|
The usual Christian
response to those who question the historicity of Jesus is to palm off
various documents as "historical evidence" for the existence
of Jesus. They usually start with the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John. The usual claim is that these are "eyewitness accounts
of the life of Jesus made by his disciples." The reply to this argument
can be summed up in one word--pseudepigraphic. This term refers to works
of writing whose authors conceal their true identities behind the names
of legendary characters from the past. Pseudepigraphic writing was particularly
popular among the Jews during Hashmonean and Roman periods and this style
of writing was adopted by the early Christians. The canonical gospels
are not the only gospels. For example, there are
also gospels of Mary, Peter, Thomas and Philip. These four gospels
are recognized as being pseudepigraphic by both Christian and non-Christian
scholars. They provide no legitimate historical information since they
were based on rumors and belief. The existence of these obviously pseudepigraphic
gospels makes it quite reasonable to suspect that the canonical gospels
might also be pseudepigraphic. The very fact that early Christians wrote
pseudepigraphic gospels suggests that this was in fact the norm. It is
thus the missionaries' claim that the canonical gospels are not pseudepigraphic
which requires proof.
The Gospel of Mark
is written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the mythical Peter
Even in Christian
mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul and
Luke. Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100 C.E.) but after
the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., which it mentions. Most Christians
believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history
but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old
age. This is not possible since the style of language used in Mark shows
that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity
whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Indeed,
since all the other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters
from the past, Mark was probably written long after any historical
Mark (if there was one) had died.
The content of Mark
is a collection of myths and legends put together to form a continuous
narrative. There is no evidence that it was based
on any reliable historical sources. Mark was altered and edited
many times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained about the
alternative versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his
lifetime. (The
Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue
and Clement complained about their versions of Mark which told of Jesus's
homosexual exploits with young boys!)
The Gospel of Matthew
was certainly not written by the apostle Matthew. The character of Matthew
is based on the historical person named Mattai who
was a disciple of Yeishu ben Pandeira. (Yeishu,
who lived in Hashmonean times, was one of several historical people upon
whom the character Jesus is based.) The Gospel of Matthew was originally
anonymous and was only assigned the name Matthew some time during the
first half of the second century C.E. The earliest form was probably written
at more or less the same time as the Gospel of Luke (c. 100 C.E.), since
neither seems to know of the other. It was altered and edited until about
150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing with the virgin birth, were not
in the original version and the Christians in Israel of Jewish descent
preferred this earlier version. For its sources it used Mark and a collection
of teachings referred to as the Second Source (or the Q Document). The
Second Source has not survived as a separate document, but its full contents
are found in Matthew and Luke. All the teachings contained in it can be
found in Judaism. The more reasonable teachings can be found in mainstream
Judaism, while the less reasonable ones can be found in sectarian Judaism.
There is nothing in it which would require us to suppose the existence
of a real historical Jesus. Although Matthew and Luke attribute the teachings
in it to Jesus, the Epistle of James attributes them to James.
Thus
Matthew provides no historical evidence for Jesus.
The Gospel of Luke
and the book of Acts (which were two parts of a single work) were written
in the name of the Christian mythological character Luke the healer (who
was probably not an historical person but a Christian adaptation of the
Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology, Luke
was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. Luke and Acts use
Josephus's Jewish Antiquities as a reference, and so they could not
have been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul
would be either dead
or well into senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian scholars
agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written by an anonymous
Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and edited until c. 150 - 175
C.E. Besides Josephus's book, Luke and Acts also use the Gospel of Mark
and the Second Source as references. Although Josephus is considered to
be more or less reliable, the anonymous author often misread and misunderstood
Josephus and moreover, none of the information about Jesus in Luke and
Acts comes from Josephus. Thus Luke and Acts are of no historical value.
The Gospel of John
was written in the name of the apostle John the brother of James, son
of Zebedee. The author of Luke used as many sources as he could get hold
of but he was unaware of John. Thus John more than likely could not have
been written before Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently
John could not have been written by the semi-mythical character John the
Apostle who was supposed to have been killed by Herod Agrippa shortly
before his own death in 44 C.E.
(John the Apostle is apparently based on an historical disciple of the
false Messiah Theudas who was crucified by the Romans in 44 C.E. and whose
disciples were murdered.) The real author of the Gospel of John was in
fact an anonymous Christian from Ephesus in Asia Minor. The oldest surviving
fragment of John dates to c. 125 C.E. and so we can date the gospel to
c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based on stylistic considerations many scholars narrow
down the date to c. 110 - 120 C.E.
The
earliest version of John did not contain the last chapter which deals
with Jesus appearing to his disciples.
Like the other gospels,
John probably only attained its present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The
author of John used Mark sparingly and so one suspects that he did not
trust it. He either had not read Matthew and Luke or he did not trust
them since he does not use any information from them which was not found
in Mark. Most of John consists of legends with obvious underlying allegorical
interpretations and one suspects that the author never intended them to
be history. John does not contain any information from reliable historical
sources.
to
offer your comments click here >>
Discussion
Forum
|
Israel
Arab Conflict