Response To "JesusNeverExisted.com"

Continued From Page 1

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

Would the partisans of Christ have set out deliberately to lie? Were they such barefaced charlatans that they concocted falsehoods and deceits merely to advance themselves and their designs? By their own admission, YES they were.

Not quite, as I'll show later when he presents his "evidence".

They may well have been believers, in that they held to a certain faith. On this was built the fanaticism either to die, or to kill others, for that faith. But faith absolves the believer from any fidelity to objective truth. Religious fantasy advances in small steps by which those who already ‘see a higher truth’ help the less gifted to achieve that sublime state by using various devices. In Jewish tradition, one such a device was ‘midrash’, the teasing out of new, contemporary meanings from antique, sacred texts. By such means, the scribes could resolve a current issue by interpreting what the scripture had ‘really meant’ all along. Was that a lie?

False accreditation was another much used method, common practice during antiquity. Most of the texts in both the Hebrew bible and the New Testament were forged in the names of their authors to give them ‘authority.’ This merely helped others recognise 'the higher truths' presented to them. Who could argue with Solomon, say, or Apostles of the Lord? One of the most inveterate forms of imaginative creation was the invention of sayings and whole speeches which, just as fiction-writers do today, they put entire into the mouths of the personages of whom they were writing.

The above is essentially a whole lot of opinion disguised as evidence of some sort.

Thus, in the Gospel of John, chapters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are almost one continuous verbatim monologue – all three thousand six hundred words of it ! – supposedly uttered by the godman, a truly remarkable instance of total recall by the fabled octogenarian author!

Once again, Humphreys makes an argument that is the polar opposite of that made by other Christ-mythers. Others argue that John took the words from an earlier source, such as the "Q Gospel" (which may or many not have existed). Either way, there's no reason to suppose that John was writing the monologue exclusively from memory many decades afterwords. John, or someone else, likely did jot down Jesus' words during or soon after the speech, and John used these notes to assist his memory.

The Shroud of Turin

Modern science signalled the decline in the wholesale manufacture of Christian forgeries. The freethinker Leonardo da Vinci had the last laugh on the Church when he put his own face on a fake so clever that it remained 'authentic' for five hundred years!

Humphreys can't seriously believe that da Vinci created the Shroud of Turin. While I agree that it's a fake, it first appeared in 1356, and da Vinci was born in 1452. He may have been clever, but I doubt he was creating things a century before his birth. I see that Humphreys has a page about this at http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/shroud.html. I won't respond to that site, since it's a moot issue considering that we both agree that it's a fake.

The Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus - a 5th century disciple of Bishop Martin of Tours invented the lurid story of the Neronian persecution. The Jewish historian Josephus says nothing about any "persecution" under Nero, though he is not slow to describe him as "acting like a madman" who "slew his brother, and wife, and mother, from whom his barbarity spread itself to others that were most nearly related to him; and how, at last, he was so distracted that he became an actor in the scenes, and upon the theater." (Wars, 13.1) If a bonfire of Christians had actually happened Josephus would have mentioned it – but he does not, and nor does any early Christian writer. "In reality, the Neronian persecution never occurred. It is a fiction of the Church, invented for its greater glory." (Arthur Drews, The Legend of St Peter, p63)

First of all, Josephus did write of the martyrdom of James (Jesus' brother) in Antiquities 20.9.1. And other writers such as Tacitus (a non-Christian) wrote of the persecution under Nero. Few reasonable scholars refuse to believe that Nero hated and persecuted Christians.

Humphreys then gives a few examples of forgeries by early Christians. Since he deals with this subject to a greater extent later, I'll respond to the subject later.

The most colossal blunder of the Septuagint translators, the mistranslation of the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, 7.14, allowed deceitful early Christians to concoct their infamous prophecy that somehow the ancient Jewish text presaged the miraculous birth of their own godman.

The Hebrew original says:

'Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.'

Honestly translated, the verse reads:

'Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.'

The Greek-speaking translators of Hebrew scripture (in 3rd century B.C. Alexandria) slipped up and translated 'almah' (young woman) into the Greek 'parthenos' (virgin). The Hebrew word for virgin would have been 'betulah.'

False. "Almah" is a word only used of virgins in the Old Testament, while "Betulah" is used to describe non-virgins, including a widow in Joel 1:8.

Justin ‘Martyr’, a pagan Greek from Palestine, fled to Ephesus at the time of Bar Kochbar’s revolt (132 -135 AD). He joined the growing Christian community and found himself competing with the priests of Artemis, an eternally virgin goddess. Justin successfully overcame the sentiments of established Christians and had Mary, mother of Jesus, declared a virgin, citing his Greek copy of Isaiah as 'evidence' of scriptural prescience. The Greek priest who then forged the 'Gospel according to St. Matthew' went one stage further, taking the word 'harah' – in Hebrew a past or perfect tense – and switched it into a future tense to arrive at:

'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.' (Matthew 1.23)

All this to arrive at the monstrous fiction that ancient scripture foretold of the arrival of an infant actually called Jesus!

Humphreys, or his source, merely assumes all of this. There is no evidence of a Greek priest forging Matthew's Gospel, and no evidence of Justin's deception about Mary being a virgin. And again, no one in the Bible who was declared an "Almah" was anything other than a virgin.

It should also be noted that, in this case, "Emmanuel" is a title (meaning "God With Us"), not a name.

Whether we look at the Middle Ages and the Reformation, the first centuries of the Christian era or even today, Christianity has always been a fabrication, layer set upon layer of lies and nonsense, a fraud from its very inception.

Mere opinion here.

The authors of Christianity were fond of allegory and parable. Few people have a head for pure theology. Popularising a convoluted point of theology for the unlearned by an illustrative story gets the point across. What perhaps is missed is that Christian theology is several levels deep: it uses fictional characters to tell fictional stories to make doctrinal points. Some dogmatists no doubt believed (still believe) that one day, long ago, a real whale swallowed a real Jonah. After all, Jesus supposedly said:

'For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.' (Matthew 12.40)

The whole point of Jonah was not about God’s ability to conjure up man-swallowing fish; it was that Yahweh loves even the depraved folk of Nineveh (and their cattle). The sixth century scribe who wrote Jonah used the name of a prophet mentioned in 2 Kings to make a point about the worthiness of evangelising to the heathen. He has his reluctant hero sail from Joppa and encounter a storm. Cast overboard somewhere out at sea, the big fish is a literary device to get Jonah back to Joppa, from where, more enthusiastically, he can set out again for the big, bad city of Nineveh.

The theological point could be made simply – ‘our god loves all who repent, don’t be reluctant, go and tell it to the heathen’ – but would that entertain the crowd? Simple folk of course would start to take the entertaining story as a literal truth. Then, several generations later, when the story falls into the hands of the author of Matthew – who may well believe that the Jonah story is ‘true’ – he has his own fictional Christ figure quote Jonah to give authority to a different theological point: ‘death can be conquered.’

Humphreys makes no sense here. The major theme of Jonah is, as Humphreys states, "don't be afraid to evangelize". But how does the story show that we should not be afraid to evangelize? By having God rescue Jonah from the belly of the whale, God shows us that He can get us out of seemingly impossible situations. God could have gotten Jonah to Ninevah through other means, though forcing the ship to go off course, or forcing the captain to become confused. Instead, God put Jonah into a seemingly impossible situation, then got him out of it, which enforces the "don't be afraid to evangelize" point.

Now let's look at the New Testament. One could reasonably argue that the major theme of the New Testament is "don't be afraid to evangelize" (this is the 'great commission' that Jesus gave us). But how does the New Testament show that we should not be afraid to evangelize? By having God rescue Jesus from the grave, God shows us that He can get us out of seemingly impossible situations. God could have gotten Jesus to Heaven without His having died on the cross. Instead, God put Jesus into a seemingly impossible situation (death), then got Him out of it, which enforces the "don't be afraid to evangelize" point.

So both Jonas' days in the belly of the whale, followed by his rescue - and Jesus' days in the grave, followed by his resurrection, serve as examples to make the same point, that we should not be afraid to evangelize since God is watching out for us.

I wonder why Humphreys can't see the obvious here.

Was Saint Paul an unabashed liar? From this verse in Romans it would appear so:

'For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?' (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

However in context Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say "Let us do evil, that good may come" (that is, from God's judgement). But like Paul we can "take the passage captive" to make a point.

I applaud Humphreys here for reading the situation correctly. Most non-Christians who reference this passage either accidentally or purposefully take it out of context. And he is also correct that some Christians also "take the passage captive" and use it to justify telling lies, and those who do are wrong to do so.

Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.

The word translated as "Falsehood" here is the Greek "Pseudos", which means "fiction". It can refer to a lie, or it can refer to a parable, novel, or other non-literal device. And the title as originally written says nothing about being "for the benefit of those who want to be deceived", but, fairly translated ,says "for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." It was purposely mistranslated by someone wanted to back up the translation of "pseudos" as "falsehood".

Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history:

'We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.'

(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

What about that statement implies "falsehoods"? Having a large amount of contemporary (for his time) material to choose from, he only used that which was useful for his intended audience. That's what most history writers do. Though I must again applaud Humphreys for using a real quote here, when I've seen others try to slander Eusebius by putting the following quote into his mouth" "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion". That's a false quote which Eusebius never wrote, perhaps a bastardization of the correct quote which Humphreys used.

Roger Pearse has an excellent page about the issues concerning Eusebius at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm.

John Chrysostom, fifth century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople, is another:

‘Great is the force of deceit! provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.’

(Commentary on I Cor. ix, 19; Diegesis, p. 309.)

While it is true that Chrysostom did give the above quote, Humphreys got the source wrong. Chrysostom did not do a commentary on I Corinthians ix at all. This quote actually came from Chrysostom's "Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1". Humphreys appears to be taking this from Joseph Wheless' book "Forgery in Christianity", which got the source wrong, also. The entire text of "Treatise On The Priesthood" can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-05.htm#TopOfPage.

Taking Chrysostom's quote in context, I would personally say that he was wrong, though I can understand why he believes as he does. He compares it to how physicians sometimes use deceit in treating patients, for the patients' benefit. He's clearly not talking about the kind of deception Humphreys seems to be suggesting, the whole-cloth forgery of texts.

Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened, borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god’s immutable laws became as flexible as putty.

These things Humphreys describes are the kinds of deceit that I've frequently seen Christ-mythers employ. They create deities that never existed, such as Beddru, Bremrillah, Crite, Gentaut, Ischy, and others (see my copycat site) and claim Jesus copied from them, a belief which becomes added to the beliefs of later generations of Christ-mythers. They also make up things like Horus being crucified or Krishna raising the dead, which other Christ-mythers repeat not knowing that these are not parts of the given mythology. They also "clarify" obscure points by, for example, saying that any deity with a miraculous conception is "born of a virgin", even if the mother is not a virgin, or saying that Zoroaster was "baptized in a river" when he only received a revelation while on the banks of a river. Rather than be honest and admit that such parallels are vague, they "clarify" the vagueness by saying they were "born of a virgin" or "baptized in a river", suggesting a much stronger parallel than what is true. They "invent scenarios that could have happened" by automatically giving any deity whose birthdate is unknown a birthdate of December 25th, or, as one Christ-myther recently did in a letter to me, claim that because the Egyptians don't specifically say that Isis and Osiris had sex (despite being married), Isis was probably a virgin when Horus was conceived. Do the Christ-mythers have "real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits"? Yes, many will employ any means, however dishonest, to try to convince Christians that "Jesus never existed".

The fifth and sixth centuries was the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop (and opponent of Augustine) Faustus said:

'Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them.'

I've searched several websites for the source of this quote. The earliest source I've found is the book "Diegesis" by Robert Taylor, published in 1829. Needless to say, 1400 years between the "quote" and its earliest reference makes it highly questionable. If anyone can find an earlier reference to this quote, please let me know.

In the ferocious battle for adherents, the propagandists sought to out do each other at every turn. One example: by the fifth century, four very different endings existed to Mark's gospel. Codex Bobiensis ends Mark at verse 16:8, without any post-crucifixion appearances; it lacks both the 'short conclusion' (of Jesus sending followers to 'east and west') or the 'long conclusion' – the fabulous post-death apparitions, where Jesus promises his disciples that they will be immune to snake bites and poison.

There are really only two different endings to Mark's Gospel, though we have four different ways that they are represented (some copies have no ending, some have the long ending, some have the short ending, and some have both endings). What I consider most likely (this is my opinion, but is based on the evidence I've seen) is that Mark wrote the long conclusion himself, but due to some sort of error, the last 11 verses were left off of an early copy, from which further copies were made. It is obvious that Mark's Gospel was not intended to end at 16:8, since this version ends on a conjunction, a word that it would be very odd for any long work to end on. The Gospel is also building up to a conclusion where the women would be witnesses, which occurs in the long ending only. Someone (other than Mark), seeing the oddness of the sudden ending, created their own conclusion (the short one) to fix the error. Later, someone apparently came across both conclusions and made a copy with both conclusions included. So while there are four versions, there are really only two endings, Mark's (the long one) and someone else's (the short one), and modern Bibles have used the correct ending, Mark's.

Now, this wasn't a case (as Humphreys says) of propagandists seeking to outdo each other. There's no reason to believe that whoever wrote the short conclusion was trying to improve upon the original ending, but was only trying to fix a copy which lacked the original ending.

It should be noted that not all apologists agree on the points I've made. It's possible that, for whatever reason, Mark stopped just short of finishing his Gospel (or his original ending was written, but is now completely lost), and both existing endings were written by others. There are valid arguments for this being the case, which I won't get into here (J.P. Holding discusses the evidence at this site: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html, if you are interested). But even putting a big question mark over Mark 16:9-20 and saying that no ending can be reasonably attributed to the writer of Mark 1:1 through Mark 16:8 (as Holding does, by the way), throws no points of major Christian doctrine into doubt.

Once the Church had grabbed mastery of much of Europe and the middle-east, its forgery engine went into overdrive.

'The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" … There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one … At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship." ' (Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy)

You can tell someone is desperate when they quote Acharya S.

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the tireless zealot for papal authority – he was the founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) – even wrote:

'We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.'

I'm not quite sure what Loyola meant by this - if he was just using an extreme example to make a point, or if he meant it literally. If he meant it literally, then I seriously disagree with this. For what it's worth, the writing this was taken from was one intended for Jesuit priests alone, not the public as a whole, which makes comparable to a command given to soldiers to never question orders from upper chains of command. It's not saying that all people must blindly trust the church, just those who volunteered to become subject to the church by joining the priesthood.

The Reformation may have swept away some abuses perpetrated by the priesthood but lying was not one of them. Martin Luther, in private correspondence, argued:

'What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.'--Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

Though I have several Lutherans in my family, I disagree with some of the things that Martin Luther said, this being one of them.

Notable Christian forgeries include:

Humphreys goes on to list several examples of forged Christian writings, as if he somehow expects us to be so illogical as to form doubts about the accepted writings, such as the Gospels. Does the existence of counterfeit money cause a rational person to doubt the existence of real money? Do forged "Shakespeare" plays like "Henry II" and "Rowena" cause us to question the authenticity of "Hamlet" and "Romeo And Juliet"? Not likely. Rational people know that forgeries are only created if there is something real and valuable on which they are based.

We know in graphic detail the course of the first Jewish War because – remarkably – the history recorded by Josephus somehow survived. Whereas whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians, curiously, this testimony of a Jew made it through the centuries. A subsequent work by Josephus, The Antiquity of the Jews, which iterated and extended his story of the 'chosen people' also survived.

Actually, there is no record of Christians burning any libraries except for one very small library that was burned by Emperor Theodosius in 391 (though most pre-Constantine Roman emperors were involved in censoring and burning Christian texts). Early Christians like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen, Pamphilus, Pope Alexander, Pope Agapetus, Emperor Severus, Emperor Julian, Boethius, Saint Benedict, and Eusebius all collected, studied, and/or preserved non-Christian texts. The majority of Josephus' texts likely survived because of Christians, not in spite of them.

In short, sometime in the fourth century, while most else of ancient scholarship was being thrown into bonfires, a Christian scribe – probably Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea– 'rescued' the histories of Josephus and 'doctored' them to provide convenient 'proof' that Christ had been flesh-and-blood and was neither a fiction (as pagan critics maintained) nor solely a spiritual being, as gnostics reasoned.

Actually, Eusebius was known to have extensively used the library at Caesarea, which contained many pagan philosophical and classical texts. It's mind-boggling for Humphreys to be claiming that Eusebius' sole motive in protecting the many, many volumes of Josephus' histories was to protect a single doctored passage in one book. If that was the case, why not rescue just the one volume?

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/out-of-egypt.html

At first glance, the Egyptian pantheon presents a bewildering array of gods but properly understood many deities were city or regional 'variations on a theme,' gods whose fortunes rose or fell with the outcome of human power struggles and dynastic change. Triumphant priests merged useful aspects of a fallen rival's deity with their own favoured god. This process of absorption, assimilation and adaptation continued throughout the Greek, Roman – and Christian eras.

True enough, except that Christianity itself only "borrowed" from Judaism.

In their first two centuries, the followers of Christ had no particular images of their god. Emerging as they did from Judaism they disdained "idol worship." They were even accused of being atheists. But once the break with Judaism was complete the Christ worshippers rapidly made up the deficiency by adapting for Christian use pagan images, rituals, sacred sites, and symbols.

I'll concede that Christian artists may have been influenced by other artists, but that's a far cry from the idea of the Christian story being influenced by previous stories, which is something that cannot be shown.

Though the basic Christ legend was formulated by apostate Jews (with their expectations of a conquering messiah) and pagan converts (with their fables of dying/reborn sun gods), Egypt provided Christianity with ideas NOT found in the Old Testament: immortality of the soul; judgment of the dead; reward and punishment;

All three concepts appear in Daniel 12:2-3, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever."

a triune god.

Since Jesus hadn't arrived yet, the trinity could not have been explicit in the Old Testament, but Numbers 6:24-27 does assign to God the three purposes of the Trinity :

24: The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: (The benevolence and mercy of God the Father);
25: The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: (The grace of God the Son)
26: The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. (The consolation and peace of the Holy Spirit)
(parenthetical notes are mine)

And besides that, the Egyptians did not have a "three-in-one" trinity as the Bible does.

"Without his mother Isis the child Horus could not have existed. It is in the light of this fact of Egyptian mythology that we must regard emergent Christianity's struggle, so bitterly fought at Alexandria, against what was then its most stubborn and insidious foe." – R. E. Witt (Isis in the Ancient World, p279)

The idea that the child could not have existed without its mother is hardly a "fact of Egyptian mythology", but a universal fact of nature.

Sibling rivalry (Cain and Abel?) led Seth to dismember Osiris;

Sibling rivalry is also nothing unique to mythology.

Isis personified laudable feminine virtues which she passed on to 'Mary'. Like the Blessed Virgin, Isis succoured women in labour, showed mercy to the distressed, gave a 'light' to the dying, protected sailors, guarded chastity, and assured fertility and healing.

"Like the Blessed Virgin"??? How many of those things does the Bible show Mary doing?

Isis was part of a sacred triad. The Egyptians deified so-called 'emanations' of the supreme, unknowable godhead, typically grouping them into trinities (in fact, a whole hierarchy of trinities). Thus Isis-Osiris-Horus, Amun-Re-Mut-Khons, Atum-Shu-Tefnut-Mahet, etc., etc., reigned for forty centuries, an eternal, evolving godhead. Crucially, the Egyptian priests linked the gods directly to their ruling kings:

And none of these were a "three-in-one" as are the Christian Trinity.

'Throughout the 4000 years of Egyptian history every Pharaoh was the incarnation of the youthful Horus, and therefore the son of Isis, the Goddess Mother who had suckled and reared him. At death ... as Osiris he held sway over 'Those Yonder' in the shadowy kingdom of the dead.' R. E. Witt (Isis in the Ancient World, p15)

Thus the 'Father' and 'Son' were inseparable, were of 'one essence,' the same stuff in continuous metamorphosis.The pharaohs stepped onto the trinity on Earth (as Horus) and became the heavenly element (as Osiris) after death. In the endless cycle. Isis functioned as sister, wife and mother, a sort of 'holy spirit', keeping the whole thing going.

Interesting, but it doesn't compare to Christianity at all. The followers aren't "the incarnation of Jesus" and don't hold sway over others in the afterlife. And the Christian Holy Spirit is not Mary, nor is it the machine that keeps the whole thing going (that would be God the Father).

Over time Horus absorbed the characteristics of many deities. As his cult spread north from Upper Egypt he took numerous local names. As Haroeris he became the God of Light; as Harmakhis he became the God of Dawn; As Harpakhrad he was 'Horus the child'. He succeeded to the leadership of Re by merger: Re-Horakhty.

With his new identities Horus became more fully humanised, represented on Earth first by the pharaoh and later, by the hero of the Christian myth.

The image of Horus on horse-back was unknown in Egypt before the Greek era. But the myth was ancient: Good conquers Evil.

Yes, the Egyptians and other pagans did absorb other beliefs into their belief systems. But Christianity did not (except Judaism, of course).

In the legend, Horus was baptized with water by Anubis

No, he was not. I challenge anyone to find me an example of this in any version of the Horus story from pre-Christian times.

However syncretism during the Greco-Roman period (and a distaste for animal worship) meant the god became fully humanoid, a boy child, indeed, for Isis – otherwise known as Mary.

Again, I challenge anyone to find me an example of Isis also being known as "Mary" in pre-Christian times.

The Palestinian fantasy of a Jesus Christ was already endemic in the religious milieu of Egypt when Constantine gave the Faith its seal of approval. The 'Flight to Egypt' in Matthew, was probably written into the story by the Church of Alexandria

Except that there is no evidence of it being a later addition, or we would have copies which lack it (or some other evidence, at least).

– it appears in none of the other gospels and contradicts the return to Nazareth.

What return to Nazareth? The flight to Egypt happened when Jesus was over a year old, and there's nothing in any other Gospel about Jesus "returning to Nazareth" at this period in His life.

Coptic 'tradition' has it that Jesus spent his childhood in Egypt – and that the 'Nativity' occurred in the Fayum at Ahnas (Heracleopolis Magna), which just happens to have been a cult centre for Arsaphes, son of Isis!

This appears to be a case of Egyptian religion absorbing aspects of Christianity.

In the hands of 4th century bishop Athanasius, the key aspect of the Egyptian god/human interface – "Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father" – entered Christian theology. Athanasius wrote:
"The Word, then, visited that Earth in which He was yet always present...
Coming as God and as Man... Revealing Himself, conquering Death, and restored to life."
(On the Incarnation)

The concept was in the Gospels, which definitely predated the 4th century.

Thus the religion of the Pharaohs was recast in Christian form – theology, iconology and the whole glorious paraphernalia of priestcraft.

Except that Humphreys has not established this idea at all, only showing (at best) that other religions have borrowed from Christianity.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/relics.html

On this page, Humphreys primarily argues more about non-Christian art influencing Christian art, and also about how the way Catholics worship God is similar to the way earlier non-Christians worshipped God. Since this has nothing to do with the argument that the Jesus story itself was based on earlier stories, or that Jesus never existed, I'm not going to respond to this page now. I may add something about it later (or not).

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/buddha.html

Smile of the Buddha –

"Long before the word 'missionary' came to be synonymous with Christianity" Buddhist monks ('dharma-bhanakas') were traipsing across Asia. Travelling the Silk and Spice Routes they spread their doctrines all the way from Khotan in central Asia to Antioch and Alexandria in the west.

One such visit is documented in 20 BC in Athens. A Buddhist philosopher, part of an embassy from India, made a doctrinal point by setting himself alight. His tomb became a tourist attraction and is mentioned by several historians.

Clearly, the evangelists of Buddha were committed to their cause. Is it simply coincidence that the hero of the Buddhist story – a mystic or holy man, travelling from village to village, living off the hospitality of the people, getting into trouble with the ruling elite by ignoring social status by taking food and refuge from prostitutes – is just a tad similar to the Christian superman?

Only if you look at the few things they have in common and ignore the many differences between them. I could take any two figures in history, point out what they have in common, and argue that they are a "tad similar". Besides that, Jesus was not a mere "mystic or holy man", but was God manifest (Buddha didn't even believe in God). Also, the references I'm finding suggest that Buddha (being the son of a king) was respected by the ruling elite, and I can find no references to his taking food and refuge from prostitutes. And while the Bible talks about Jesus eating with, and witnessing to, prostitutes, there is nothing about his having taken food and refuge from them.

Is it just possible that the miracles ascribed to Jesus merely mimic the tricks practiced by the 'holy men' in India?

Did the holy men of India walk on water, turn water into wine, raise the dead, etc.?

Humphreys then goes on for a while about the spread of Buddhism, without making any points about its supposed influence on Christianity.

He then shows a carving of Buddha giving "benediction to his 12 apostles". Except there is nothing in Buddhism about Buddha having 12 apostles, and he doesn't state whether this carving is pre-Christian or post-Christian. If post-Christian, the "12 apostles" would likely be influenced by Christianity.

He then makes points about Buddhism's influence on Gnosticism (a branch of Christianity, though Humphreys falsely states that Christianity as we know it emerged from Gnosticism - it was the other way around). Since those Gnostic beliefs that may or may not have been influenced by Buddhism are rejected by mainstream Christianity, and not mentioned in the Bible, this point is moot.

Where Did They Get Their Ideas From?

More than two dozen story elements borrowed from the Buddha

1. Pre-existence.

Most Christians (myself included) don't believe in pre-existence. Those who do justify it with Old Testament passages such as Jeremiah 1:5 ("Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee"). So the Christian concept, whether valid or not, stems from the Old Testament, not Buddhism.

2. Royal origin and genealogy.

Except that Buddha's "royal origin and genealogy" hardly compares to Jesus'. Buddha was the son of a king, while Jesus was only a distant descendant.

3. Virginal Conception by mother/Virgin Birth.

According to Buddha's biographer, Ashvaghosha, Buddha's parents, King of Shakyas and his wife, Maya, "tasted of love's delights" before Buddha was born, thus Buddha was certainly not born of a virgin. His conception was, per the story, miraculous, and Humphreys is apparently trying to "clarify an obscure point" (with the best of intentions, I'm sure) by calling it a "Virginal Conception", even though no virgins were involved.

4. Dream Vision.

"Dream visions" are in the Old Testament, as well.

5. White Elephant / White Dove parallel.

What parallel? In Buddhism, Maya had a vision of a six-tusked white elephant that entered her body as Buddha was conceived. This has nothing to do with the white dove in the Gospels, which appeared at Jesus' baptism and had nothing to do with His conception.

6. Annunciation to the Husband.

The nearest thing I'm finding to such an annunciation is the story that after Maya told the King about her vision of the white elephant, he consulted an astrologer, Asita (also called Kala Devala), who told them that the child would be either a great king or great religious leader. This wasn't a heavenly visitor, as was the one who visited Joseph in the New Testament.

7. Annunciation of Birth by a Woman

I'm not seeing anything in either story about Jesus or Buddha's birth being announced by a woman (the astrologer Asita was a male, by the way). If anyone has a reference for either of these, let me know.

8. Righteous foster father.

The king was not considered a "foster father" by Buddhists, but his full father.

9. Marvelous Light/Star.

I see no reference to such a light or star in the Buddha story. If anyone knows about this, let me know.

10. Angels and others at birth.

No angels at Buddha's birth, just the 108 Brahmins.

11. The Magi's´ visit

The 108 Brahmins can be compared to the Magi, I suppose, but the Brahmins visited Buddha soon after his birth, while the Magi visited Jesus at His home when He was over a year old.

12. Giving of Gifts.

It's logical to assume that, as the son of a King, Buddha was given gifts at his birth, though no texts that I've seen specifically state this. And the gifts from the Magi - gold, frankinsence and myrrh - were not (as is commonly believed) given to Jesus at his birth, but when Jesus was over a year old.

13. Presentation in the Temple.

Never happened. There was a similar incident when Buddha was 15, but it wasn't in a temple. And while Jesus' episode (when He was 12) did happen at a temple, He wasn't "presented", but just showed up on His own.

14. Infant prodigy / precocious youth.

Jesus wasn't an "infant prodigy", but showed His first signs of unusual knowledge (at least according to the Bible) when He was twelve. And many youth could be described as precocious, though I'm not seeing that either Jesus or Buddha were described as being unusually precocious.

15. Nature Miracle.

He needs to be more specific here. What "nature miracle" is Humphreys talking about?

16. The Naming Ceremony.

Again, more specific.

17. The Taming of Wild Animals.

Jesus didn't tame any wild animals.

18. The Miracles of the Bending Tree and Gushing Water.

Where is this in the Jesus story? If he means the cursing of the fig tree, it doesn't compare to anything in the Buddha story.

19. The Fall of Idols.

Buddha encouraged idolatry, and the worship of idols was abolished in Judeo/Christian faith long before Jesus' time.

20. Healing Miracles.

Yes, they did both heal through supernatural means.

21. Sage recognition - Asita / Simeon parallel

Not much of a parallel, since Asita recognized Buddha before his birth, while Simon recognized Jesus as the messiah when He was an adult, and both came to the recognition by different means (Asita through astrology, Simeon by Jesus' works).

22. Anna and Shabari/Old Women parallel.

I've seen this "comparison" mentioned in other sites, but no one says exactly what it's supposed to be, making it difficult to respond to.

23. The Appellation of King.

Again, what is the comparison supposed to be?

24. Mary / Mahâprajâpati parallel

What parallel? That they both raised Buddha/Jesus? Mary was Jesus' mother, while Mahâprajâpati was not Buddha's mother, but a foster mother. Besides the fact that they both raised the one in question (almost everyone who existed was raised by a female), there is no significant parallel that I see.

25. Fast in wilderness / temptation by the devil.

Both did fast (Jesus in the desert, Buddha in the wilderness) and were tempted while doing so. However, Buddha was not tempted by "the devil" or any Buddhist equivalent, but by Mara, one of many demons. Buddha was tempted with incestual pleasures and fear of death, while Jesus was tempted with hunger, putting God to the test, and idolatry. Besides that, the temptations of Jesus bear far more of a resemblance to the temptations of the Israelites in the book of Exodus (which predates Buddha) than they do to the temptations of Buddha, so any claim that Buddha's temptations are the basis of Jesus' temptations are ridiculous.

I would consider these two events somewhat of a coincidence, but nothing more than you'd likely find in comparing any two historical or mythological figures. See my list of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy on my main copycat page, and you'll see things far more striking than this.

26. Preparing the Way.

He needs to be more specific about the parallels if he wants me to respond.

27. Reference to Signs

Again, he needs to be more specific.

28. Offer of universal Salvation.

Buddha does not promise universal salvation. Neither does Jesus.

The conception and birth of Christ in the Gospel of Luke has an uncanny resemblance to the birth stories of Buddha.

In both cases the mother was a paragon of virtue,

Perhaps, in Maya's case, though she was not a virgin as Mary was.

had a vision

Mary did not have a vision, but was visited by an angel.

and, without sex, became pregnant with an extraordinary child.

This much is true, though, again, Maya was not a virgin and the child did have an earthly father, Maya's husband.

Each was delivered while the mother was on a journey

True, except that Mary had reached her destination (Bethlehem) while Maya was still on the journey (heading to her father's residence) when she gave birth.

and their births were both announced by angels.

Buddha's birth was not announced by angels.

After the birth of Buddha a hermit sage, who had heard the celebrations of angels, was told by them that the infant would sit on the throne of enlightenment.

I see nothing like this in any version of the story. If someone knows the source for this, let me know, please.

Younger son leaves home and squanders his inheritance on wild living; bankrupt and reduced to feeding pigs he returns home; delighted father kills the fattened calf for him. Sensible elder brother indignant and angry but father explains celebration is justified because his brother had been 'lost and is found'. (Luke 15:11-32)

Young son leaves home for distant lands. Father distraught. Years later, looking for work, son doesn't recognize his now rich father (who does recognize him). He flees. Father secretly hires him as a scavenger. Years later, dying, he tells son of his inheritance. (Lotus Sutra)

Some comparisons here, but a lot of differences, as well. And since both stories were parables, it's not unreasonable if they both were based on something from earlier.

After a meal, an innocent man Charudatta is accused of murdering the courtesan Vasantasena, and is brought to trial. The judge, admitting his incompetence to condemn a Brahmin, sends the case over to the king who condemns the man to be executed and impaled with an inscription on him.

Charudatta is then ordered to carry his cross (Sanskrit sulam) to the place of execution. Meantime, the king’s brother-in-law, who actually murdered the courtesan, buries her body under a pile of leaves. But she is found by a Buddhist monk who raises her from her 'deadly swoon.' Vasantasena then saves Charudatta from death.

Charudatta forgives his accuser, Samsthanaka, and appoints the Buddhist monk as the head of all the Buddhist monasteries in the realm. There is a marriage in the end as well: Charudatta accepts Vasantasena as his second wife.

2nd BC Sanskrit play Mrchchakatika (Little Clay Cart)

"The Little Clay Cart" was actually written in the 8th century AD by Shudraka, though it was based on "Charudatta", an original play by Bhasa which dates to the 3rd or 4th century AD. (see http://oldpoetry.com/authors/Bhasa). Which of the above details are original to Bhasa or added by Shudraka, I'm not sure, but both are clearly post-Christian.

In this story of 'Gautama, a holy man' our hero is wrongfully condemned to die on the cross for murdering the courtesan Bhadra. Gautama is impaled on a cross, and his mentor Krishna Dvapayana visits him and enters into a long dialogue, at the end of which he dies at the place of skulls after engendering two offspring – the progenitors of the Ikshavaku Dynasty.

I'm not finding anything about this story except on Christ-myth sites, suggesting that no one has ever heard of it, except for Christ-mythers. If anyone can find me an unbiased source for this, let me know.

The death episode begins for Buddha crossing the Ganges at Magadha, from whence he goes on to Kusinagari for a last meal.

The fable of Matthew (15:39) similarly has JC aboard ship, to the (unknown) "coasts of Magdala", from whence he goes on to Jerusalem for a last meal.

Magdala is where Mary Magdalen was from. It's also mentioned in the Talmud and was excavated back in the 1970's.

These two episodes don't bear a striking resemblance at all, other than two places share similar-sounding names.

2. Both Buddha and JC forecast their own death 3 times.

I'm only seeing one reference to Buddha forecasting his own death, to his disciple Ananda about three months before Buddha died. And Jesus forecast His own death 21 times, not 3 times.

3. Buddha arrives at Ku-kut-tha, JC at 'Gol ga tha'.

Wow! Two places with three syllables ending in 'tha'! What an amazing coincidence!

4. Both Buddha and JC twice refuse a drink.

The closest thing I'm seeing to this in Buddha's story is where Ananda asks Buddha to come with him to a river to drink. Buddha refuses three times (not twice), so Ananda goes by himself to fetch water for Buddha. Buddha was not refusing to drink, but was just asking that Ananda fetch the water himself.

5. Buddha dies between 2 trees, JC between 2 criminals.

And we can all see what trees and criminals have in common, such as...

6. Both promise their last convert that "today you will be in paradise."

I'm not seeing any reference to Buddha saying this.

7. Death occurs during 'darkness'.

I'm not seeing this referenced anywhere. Besides that, Jesus' death didn't occur during darkness, but a darkness passed over the land after he died.

8. A disciple of Buddha – Kas ya pas – travelling with 500 monks – encounters an unknown personage from whom he learns of the death of Buddha. Another unnamed disciple disparages the dead Buddha.

The fable of Luke has the disciple Kle o pas encounter an unknown personage on the road to Emmaus. This 'unrecognised' Jesus disparages the evident lack of faith.

In a variation of the story, the 500 Buddhist monks become Paul's 500 brethren (1 Cor. 15.6) – though Paul renders Kas ya pas as 'Cephas' (Simon Peter has his own origin in Sâri Putra, also in the Buddhist 'gospel').

I'm not seeing anything like this in the Buddha story. If anyone can find a reference, please let me know.

9. The dead Buddha is burned and its the smoke of his corpse which rises– the true "resurrection."

– From a 2nd/1st century BC play 'Samghabhedavastu' (Mahâparinirvâna sûtra)

He can't be serious about this. How does smoke rising from a corpse equal a "resurrection"?

Humphreys then shows some similarities between Essene monks and Buddhist monks. This doesn't reflect at all on whether the Jesus story borrowed from the Buddha story, so I won't bother to respond.

Close, striking parallels exist between early Buddhist texts and what Bible scholars postulate as the 'Q' material – ('Q' is shorthand for Quelle, the German for 'source'). The earliest translations of Buddhist texts into Greek date back to the time of king Asoka (3rd century BC).

It seems highly probable that the core of the body of Q material was made up of aphorisms, sayings originally ascribed to the Buddha but later attributed to Jesus. To these sayings were added mini-stories and micro-scenes to produce what became the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

That seems highly unlikely, actually, since we can only find a handful of sayings from Buddha that compare in any way to the sayings of Jesus, and even these few would be expected from anyone who said many things. If you named any two people who gave influential sayings, even if they'd never heard of each other, you'd find that some of their sayings were similar.

From the Dhammapada, Buddha's observation:
"The faults of others are more easily seen than one's own, but seeing one's own failings is difficult."

Compare to Gospel of Thomas Saying 26
"You see the mote which is in your brother's eye; but you do not see the beam which is in your own eye."

This subsequently was given a more theatrical flourish when it became Matthew 7:3
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? "

Actually, the Gospel of Thomas almost certainly came after Matthew's Gospel.

Besides that, I'm only seeing the first quote (the one attributed to Buddha) on Christ-myther sites. No Buddhist site has him saying any such thing, making its authenticity questionable. But even if Buddha actually said it, this is a general truth that any enlightened person could observe, hardly evidence that Jesus borrowed from Buddha.

From the Dhammapada:
"When a mendicant, though still young, yokes himself to the Buddha's teachings, the world is illuminated like the moon freed of clouds."

Jesus's statement:
"He who wishes to follow me must know himself and bear my yoke."

These statements hardly compare at all. They're just encouragements to follow Buddha or Jesus, with Buddha promising illumination (while Jesus is not) and Jesus requiring self-knowledge and sacrifice (while Buddha is not).

The Mûlasarvâstivâdavinaya begins with a long list of kings. This is combined with a list of the last seven Buddhas, to give three periods of “fourteen generations” and a total of 42 – an identical format to the Gospel of Matthew!

I can't find the Mûlasarvâstivâdavinaya online, so this one's hard to confirm, but it sounds like Humphreys may be playing with numbers here. Evidently the list has 35 kings, and Humphreys is adding only the last seven Buddhas (why only them?) to come up with the number he's shooting for.

The whole idea that man should care about his brother, that he should accept responsibility for society as a whole or for needy human beings in particular, clearly precedes Christianity – in Greek thought and in Buddhism.

And in the Old Testament.

The Buddha's philosophy of compassion, his vision of Dhamma, the eternal law that sustains the cosmos, manifests itself among humanity as the moral law.

The Buddha's most celebrated dictum is:

"Hostility is never conquered by hostility in this world; hostility is conquered by love. That is the eternal law."
500 Witnesses

"After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."
1 Corinthians 15:6

Buddhist tradition states that shortly after the passing away of the Buddha five hundred of his Arhats and disciples met in council at Rajagaha for the purpose of recalling to mind the truths they had heard directly from their hero during the forty-five years of his teachings.

So except for the fact that there were 500 of them, they bore nothing in common with the "500 witnesses" to Jesus' resurrection. Buddha's 500 arhats met to compose the Dharmapeda Sutra, a collection of sayings that they'd heard from Buddha while he was alive (the above quote from Buddha is Dharmapeda 1:5). Jesus' "500 witnesses" were simply those who had seen Jesus after His resurrection, not people collecting the sayings of Jesus.

The Coptic biblical text actually identifies the 500 as 'Indian Brahmans'!

I would need to see a source for this wild claim. Every source I've seen says that the Indian Brahmins' first exposure to Christianity was when the Apostle Thomas reached the Malabar coast. It's hard to believe that 500 Indian Brahmins were in the area of Jerusalem, or that Jesus' big post-resurrection appearance was in India.

In short, we find opportunity, motive, method, location and scriptural evidence, for a profound and detailed Buddhist influence in Christianity's origins. That it was so cannot be doubted.

Unless, of course, you're a reasonable person who understands that smoke rising off a corpse is not a resurrection, and that trees and criminals are not the same thing.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Mithraism.html

Eclipsed as it was in later centuries by the faith of Christ, Mithraism – or rather, its Romanised form Sol Invictus – was the first ‘universal religion’ of the Greco-Roman world.

Mithraism anticipated Christianity in all major respects bar one, and enjoyed a ‘reign’ of at least five centuries. It peaked around the year 300 AD when it became the official religion of the empire. At that time, in every town and city, in every military garrison and outpost from Syria to the Scottish frontier, was to be found a Mithraeum and officiating priests of the cult.

And as I'll show, most of the aspects of Mithraism that do compare to Christianity are aspects that showed up around the time that it peaked, about 200 years after Jesus' time.

Humphreys then gives us a history of Mithraism's career in Rome, why it succeeded (for a while) and why it failed. I have no major disagreement with anything he says here, until...

The theology of Mithraism was centred upon the dying/rising Mithra

Not hardly. The earliest references to Mithra dying at all were from the 4th century, over 300 years after Jesus. And there are no references, even post-Christian ones, to Mithra being resurrected.

Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal.

False. In the Persian version of the Mithra story, he has one disciple, Varuna. In the Roman version, he has two, Cautes and Cautopatres. The only source suggesting twelve followers seems to be an old carving of Mithra slaying a bull while 12 people watch on. That these 12 people are companions or disciples is not suggested, and besides, this carving dates to post-Christian times, so if they were meant to be disciples of some sort, they were likely influenced by Christianity, not the other way around.

He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind.

Also false. Not even in the Roman version of Mithraism did he sacrifice himself.

Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day.

Nope, not even in the Roman version did this happen.

The holy day for this sun god was, of course, Sunday;

This is true, but Sunday was appointed Mithra's day only after Christian times.

His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’

Mithra was never called any of those things.

For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles.

This much appears to be true (even of pre-Christian Mithraism), though miracles themselves date to the Old Testament for Judeo-Christians.

Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death.

Immortality was only promised to Mithra's followers in post-Christian times. The earliest reference dates to about 200 A.D.

On a Day of Judgement those already dead would be raised back to life.

Only in post-Christian times does this claim appear.

All this may surprise modern Christians but it was very familiar to the Church Fathers [See e.g. Justin, Origen, Tertullian], who filled their ‘Apologies’ with dubious rationales as to how Mithraism had anticipated the whole nine yards of Christianity centuries before the supposed arrival of Jesus – ‘diabolic mimicry by a prescient Satan’ being the standard explanation. Pagan critics were not slow to point to the truth: Christianity had simply copied the popular motifs of a competitive faith.

Notice he gives no quotes or specific references regarding the words with which Justin, Origen and Tertullian made these supposed claims. Christ-mythers never do, because the Church Fathers never made such claims.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

Josephus (c37-100 AD)

Humphreys starts out with a lengthy (and quite sound) argument against the reference to Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities 18.3.3, which says:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities 18.3.3)

Humphreys argues that Josephus would not speak so highly of Jesus and His works while still remaining a non-Christian. And he's absolutely right. However, a closer look at this passage shows us that it was written by TWO people, one a Christian, and one not a Christian. For example, it starts out calling Jesus 'a wise man' and then says 'if it be lawful to call him a man'. If the writer didn't think Jesus should be called a 'man', then why did the writer call him one? The most obvious solution is that these two phrases were written by two different people, one of whom called Jesus a 'man' and the other of whom took offense to this and noted his offense. The second writer, who noted his offense, was clearly a Christian. So who was the first writer? Our most obvious choice is Josephus himself, since the phrase 'now there was about this time' is one common to his writings. Also, the ending phrase 'and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day' also doesn't appear to be the work of a Christian writer. Some claim that the word used for 'tribe' is a derogatory one, and no Christian would have used it to describe His brethren. Also, the 'not extinct at this day' seems to be foreseeing a day when they would be extinct. Why would a Christian predict the extinction of his own faith? Yes, parts of this text were, sadly, altered after Josephus' time, but it is quite likely (though by no means a certainty) that Josephus was writing about Jesus in this passage.

And even assuming that Humphreys is right and this entire passage was a later addition, what about the other reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1?:
"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."

It's obvious that whoever wrote this passage was not a Christian. No Christian would refer to Jesus as 'the so-called Christ', nor would they add a chapter about Jesus and only give Him a brief mention. Jesus is only in this passage because it's about His brother, James. It makes no claims of Jesus' divinity, nor does it really attach any importance to Him. This is clearly part of the original text, not a Christian addition.

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

Except Josephus never refers to any of them as any sort of "messiah" or "christ", only Jesus.

Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it. Outside of this tiny paragraph, in all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

Except for Antiquities 20.9.1, which Humphreys ignores.

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians.

Just one small one was.

Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

And why save all of the volumes of Josephus' greatest works in order to protect a single reference in only one? As I showed earlier, the early church fathers were heavily involved in the compilation, preservation, and study of many non-Christian literary works. Most of what we have existed because of, not in spite of, early Christians.

Pliny the Younger (61-105 AD)

Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time. Pliny famously reports to his emperor:

'Christians ... 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. '

(Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97)

Note that Pliny is relaying what those arrested said they believed (and there is no reference here to a 'Jesus.')

True, but there's no record of any Christian ever considering anyone but Jesus to be the Christ, leaving no reason to doubt that they were talking about Jesus.

Caius Suetonius (c.69–140 AD)

Nowhere in any of Suetonius's writings does he mention 'Jesus of Nazareth.'

Suetonius did write a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 AD and of Emperor Claudius he says:

'As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.'

Jesus in Rome in 55 AD? Of course not. But the unwary can be misled by this reference.

Suetonius does not say the "Chrestus" was in Rome in 55 AD, just that he was the instigator of the disturbances. He could have instigated them any time before, even decades earlier. It's also possible that when Seutonius heard that they were doing these things on Jesus' behalf, he falsely assumed that Jesus was still alive.

'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'The Good' in Greek, It was a name used by both slaves and freemen and is attested more than eighty times in Latin inscriptions. Clearly, Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s – not to a Galilean pacifist of the 30s.

While Jesus is the most likely suspect for being "Chrestus", I agree that it's not certain that He is.

It is also said that Suetonius, in his Life of Nero, described Nero's persecution of the Christians:

'Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief ...' (16.2)

We have moved from 'rebellious Jews' to 'mischievous Christians'.

BUT WAIT A MINUTE:

Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD) ?

Would (could) Nero have made such a fine sectarian distinction – particularly since there was no identifying faith document (not a single gospel had been written)

Three of the four Gospels were likely written during this era (all but John's).

– so just what would 'Christians' have believed? Even St Paul himself makes not a single reference to 'Christians' in any of his writings.

No, but Luke's book of Acts, which was written while Paul was alive, mentioned Christians twice, and 1 Peter mentions them, also.

The idea that a nascent ‘Christianity’ immediately faced persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an utter nonsense. For one thing, it is only in the last third of the 1st century AD, that Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism.

No, they began to emerge as a separate faction during Jesus' ministry, at the end of the first third of the 1st century.

Until then they remained protected under Roman law as Jews.

This from someone who earlier argued that the idea of Jesus being given a trial was nonsense, that the Romans would certainly have just executed Him without a trial. Now he's saying that Jews were protected under Roman law. Which is it?

The irritation they caused to their more orthodox brethren meant nothing to the pagan magistrates. Says Gibbon: ‘The innocence of the first Christians was protected by ignorance and contempt; and the tribunal of the Pagan magistrate often proved the most assured refuge against the fury of the synagogue.’

This appears to be Gibbon's opinion. All evidence says that a known Christian would face persecution by Rome unless he renounced Jesus.

Early Christ-followers called themselves 'saints', 'brethren', 'Brothers of the Lord' and their critics used various names: Nazoreans, Ebionites, 'God fearers', atheists.

How many of these were used in the first century, the time frame being discussed here?

The Jewish association remained strong throughout the first century and when Christian sects got going in Rome in the second century they were identified by their rival leaders – Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcionites, etc.

So little were christ-worshippers known in the Roman world that as late as the 90s Dio Cassio refers to 'atheists' and 'those adopting Jewish manners'. Christians as a distinct group from the Jews appear only late in the 1st century, not long before the Jewish curse on heretics at the council of Jamnia (around 85 AD). The label 'Christian' itself only appears with the 2nd century Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26).

Except Acts was almost certainly written during the middle of the 1st century. Despite being a history of the early church, mostly centered around Paul, it fails to mention Paul's martyrdom in 67 A.D. or the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., both events that the author would certainly have mentioned had they already occurred, since they were central to the issue. And the phrase "Christian" was used in 1 Peter, as well. Humphreys seems to be merely assuming that the term "Christian" was a second-century invention, and rejecting the Suetonius passage based on this questionable assumption. There is no evidence that the Suetonius passage was a later addition or a Christian forgery.

Equally odd, is that Suetonius's isolated sentence appears in a section on Nero's 'good points.'

Depending on how Suetonius felt about Christians, persecution of them could be considered a 'good point'. There's no evidence that he was sympathetic to them.

It should also be noted that Suetonius does not associate punishment of the Christians with the fire that swept Rome, a crucial part of the later myth.

He wasn't being particularly specific about what "mischief" the Christians were supposedly up to.

Quite simply, the reference is a Christian forgery, added to Suetonius to backup the work of the 5th century forger Sulpicius Severus, who heavily doctored the work of another Roman historian – Tacitus – with a lurid tale of brutal persecution ('torched Christian martyrs') which immortalized Nero as the first Antichrist in the eyes of the Christian church. (The second Antichrist being the reformist Luther.)

All of this is opinion. There's no evidence of the Suetonius passage, or the Tacitus passage (even more unsympathetic to Christians), was a forgery.

Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD)

Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.

Sometime after 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race." (Book 15, chapter 44):

As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero

This is an assumption that is not supported by the evidence.

and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians.

Also an unsupported assumption. We don't know how many Christians existed during Nero's reign, but "a great crowd" is not an unlikely possibility.

'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews.

Christians were a distinct group by this time.

Humphreys also never explains why a Christian would forge a passage that is so hostile towards Christians. Tacitus calls Christianity an "abominable superstition" drawn to "depravity and filth" and accuses them of "hatred of the entire human race." Not exactly the way a Christian would describe his brethren, but obviously the words of a hater of Christians.

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths.

Considering how hostile the passage was, I can see why no Christian would want to quote it for a while.

Did the Rabbis Know Jesus?

In a most ironic twist, Christian apologists sometimes bring forward an ancient anti-Jesus slur, circulated by the rabbis, as "evidence" that their godman existed.

Of course. Even a slur is evidence of existence.

Yet the earliest rabbinic writings – for example, the Mishnah ("study") (of which the Talmuds are later commentaries) – make no reference to a "Jesus" character at all.

In the vast corpus of material the closest we get is Mishnah Yevamot 4.13 which has a very oblique reference to a 'peloni' (rabbinic Hebrew for 'so and so') but nothing more:

"Simeon ben Azzai has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written: That so and so is a bastard son of a married woman."

Humphreys left off the end of the verse, which goes on to say, "to confirm the words of Rabbi Yehoshua." (I'm only bringing this up since I make some points about it coming up)

The reference could have been to anyone.

No, it could not have. Despite its brevity, it's clearly about someone who was:

1) Well-known, particularly in Jerusalem
2) Disliked by the rabbis
3) Born to a woman who was married to a man other than his father
4) Not considered by his family to be a source of shame, despite #3.

We know that the subject was someone who was well-known, since the writer assumed that his audience knew who he was talking about. He had to have been particularly well-known in Jerusalem, since that's where the book about him was found.

We know he was disliked by the rabbis, for two reasons. One is that the author purposely avoids naming him. Even if the author was talking about someone well-known, they'd name the individual for clarification, unless he was someone so disliked that he preferred not to even write the name. Also, we see that one rabbi (Simeon ben Azzai) went to the book to get confirmation for a dirty allegation that was leveled by another rabbi (Yehoshua). That's not the kind of thing you do for someone you admire.

It's striking that he calls so-and-so "the bastard son of a married women", since bastards are almost universally born to unmarried women. The only way this makes sense is if the mother was impregnated by someone other than her husband, which was quite rare in the day since it generally involved adultery (which was punishable by death). Yet Jesus was born to a woman who was married to a man who was not Jesus' father, being one of the rare people to fulfill this odd criteria. (Of course, it should be noted that Mary was not married to Joseph when Jesus was conceived, though she was when Jesus was born)

And perhaps even more striking is that so-and-so has a book about him explaining this! This means that his being a "bastard" isn't the source of shame one would expect. If his conception truly involved an adulterous sexual affair, this fact would not be published for all to see - such a book would likely just write the easy lie that his mother's husband was his father in order to avoid controversy (and capital punishment for the mother!). It's difficult to conceive of any situation where the fact of a baby being conceived to a woman by someone other than her husband (or intended husband) would be specifically mentioned in a book, yet the Gospel of Matthew does just that!

Though difficult to date the verse could well be a rabbinic counter-stoke to Matthew's manufacture of a genealogy for JC early in the 2nd century.

It was most likely written about 100 A.D., since this would be when the older Yehoshua and the younger Simeon ben Azzai were both rabbis. Simeon ben Azzai was a disciple of Yehoshua, and Yehoshua had been a disciple of R. Yohanan ben Zakkai, who was a rabbi in Jesus' day. This would explain why Yehoshua is making the allegation without evidence - he likely heard it from Yohanan ben Zakkai. And clearly Simeon ben Azzai didn't consider the source (be it Matthew's Gospel or something else) to be a fake, since he's using it to confirm Yehoshua's allegations. A manufactured genealogy doesn't confirm anything.

A later, 2nd or 3rd century, rabbinical reference is to a magician who had led some Jews into apostasy. This is in an addendum to the Mishnah – 'Baraitha Sanhedrin 43a' – which records the hanging of a 'Yeshu' on the eve of Passover for sorcery. It also adds that he had 5 disciples – Mattai, Naqai, Netzer, Buni and Todah – not exactly the familiar names!

Three of them are, actually. Mattai and Todah are variations of Matthew and Thaddeus, two of the apostles. And Naqai is a variation on Nicodemus, also a disciple (though not an apostle). Netzer and Buni could have been other disciples not mentioned in the Gospels whose names somehow got passed down to the rabbis through texts we no longer have, or through word of mouth. Okay, I won't say for certain that they're talking about Jesus of Nazareth here, but it's quite likely. Having been passed down for roughly 200 years to only a brief mention, details could have gotten muddled.

The 3rd century Tosefta (another supplementary commentary on the Oral Law, even later than the Mishnah) tells of an attempt to invoke the name of 'Yeshu ben Pandira' to cure a rabbi of a snake bite (Chullin 2:23).

There was a persistent claim that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pandira, so this is likely a reference to Jesus.

Both Talmuds are 'late' constructions: the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the early 5th century AD and the Talmud of Babylon was compiled during the 6th century. By this date the only source of information about Jesus available to the rabbis was the Christians themselves!

We have no idea what sources were available to the rabbis, but it likely was not the Christians themselves, since by this time, the Bible as we know it was compiled and was the official source for information on Jesus, just as it is today. Had they taken their information from the Bible (or from those who got their information from the Bible), they would have gotten the names of the Apostles right and not made any reference to "Pandira", who is never mentioned in the Bible. Whatever their sources were, the sources have since been lost to time.

According to Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a, JC is apparently the son of an adulterous hairdresser ('Miriam Megaddela') and is executed in Lud. Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a, has the magician Jesus worshipping a brick during the 1st century BC reign of John Hyrcanus.

These also appear to be bastardizations of the Jesus story, with some details matching, some not. Since the authors were not followers of Jesus, they would not be concerned with getting the story right and would likely not have gotten the stories from Christians, but from people who got the two Mary's (Mary Magdelene/Megaddela or Jesus' mother Mary) confused, or who would make up slanderous stories about brick worship.

If the 3rd century Church Father Origen is to believed (Contra Celsum 1.28) Celsus, the pagan opponent of Christianity, writing in the late 2nd century, had heard from Jewish sources the scandalous rumour that the Christian hero was the result of an illicit affair between Miriam, a young Jewess, and a Roman trooper called 'Pantheras.' The woman had been driven off by her husband when he discovered she had got herself pregnant by a soldier of the occupying power.

One could hardly conceive of a more disreputable pedigree for a would-be Jewish Messiah!

Yes, this was an awful rumor going around (Pantheras is another version of Pandira). We frequently see opponents of a much-loved figure making up nasty stories about them. It still happens to Jesus (and other beloved figures) today.

Which of course reveals the whole point of the slur: to damn the iconic figure held high by apostate Jews who, together with their gentile converts, now formed the rival Christians. In comparison, denying that the hero figure had existed would have appeared weak and conveyed none of the scurrilous insult of a bastardised racial impurity.

Also, not enough time had passed since Jesus walked the Earth for anyone's claim of Jesus' non-existence to be taken seriously. If something is known to have happened, time must pass before someone can claim it didn't happen. I've seen people argue that the Jewish Holocaust of the 1930's and 1940's never happened, yet no one was able to argue it until just about ten years ago, if I recall correctly. Prior to that, the memories were too fresh for too many people.

The rumour probably originated among the rabbis shortly after the Christians invented their nativity story, in the late 130s.

"Invented" or not, the nativity story clearly dates to the first century.

To send me any comments or corrections, Contact me