)

Archangel Michael

Christ Enthroned

Pan chasing shepherd

Pan tempting Aphrodite

Modern depiction of The Devil

Classic Roman image of Mithras killing bull

Classic Medieval Christian image of Samson killing lion