Part 2: Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

The Gospel of Mark tells us nothing about Jesus’ birth. It begins with his baptism and then concentrates on the last week of his life. The likely reason for this omission was that devout followers of what was to become Christianity firmly believed that they lived in the “end of times” and that the end of the world was imminent. With civilization in the balance, what mattered was what Jesus said and did, not his biographical information. Thus, the Gospel of Mark hits the ground running, with Jesus’ baptism and the heavenly pronouncement that he was God’s “beloved son”.[1] But one problem with Mark’s language is that it implied that Jesus set out on his messianic journey only as a result of heavenly insights during his baptism. Many early Christians held to the position that Jesus was born to be a Messiah, so Mark’s position needed to be changed to coincide with the prevailing wisdom. Hence, some time later, both Luke (2:4-7) and Matthew (2:1) spent substantial time clarifying Jesus’ birth and his in vitro messianic future.

Both Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea (there was another Bethlehem in Galilee), but Matthew claims the family lived there while Luke claims they made the trip from Nazareth to participate in a census. The first census in Israel was in A.D. 6-7 [2], so it makes no sense to say that Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem in response to a census in 6 to 7 B.C, when the first census was more than a decade later. In fact, it makes no sense that Joseph would travel to Bethlehem at all because the census was based on the person’s residence, not his birthplace (Craveri, 1967; Perkins, 1988). Moreover, his wife was pregnant, and the journey from Galilee to Bethlehem is about 75 miles, which, in those days, would have taken a week or more. The journey would have been perilous, not only because of its length and the difficult terrain, but also because of the presence of thieves. Duquesne (1994) notes: “… travelers had also to make their way across dry, rocky, tortured country, riddled with caves which served as hide-outs for the bandits who terrorized the roads (p.11).” And in any event, even if Joseph went, he would not have been required to bring his pregnant wife, as only men were required to register (Perkins, 1988).

Indeed, the only reason to have Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem is to have Jesus fulfill the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, the least of the clans of Judah, out of you will be born for me the one who is to rule over Israel” (Micah 5:2)

“I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem, for I have chosen myself a king among his sons.”  (1 Samuel 16:1)

In other words, there was no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his “history” was made to fit into the prophecies of the Old Testament. But these prophesies referred to a person, not a place.

A careful reading of the Gospel of John shows that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. During the Festival of Booths, as Jesus was recruiting new followers, the crowd questioned his credentials. One asked: “How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?” (7:15) and Jesus replied in an extended passage to the effect that what he was teaching came from God. But when others asked: “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee [3], does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” (7: 41-42). To this question, Jesus offered no reply. Given his penchant to reply to even the most oblique questions, his omission here was telling. Had he been born in Bethlehem, Jesus probably would have said something, but he doesn’t [4]. In addition, Jesus is never referred to as “Jesus of Bethlehem”, but only as “Jesus the Nazarene”. Had he been born in Bethlehem, and given the Old Testament prophecies, surely he would have been known by the name “Jesus of Bethlehem”.

While Jesus does not specifically deny that he comes from Bethlehem, he does specifically deny that he is the “Son of David”, which is the entire basis for placing his birth in Bethlehem [5]. Jesus says: “How can the Scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David?…David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?” (Mark 12: 35-37; Matthew 22:45). In other words, if the Messiah was alive when David was alive, it was impossible for him to be David’s son.

In summary, Jesus was probably born in Galilee (possibly in the village of Bethlehem in Galilee). The two Gospels that claim he was born in Bethlehem of Judea have an agenda of proving that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, and for that reason, they misshape the truth to place him there. Jesus himself never claimed to have been born in Bethlehem, even when he was being taunted to so declare. And there is no reason to believe that he was born there
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Starting a biography at adulthood is not an exception, however. Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Achievements of the Divine Augustus) begins with Augustus (future Roman Emperor and declared God) at age 19.

[2] Schonfield, 1974, p.49

[3] This comment has a deeper meaning. To 1st Century Jews, the word Galilean was synonymous with being a zealot (Bultmann, 1925).

[4] One author (Wilson, 1992) interprets this verse as follows: “…the Fourth Gospel very specifically states that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.” (p. 75)

[5] Indeed, this denial of Davidic descent is a major bone of contention between Mark and the later Gospels. It would appear that for Mark Jesus is neither the Messiah from birth nor the Messiah from the line of David.

Part 4:  Mary was a Virgin? 

FROM SCHOLARS: 
"What escapes them [rationalists] is that the virginity of Mary is a religious belief, not a historical fact..." (Craveri, 1967, p. 25)

"There was nothing peculiar about the birth of Jesus. He was not God incarnate and no Virgin Mother bore him. The Church in its ancient zeal fathered a myth and became bound to it." (Schonfield, 1965, p. 50)

"One of the strongest arguments against the authenticity of the virgin birth is that apart from Matthew and Luke the New Testament never refers to it." (Porter, 2004, p. 69)

“According to the faith of the Church, the Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father: the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage…” (Pope Benedict, 1969, 274-275)

THE REALITY 
Everyone is familiar with the story of the “virgin birth”, but what is not so familiar is the fact that only in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew is the virgin birth postulated. Neither Mark nor John makes any mention of it at all, nor is it referenced in the rest of the New Testament. In addition, apart from its mention at the start of Luke and Matthew, Jesus’ virgin birth plays no part in his subsequent life. It is never mentioned by anyone, even though one can imagine that it would have enhanced his image and added support to the theory that he was a Messiah. Indeed, the story of the virgin birth appears as an isolated entry in both Gospels, important unto itself, but then neglected and forgotten.

There are several issues related to Mary. Was Jesus’ birth a “virgin” birth? Or is it his conception that is virginal? Was Mary a “perpetual” virgin? Let’s look at all these issues.

The so-called “virgin birth” is best described as a “virginal conception”, for It’s the conception that supposedly occurs without sexual contact, not the actual birth [1]. In any event, virgin conceptions or births are not common today, but in ancient times, especially among the famous, they were not unknown. Famous children born of a virgin include: Buddha (China), Krishna (India), Zoroaster (Persia), Adonis (Babylon), and Mithra (Syria). Among the Greeks it was even more common. For example, Alexander the Great was believed to have been conceived from a celestial thunderbolt, or to have been the result of a union between Philip’s wife Olympias and the God Jupiter who took the form of a serpent. Perseus, the Greek hero who decapitated Medusa, was born of a virgin named Danae, by the God Zeus who came to her in a golden shower [2].  Even Plato was said to be born of the union of a virgin (Amphictione) and a God (Apollo), and only after his birth did Ariston, Amphictione’s husband, have sex with her. More relevant to Jesus’ time, Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were born of a Vestal Virgin whose father was the God of War, Mars. The Roman emperor Octavian was born from the union of his mother, Atia, and the God Apollo. The Egyptian goddess Isis gave birth to Horus despite the fact that her husband, Osiris had his phallus cut off by his brother Seth[3]. Thus, virgin conceptions were quite popular at the time, although this was only in “pagan” worlds, not in the Jewish world. 

The choice to give Jesus a “virgin birth” like many of the rich and famous of his time appears to be more of a marketing ploy than a historical fact. Not only did it serve the purpose of competing with contemporaneous cults, but also the virgin birth was another in the line of prophesies (e.g., born in Bethlehem, descended from David) which Jesus was said to fulfill. In this case, the prophecy was from Isaiah (7:14) – “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Emmanuel.” [4] Unfortunately there was a mis-translation here (as in so many other places) and the original Hebrew word almah [5] ( young girl or young woman) had been mistakenly translated into the Greek parthenos (virgin) [6], so that the original prophesy did not, in fact, call for a virgin to conceive, but simply for a young woman to conceive [7]. Moreover, Isaiah was talking about an Eighth Century B.C. sign that would appear to King Ahaz during his reign. Thus, the prophecy was not only the result of an error in translation, it was also 800 years too late.

Even if the translation were correct, which it wasn’t, the use of the word “virgin” within the context of Essene marriages had a different meaning than it does today. In those days, the elite of the Essene who were allowed to procreate (this included descendants of the King David and the High Priest Zadok) went through an elaborate procedure to insure that they kept to strict purity laws even while fulfilling their marital obligations. Gardner (2001) describes it as follows:

“Three months after a betrothal ceremony, a ‘First’ Marriage’ was formalized to begin in the espousal month of September. Physical relations were allowed after that, but only in the first half of December. This was to ensure that any resultant Messianic birth occurred in the Atonement month of September. If the bride did not conceive, intimate relations were suspended until the next December [8], and so on. Once a probationary wife had conceived, a ‘Second Marriage’ was performed to legalize the wedlock. However, the bride was still regarded as an almah (young woman) until the completion of the Second Marriage which, as qualified by Flavius Josephus, was never celebrated until she was three months pregnant.” (pp. 30-31)

The exact quote from Josephus (Wars 2), on which Gardner (and Theiring) base their assessment is:

"Moreover, there is another order of Essenes, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail. However, they try their spouses for three years; and if they find that they have their natural purgations thrice, as trials that they are likely to be fruitful, they then actually marry them. But they do not use to accompany with their wives when they are with child, as a demonstration that they do not many out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity."

In the event that a woman became pregnant before the first marriage, it was said that “a Virgin had conceived”, meant as a play on words since the young woman was still legally (if not biologically) a virgin. This early pregnancy may account for the rumors, reflected in The Gospel of the Hebrews, that Jesus was in Mary’s womb for only seven [9] months. In other words, instead of being born in September as would be expected (9 months after impregnation in December), Jesus was born around July, meaning that Joseph and Mary had sex in October, when she was technically a virgin [10].

Joseph was an elite member of the Essene and Mary, chosen as his wife, was similarly highly esteemed and had been the equivalent of a nun [11] within the Essene circles [12]. These women were referred to as “virgins” in much the same way as the Greeks and Romans referred to “vestal virgins”. Thus, for Mary to conceive during this engagement period would mean that, Mary, a virgin (aka a nun) had conceived which she was still a virgin (aka during the engagement period). There was nothing supernatural about this at all. But there was a danger that the future husband could avoid the marriage, and the child, as a result, would be considered illegitimate. For a future king of the New Israel, the status as an illegitimate child could be problematic, hence the advice to Joseph from a senior member of the Essene (hence an “angel” which along with “saint” was a synonym) to go through with the first marriage as if it were the second marriage (the second marriage being one in which the woman was already pregnant) [13]. Years later, after Jesus’ death, the ascension of Jacob (aka James), Jesus’ brother and the unquestionably legitimate son of Joseph and Mary, was unchallenged.

The fact that the “virgin” birth as described above was not supernatural at all explains why there is no mention of Jesus’ birth throughout the Gospels (except the start of Luke and Matthew). Had it been supernatural or divine, the story would have followed Jesus around and been repeated. The fact that we don’t find it in the Gospels or anywhere else in the New Testament confirms that we are not dealing with anything out of the ordinary.

As indicated earlier, only Matthew and Luke postulated a virgin conception. The Gospel of John has the disciple Philip say that Jesus is the “son of Joseph” (1:45).  Paul, describing Jesus’ birth, says that “God sent his Son, born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4), using the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin).  In Romans, Paul specifically states that Jesus came “from the seed of David, according to the flesh.” (1:3) Surely Paul, the Christian master of marketing, writing before even Mark, would have promoted Jesus’ virgin birth if it had been the case.

Jesus’ natural conception is not only supported by the Gospel of John and Paul’s letters, but also the works of Cerinthus (c 100 A.D.) and Marcion (c 160 A.D.).  In addition, Jesus’ natural conception is a basic tenet of the Ebionites (“poor ones”), who were the Jerusalem based Jewish sect that emerged following Jesus’ death. James the Just, Jesus’ brother, was the head of this sect until his death, and leadership was then passed on to his brothers and then nephews. If anyone should know the true story of Jesus’ conception and birth, it would be these people. Though little survives of their texts, since they valued the oral tradition over the written one, we have extensive quotations from early Christian leaders (Irenaeus of Lyon, Eusebius of Caesarea) who complained about the Ebionites failure to believe in the virgin birth:

“Their interpretation is false, who dare to explain the Scripture thus: Behold a girl (instead of a virgin) shall conceive and bear a son. This is how the Ebionites say that Jesus is Joseph’s natural son. In saying this they destroy God’s tremendous plan for salvation…” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III 21.1)

“Those who belong to the heresy of the Ebionites affirm that Christ was born of Joseph and Mary and suppose him to be a mere man.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, XI, 17)

Thus, the sect that was founded by and led by Jesus and his family specifically argued against the virgin conception.

There is another problem with the idea of a virginal conception, and this problem occupied tens of thousands of hours of debate among Christian theologians, even to this date. If the Messiah was to be of the line of David – and Joseph was said to be of David’s line – but if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, ipso facto, Jesus would not be of the line of David, and hence, not a true Messiah. Proponents of the orthodox view claim that by marrying Mary, Joseph “adopted” Jesus and thus the child was entitled, by law, to be considered Joseph’s son. While this is true in the strict sense, It’s obvious that for the purposes of the Old Testament, the kinship was meant to be biological, not legal.

A final problem with the idea of the virgin birth/conception is that following the birth, as described in Luke (2:22), Mary undergoes the ritual purification ceremony. Had Jesus’ birth been virginal, there would be no need for Mary to be purified. Indeed, as the virgin bride of God, the thought of purification would be anathema.

In summary, the original idea of the “virgin birth” came from a mistranslation of an Old Testament prophecy, and all the supporting evidence (e.g., Mary’s ritual purification following the birth, Jesus’ descent from David through Joseph, the testimony of the Ebionites, etc.) point to a normal birth. Lest the extremely orthodox take offence at this conclusion, we can note the following comment by Pope Benedict XVI:

“According to the faith of the Church, the Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father: the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage…” (1969, 274-275)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] In the Protoevangelium of James, Mary is said to have an actual virgin birth, in which the baby Jesus is born without any change to Mary’s body. This miracle is tested by a friend of the midwife, Salome, who reaches in and certifies that Mary’s hymen is still intact, whereupon God withers her hand for having doubted.

[2] Curiously enough, the Rabbi Trypho writing in 155 to St. Justin in Rome in the 2nd Century, said: You should blush at telling the same stories as [the Greeks]…If you do not want people to say you are as mad as the Greeks, you must stop speaking [about the virgin birth].”

[3] One can easily see that the images of Isis suckling Horus are the prototypes for the Mary/Jesus art that followed.

[4] If we continue to the next verse we can see that this quote has nothing to do with Jesus. It reads – “Butter and honey shall he eat…” As far as we know, this was not Jesus’ diet, although it does resemble the diet of John the Baptist.

[5] The Hebrew word for virgin was bethula, not almah.

[6] The word originates from Parthenis, a Greek virgin who had sex with the God Apollo, giving birth to Pythagoras (ca 569 – 475 B.C.). Some authors believe that the use of the word here is a play on the word “Panthera” which was one of the names of the Roman soldier believed to been the biological father of Jesus (Yeshu, 2006)

[7] Of course, looking at that quote from Isaiah, one has to wonder why they called him Jesus and not Emmanuel, which was required to fulfill the prophecy?

[8] The December mating was meant to mimic the planting of the wheat in December, wheat being the main crop in Israel.

[9] Dionysus was also said to have been born after 7 months. The number 7 was sacred not only to the Jews, but even earlier, to the Pythagoreans, who considered 7 the number of the virgin, because it was the only one of the prime numbers (1 – 10) which could not be divided evenly into 360 (the number of degrees in a circle). Thus, the rumor that Jesus was born at 7 months may not be entirely accurate, and may be another example of the symbolism replete in the Bible. It may be true, however, that he was born earlier than expected (i.e., prior to September).

[10] Having sex prior to the specific time “…was not regarded as a serious sin in Jewish society.” (Harvey, 1970, p.19). In fact, it was commonplace among the Jews (Craveri, 1967, p. 17); more so in Judea; less common in Galilee (Spoto, 1998, p. 20)

[11] The name Mary was synonymous with “Sister”. This practice is continued even today among various sects.

[12] Note the comment in Josephus about Essene couples not having sex after the woman was pregnant matches the passage in Matthew (1:25) that Joseph and Mary refrained from sex until after Jesus was born.

[13] Thiering, 1992, pp. 44-46.

Part 6: Jesus was beaten?

CHURCH POSITION 
“Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him ‘Prophesy!’ The guards also took him over and beat him.” (Mark 14:65)

"And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And they platted a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat upon him, and took the reed and smote him on the head." (Matthew 27:28-30)

"Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment; and they came unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck him with their hands." (John 19:1-3)

SCHOLARS 
“...if Jesus suffered, it was from the taunts rather than from the blows, from the assault rather on his dignity than on his body." (Cohn, 1963, p. 202)

"The basic message transposed onto Jesus [in Mel Gibson's film "The Passion"] struck me as offensive. In this case it was something like "More pain, more gain": people have a lot of sins to atone for, so Jesus goes at it with full vigor, being beaten to a bloody pulp before our very eyes....This strikes me as at odds with how the Gospels portray Jesus' last hours, and I can't help but find the message a bit repulsive." (Ehrman, 2004, p. 187)

THE REALITY 
Mel Gibson notwithstanding, there is very little evidence that Jesus suffered from a severe beating before crucifixion. For example, Luke says that on the night before “the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him (22:63).” Matthew says that: “and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified (27:26).” John notes that Jesus was “flogged” (19:1) and that the guards were “striking him on the face (19:3).” Mark’s description is the most harsh – “some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy’. The guards also took him over and beat him (14:65).” Later, he notes: “So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified (15:15).”

Needless to say, being struck in the face, beaten, and flogged is not very gentle treatment. But the issue is not whether Jesus was beaten (which he obviously was), the issue is whether the perception that he was severely beaten (ala The Passion) is true.  In those days there were two types of instruments used to flog hapless victims – the flagella which was an ordinary leather strap, and the flagra, which was an iron chain with spikes made of iron or bone.  The more severe instrument, the flagra, was not in general use and was reserved for slaves who committed heinous crimes. Most likely Jesus would have been punished with the flagella (or strap) since there is no indication that the punishment in this case was life threatening or even that he was seriously injured as a result [1]. Indeed, the Gospel of John indicates that Jesus was “carrying the cross by himself (19:17)” which clearly implies that he was not injured, and none of the other Gospel writers who claim that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross (Luke 23:26; Mark 15:21; Matthew: 27:32), indicate that he carried the cross because Jesus was unable to do so. Moreover, while on the cross, Jesus is conscious and sufficiently self-possessed to carry on conversations with the other two victims, address his mother and inquire after her future treatment, etc. Obviously his physical punishment had not incapacitated him.

In an extensive analysis of the laws and customs surrounding the trial and death of Jesus, Israeli Supreme Court Justice Haim Cohn concluded: “if Jesus suffered, it was from the taunts rather than from the blows, from the assault rather on his dignity than on his body (p. 202).” He continues: “no dependable tradition or information exists that there were any aftereffects, wounds, or other external injury…(p. 202).”

Had Jesus’ punishment been great, the New Testament writers would surely have noted it.  For example, compare those descriptions of Jesus’ treatment with the treatment of Polycarp: “…their skin was ripped to shreds by whips, revealing the very anatomy of their flesh, down to the inner veins and arteries…(2:2).” Clearly, Jesus’ punishment did not rise to these standards. Cohn affirms this position. He notes: “…if the evangelists did not describe the pitiable condition of a scourged Jesus, it was because there was none, and that he was in fact unscathed, his outward appearance unchanged (p. 202).”

While there is no evidence that Jesus was harshly treated, there is some evidence to the contrary, that his treatment was stellar. The Gospel of Nicodemus, dated to the Fourth Century [2], claims that Pilate instructed his soldiers: “Let Jesus be brought with gentleness (I, 1-2).” Most scholars dismiss the validity of this document, as shall we, however, it is worth noting. But Cohn (1963), in his exhaustive examination of the trial of Jesus, noted: “not only were Jesus’ hands not bound to the beams of the cross, but he had not even to bear it himself [3] (p. 201).” In addition, he noted: “not only was he not divested in nakedness, but he was given his own garments when led to the place of crucifixion…[and]…the usual beatings on the way were not his portion either (p. 207).”  He concluded: “the soldiers must have taken pity on him (p. 201).”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] There are cases reported in Josephus in which a victim of flogging died during the process, although these cases were rare. As a prelude to crucifixion, flogging was designed to make the victim less likely to resist, and the extent of the flogging was left to the Roman Lictors to decide. Given Jesus’ demeanor, it undoubtedly did not call for an extensive flogging to get Jesus to be subservient.

[2] Mention of the Acts of Pilate, that constitute the bulk of the Gospel of Nicodemus, was referred to centuries earlier by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Eusebius; however, the earliest copy of the document is traditionally ascribed to 425 A.D.

[3] The normal procedure would have been to bind the hands to the cross and whip the victim while he carried the cross.

Part 8: Gospels written in 1st century?

SCHOLARS 
"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

“No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting, or engraving, no sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of these gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century.” (Waite, 1992 p. 346)

"My own impression...was that the arguments for placing the Gospels as early as the end of the first century were rather weak. I found that the respected theological scholar Helmut Koester, editor of the Harvard Theological Review, made a good case for a later date, early second century, for most of the Gospels." (Ellegard, 1999, p. 3)

The first [factor] was the evolution of a canon of New Testament writings. Although oral tradition continued to be important right up till the end of the second century, most traditions had found written form by its early decades..." (Johnson, 1976, p. 54)

"What, then, are my reasons for putting Mark as 90 instead of, with most theologians, at about 70? (Wells, 1988, p. 107)

"The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians... dates to about 200 C.E." (Ehrman, 2006, p. 60)

"...the Gnostics began to write gospels at about the same time John composed his - around 110 - 140 AD." (Dimont, 1991, p. 159)

"...by the time the Gospels came to be written in the form that we know them, the finer details of the administration in Judea [ ie., the difference between a Procurator and a Prefect] had been forgotten." (Marsh, 1975, p. 72)

"By the time of Claudius, around 46, the title...had been changed to 'procurator' and Tacitus made the mistake, in about 115, of attaching this title to Pilate." (Wroe, 1999, p. 65)

"The Epistle of Barnabas...was probably composed...between 96 and 98 CE. It shows no knowledge whatsoever of any New Testament texts...(Crossan, 1995, p. 122)."

THE REALITY 
There is so much evidence that the Gospels were written in the Second Century that it’s hard to believe that the vast majority of scholars still stick stubbornly to the belief that they are a First Century production. The earliest known Christian writings are the letters of the Apostle Paul, dated sometime between 48 and 58 A.D.; but there are no copies of these original documents [1], and there are many questions about their authenticity [2]. Some people believe that the earliest versions of the four Gospels were written between 60 A.D. (Mark) and 100 A.D. (John), but there is no proof of these early dates, and some scholars believe that all the Gospels were written after 100 A.D. (e.g., Acharya, 1999; Ellegard, 1999; Keeler, 1965; Koester, 1980; Wheless, 1990). Here is some evidence to support this theory:

The first epistle of Clement of Rome (c 64-96 A.D.), which is reasonably dated to 95 A.D., makes no mention of any of the Gospels although it does mention the epistles of Paul. This is a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
The Gospel of Luke borrows heavily from material in Josephus’ (37–100 A.D.) later works [3], especially Life and Against Apion, implying that the Gospel of Luke was not composed (much less published) until after 100 A.D., since Josephus’ later works weren’t published before 95 A.D.
None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 A.D.
Archeologically, the earliest dated portion of any gospel is a tiny fragment consisting of a few words from what could be the Gospel of John, and this dates to 125 AD (Funk & Hoover, 1993, p. 9).

The earliest allusion to any of the Gospels is from about 130 A.D. in the works of Bishop Papias, who refers to a collection of Jesus’ sayings/oracles in a Hebrew book whose author is said to be the disciple Matthew [4]. This book of sayings may refer to the lost document Q, but it obviously does not refer to the Gospel of Matthew, as we know it. Papias also mentions recollections of the disciple Peter, recorded by his secretary Mark. Though neither of these references is to what we now know as the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, they begin to suggest that some things resembling these Gospels were in circulation after 130 A.D. Yet they were certainly not very well known since other prominent Christian writings from this period do not contain any references to them (e.g., Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Exigetica, The Book of Hermas).

The first mention of the Gospels, as we know them, comes around 140 A.D. in the work of Aristides of Athens who refers to “the holy Gospel writing”. Yet we can’t be certain that these are the same Gospels. Shortly thereafter, a Christian reformer named Marcion (110–160 A.D.) broke with the traditional church over the issue of Jesus’ divinity, and set up his own church, including in its writings a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke. In 150 A.D. Justin Martyr (c 100-163 A.D.) of Rome composed the first of his two Apologies, in which he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark as “memoirs” (in the tradition of Papias 20 years earlier), but clearly not in the form of the Gospels as we know them (Waite, 1992). About 10 years later, Justin’s student, Tatian (c 110-185 A.D.), brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonized book which he called the Diatessaron, written in Tatian’s native language of Syric. And by 180 A.D. Irenaeus (c 130-202 A.D.) wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: “The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…” (3.11.7-8).

Another indication that the gospels were written in the Second Century comes from the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. Herein the inclusion of four women with "questionable" backgrounds is usually taken by scholars to be an attempt by the writers of Matthew to discount the rumors that Mary had an affair with a Roman archer. In other words, if these four women with questionable backgrounds nonetheless led exalted lives, then Mary's questionable background can be discounted too. While there is near unanimity that this is the rationale, as far as we know, rumors about Mary are a Second Century phenomenon, mentioned for the first time in Celsus, around 175 AD. Hence, any remedies to offset these rumors must also have been from the Second Century.

Continuing with the Gospel of Matthew, those writers attempted damage control again in the passage about the resurrection, in which they claimed "this story [stealing the body of Jesus from the tomb] is still told among the Jews to this day (28:15).” In fact, there are no references to this story in the literature of the First Century and only in the Second Century is it mentioned by writers such as Tertullian [c. 155 - 230] and Justin Martyr [c. 100 - 165]. So, if the writers of Matthew are writing when these rumors are “still being told”, they must be writing in the Second Century, not the First.

Or consider the Gospel of Luke. Luke goes to great lengths to tone down the apocalyptic emphasis clearly present in Mark [5]. Ehrman (1999) notes: “Luke continues to think that the end of the age is going to come in his own lifetime. But he does not seem to think that it was supposed to come in the lifetime of Jesus’ companions. Why not? Evidently because he was writing after they had died… (p. 130).” Now consider what the “lifetime of Jesus’ companions” involved. Assuming Jesus died in 36 AD and assuming that some of his followers were 12 to 15 years old at the time (a reasonable assumption, particularly considering that “boy” is often mentioned), and assuming that it wasn’t unusual for a person to live to be 60 years old in those days (some people are said to live to be 100, but that’s probably an exaggeration), it means that the boys who attended Jesus would have lived until the end of the First Century. So if the writers of the Gospel of Luke were writing after the followers of Jesus were all dead, ipso facto, they were writing at the very end of the First Century, or more likely, in the Second Century. If you narrow the definition of "followers" to refer only to the disciples, we have to consider John, son of Zedebee, who was said to have lived to be 100. If John was 30 when Jesus died, and lived another 70 years, it still places the writing of Luke into the Second Century.

A further indication that the gospels are Second Century inventions comes from a careful study of the non-Christian writings (Van Voorst, 2000). The earliest works by Thallos (55 AD), Mara bar Serapion (73 AD), Pliny the Younger (100 AD), Tacitus (116 AD), and Suetonius (120 AD) contain virtually no historical information about Jesus, despite mentions of Christ, Chrestus, etc. But starting with Lucian of Samosata (165 AD), Jesus is mentioned as a "crucified sophist" and then with Celsus (175 AD) there is a plethora of historical information. Something happened between 120 AD and 170 AD that the non-historical Jesus suddenly assumed his historical mantle. Our assumption is that the appearance of the gospels, in the early to mid Second Century, accounts for this phenomenon. Had the Gospels been circulating in the First Century, historical material about Jesus would have appeared in the works of these writers early non-Christian writers such as Thallos, Pliny, and Tacitus.

We get still another indication that the Gospels were written in the Second Century from Pilate's title, Prefect. The office of Prefect was abolished around 46 AD, 10 years after Pilate had been removed from office. In 115 AD, Tacitus made the error of referring to Pilate as a Procurator, instead of a Prefect, probably because by that time the distinction had disappeared (Wroe, 1999, p. 65). Yet the Gospels refer to Pilate as a Procurator. Had they been written shortly after Jesus' death, the writers would have known about the difference between the Prefect and Procurator, and surely would have remembered the title of the longest serving Prefect in Judea. Instead, they use the term Procurator, implying that they are using the Tacitus error or, if not, they are writing at a similar time in which they and Tacitus make the same error. This places the gospel writings into the Second Century.

Another indicator that the Gospels are Second Century inventions comes from the rabid anti-Semitism contained therein. In the very early years, Christians were all Jews. By mid First Century, if the letters of Paul are to be believed, the Gentile movement took hold, but Jews and Gentiles still got along. But it was only after the destruction of the Temple and at the end of the First Century that relationships between Christians and Jews deteriorated, illustrated by the special malediction placed in the central Jewish prayer, the Shermoneh Esrei (aka Sherman Esrei), cursing the Nazarenes and other Christian groups. Thus, the rabid anti-Semitism of the gospels is clearly a Second Century phenomenon. groups, cementing the schism between Christians and Jews. Prior to this date (approximately 90 AD), such vehement anti-Semitism would not have been expected.

Finally, our survey of the early Christian art indicates that prior to the Third Century there are almost no portraits of Jesus in any medium. Had Jesus’ life been celebrated by the gospels as early as the First Century, one would have expected any explosion of artwork in the Second Century. Instead, it is only in the Third Century that we find such an explosion, suggesting that the gospels and the celebration of Jesus’ life is a Second Century phenomenon.

To summarize – Evidence from carbon dating, language analysis (e.g., use of Pilate, rabid anti-Semitism, the allusion to rumors about Mary, etc.) and citation as well as First Century non-Christian sources, show that the Gospels were written in the Second Century. Moreover, inferences from the artwork confirm this conclusion. By 160 A.D. we know, without question, that all four gospels were in circulation, and by 180 A.D. they were considered authoritative. Yet this is more than 100 years after Jesus’ death [6].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1]The oldest copy of a letter from Paul (Galatians) is dated at approximately 200 A.D. (Ehrman, 2005, p. 60)

[2] “Of the 13 letters of Paul in the New Testament, seven are accepted as largely authentic. (Freke & Gandy, 2001, p. 233).”

[3] Schonfield (1974), p. 36-43. See also Perkins (1988), p. 229

[4] “Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could (Quoted in Wilson, 1984, p. 44).” Schonfield (1965) translates the word “sayings” as “oracles”. If we accept Schonfield’s translation, the oracles would more clearly represent an early version of the later Gospel.

[5] For example, in Mark 9:1 the Kingdom is God is described as coming “in power”, but when Luke (9:27) copies the section he deletes this phrase.

[6] Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates, however, there is an increasing number of scholars who believe the later dates are more accurate (e.g., Koester, 1980; Ellegard, 1999; Freke & Gandy, 1999). Ellegard (1999) notes that the word synagogue does not appear in 1st  Century writings (such as Paul) but does in 2nd Century texts, and that the word appears in all 4 canonical Gospels (Luke 17 times, Mark 12, Matthew 9, and John 5) thus suggesting their 2nd Century origins. He also notes that in 1st Century writings the early Christians are referred to as “saints” whereas in 2nd Century writings this usage is extremely rare. The only usage of “saint” in the canonical gospels is in Matthew (27:52), again suggesting that the Gospels were written in the 2nd Century.

Part 10: Visit from wise men?

CHURCH POSITION 
“In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem…” (Matthew 2:1)

THE REALITY 
The appearance of the Magi is only told in the Gospel of Matthew, where the Magi (from magos, a Greek word for priests of Ancient Babylon and Persia) from the East, led by a star, go in search of Jesus whom they expect is to be “the King of Jews”. They bring him gold, frankincense (used for royal ceremonies and for cleaning white linen), and myrrh (according to John’s Gospel, used in embalming Jesus). The gold and frankincense were foretold in Isaiah (60:6), the myrrh appears to be an added bonus, or may come from the Song of Solomon (3:6) or 1 Kings (10:1-13).

Although the common myth is that the Magi came to worship Jesus in his crib, the Gospel has them arrive while Jesus is a child (pais in Greek). Indeed, this is the reason that Herod orders the death of all children two years of age or under (not all infants!), since he must reckon that Jesus was born two years before the Magi arrived. Somehow the Magi were transformed into three Kings, although in the Gospel of Matthew they were neither Kings nor were there three of them! This idea came much later, in the Fifth Century, first appearing in the Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, and probably relates to a prophecy in Isaiah (60:3).

Most scholars maintain that the story of the Magi was an invention and not meant to be historical. As told by Matthew, it is another of his prophesies from the Old Testament (Hendrickx, 1984; Spong, 1992). One of the best arguments against its veracity is the fact that the Magi appear this one time and then never again. Can you imagine these wise men traveling thousands of miles to attend the birth of “the King of the Jews”, bringing costly gifts, and then disappearing, never to be heard from again? No subsequent visits? No mention by Mary of this important tribute to her and her son? No, nothing. Their abrupt disappearance suggests that they were simply literary devices, inserted into the text to make a point, and then omitted from future references.

Another issue that questions the veracity of the Magi story is the fact that they go to Herod to inquire about Jesus. If they are so smart, why don't they know where he is, and even if they need to stop and ask directions (there are no GPS at the time), why are they asking the one person who seeks to do Jesus harm? In fact, it is their questioning of Herod which sets in motion the "slaughter of the innocents."

The story of the Magi is undoubtedly a metaphor, told by the writers of Matthew to indicate that Jesus deserved recognition from birth. Matthew’s authors were probably responding to the claims that Jesus was simply a magician, and having Magi worship him at birth would indicate that he was more than a mere magician.

I know that that series of posts does not disprove Jesus' existance.  Rather, it proves the falseness of the story of Jesus as told in the bible.  So many lies, so many lies.

Ah Dude, for the first time you make admissions that your prior posts seem to have implicitly overlooked.  Good!   True, you express some authentic thoughts.  But you keep overlooking my key point.   Modern academic scholars do not recognize the truthfulness of the textual basis for many of your parallels with pagan savior figures.  So your case depends on your ability to respond by quoting these ancient texts themselves.  Why won't you directly address my critique point by point as I have addressed yours?  In any case, I have not yet posted the key positive evidence that Jesus ecisted.  That evidence  renders any discussion of the parallels irrelevant.   

But let's change the subject for a moment. Let me share my agenda for setting up this useful confrontation.  No one can rhetorically sledge hammer another into a new faith posture.  Everything ultimately depends on whether you directly experience Christ's reality and power through an experience of intimate union with Him.  But such a personal revelation is most likely to happen when one is vehemently opposed to Christ's reality!  For this and other reasons, the risen Jesus expresses a remarkable preference: "I'd prefer you to be [spiritually] hot or cold--anything but lukewarm towards me (Revelation 3:15-16)."  Why does Christ prefer seekers to be "cold" towards Him rather than "lukewarm?"  Because lukewarm believers embrace their faith for superficial reasons (e. g. church as a social club; Jesus as a useful working construct for life, but no more, etc.)  The cold make no pretensions of commitment towards Him.  But if  they eventually do convert, they make the most dedicated Christians.  St. Paul, the former anti-Christian persecutor, is a good example of this.

But let me give you a modern example of how a debate such as ours has paid great spiritual dividends.  My Dad's acquaintance, Ken, is an oil baron in Alberta, Canada and is a good friend of Alberta's former Premier.  He is an excellent debater and used to love confusing simple-minded Christians with his skeptical arguments.   After one such rhetorical triumph, he was gloating as he drove to an oil meeting in a tall office building in downtown Edmonton.  As he relived key moments of his debate, he confidently challenged Christ: "OK, Jesus, if you're for real, then let some homeless guy confront me at the revolving door of the building and cry, `Alms please!"  No one speaks like that any more.  And panhandlers were virtually unknown in this upscale part of the city.  Ken congratulated hiimself on his  insight that Jesus can't respond to such requests for verification. 

After parking, he walked towards the doorway. Out of nowhere, he was confronted by a young man dressed in a kilt like a Scotsman.  The man shouted, "Alms please!'  Annoyed, ken brushed past hiim through the revolving door.  In a couple of seconds, the significance of what had just happened suddenly dawned on him!  He raced back through the doorway and looked for the panhandler, but "the scotsman" was nowhere to be seen.  In the couple of seconds since the encounter, he had nowhere to escape Ken's gaze.  The area  was far too open. Ken's realization that "the scotsman" had dematerialized quickly led to Ken's spiritual transformation.   I could share a somewhat analogous example from my own life.

In a recent post, you mentioned that you had dreamed about Jesus, but attributed this to our debate.  You may be correct, but this illustrates the point that when we get our mental jiuces flowing about controversial spiritual issues, the unconscious can  be operating behind the scenes to engage these issues intuitively and with the imagination.  Given your paranormal orientation, we'll have to wait and see what happens.

A while ago, I badgered you to read Malachi Martin's "Hostage to the Devil."  In truth, I don't think it matters that much whether one believes in a literal devil or not.  I think you'd be more blown away by atheist Howard Storm's book, "My Descent into Death," easily the most powerful NDE book I've ever read.

Don