THE FABRICATION OF THE CHRIST MYTH

Copyright 1999 by Harold Leidner.

Book and Cover Design Copyright Marc S.A. Glasgow.

Published by arrangement with the author.

Survey Books
PO B OX 2365
Tampa, FL 33601-2365

Notice of Rights:
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be transmitted, repro
duced, scanned, or stored as data by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior
written permission of the copyright holder, except as provided for
by the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information on getting
permission for reprints and excerpts, please contact Survey Books
Permissions Department.

ISBN 0-9677901-0-7

098765432 1

Printed and bound in the United States of America

THE FABRICATION OF THE CHRIST MYTH

By

Harold Leidner
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1. Too Many Jesuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

2. The Alternate Savior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .29
3. The Jerusalem Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
4. The Hellenic Diaspora . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5 . Jesus and the Exodus Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6. Jesus and the Fall of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .83
7. The Death of the Savior ..... . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 95.

8. A Chronology for Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

9. Paul and the Jerusalem Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
10. Judaism after the Fall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
11. The Primary Christian Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
12. From Proof Text to Gospel Episode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
13 . Gospel Errors . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
14. The Gospel and Joshua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
15. Further Duplications to Joshua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
16. The Development of the Passion Narrative . ... . . . . . 219
17. The Alexandrian Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
18. The Alexandrian Passion Begins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
19. The Alexandrian Passion in Full Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
20. The Alexandrian Passion Concludes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
21. Josephus and the James Passage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
22. Josephus and the Testimonium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
23. Celsus and Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 09
24. New Testament Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
25. Skeptical Studies . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 333
26. The Theologian-Apologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . 349
27. Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Subject Index
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
 INTRODUCTION

Macbeth: I drink to the general joy of the whole table ...

[Enter the ghost of Banquo] Avaunt! And quit my sight! Let

the earth hide thee !
Macbeth, Act 3, Sc.4.

As Christianity celebrates its bimillennium with much pomp and

festivity, dissenting voices may be heard. Perchance the ghosts of
vanished sects and religions, obliterated and replaced by Christianity,
may appear at the banquet table. Christianity, which claims to have
rescued mankind from darkness with the new religion of love, has
done so at the cost of many hundreds of these lost creeds. Thus the
Theodosian Code, dating from the period AD 325 - 450, placed thirty
six heresies under the ban, added pagan temples, magicians and
astrologers to the ban, plus harshest penalties against Jews and
Samaritans.
Concerning this Code one scholar writes:

"As for heretics, they received the particular compliment of

over a hundred laws in the Theodosian Code, declaring illegal
their beliefs, meetings, proselytizing, ownership of property,
and very existence. " 1

The dissenters named in the Code stand in clear opposition to the

Christian claims, and presumably could give alternate statements as to
Christian origins and development. A rather large body of evidence
can be found in support of the dissenters. Rather than a class action for
all of them, we present a statement for the earliest and most prominent
of these dissenters - namely the Jewish authorities. The central drama
of the gospels is the passion narrative, which deals with the arrest, trial
and crucifixion of Jesus. In these gospels the Jewish authorities play a

I NTRODUCTION 1 1
major role, which raises the questions of moral and historical respon
sibility. These gospels charge, in the sharpest possible terms, that these
authorities brought about the death of an innocent man. This makes
them the most obvious of targets. Conversely, if they are proved
innocent of the charge, then they have in effect vindicated all the other
dissenters. They have disproved the maj or elements in the story.
Raymond Brown discusses the issues involved in his massively
researched two-volume study, The Death of the Messiah, which was
published in 1994. Using the careful language of post-Vatican II,
Brown writes:

"When the Jewish, Christian and pagan evidence is assembled,

the involvement of Jews in the death of Jesus approaches
certainty. . . Given the conclusion just reached, the issues of
responsibility and guilt are inevitable. Reading the Gospels
will convince most that at least, although troublesome, Jesus
was a sincere religious figure who taught truth and helped
many, and that therefore crucifying him was a great injus
tice . . . No matter what [salvationist] good came out of the
death of Jesus, some human beings put him to death and the
issue of their responsibility and/ or guilt remains . . .
Accordingly I think it is required of me to discuss the ways,
some of them strongly anti-Jewish, in which the Gospels have
discussed the Jewish role in the death of Jesus . . . "2

Other writers have been more vehement and more specific. Another
conservative Catholic writer, Josef Blinzler, whose book The Trial of
jesus appeared in 195 5 (pre-Vatican II), writes:

"Anyone who undertakes to assess the trial of Jesus as a histor

ical and legal event, reconstructing it from the gospel
narratives of the passion, must come to the same conclusion
that the early Christian preachers did, namely, that the main
responsibility rests on the Jewish side . . . His enemies were not
concerned for the law, or even for a false concept of the law,
but were aiming at the destruction of Jesus at any price . . . It
was a judicial murder. "3

12 I NT R O D U C T I O N
 The charge is echoed by a third Catholic clergyman, this one belong
ing to the liberal wing. Hans Kung, in his book On Being a Christian
- first published in 1 974 - writes:

"What all the (gospel) evangelists make absolutely clear is that

Jesus was innocently condemned . . . It is clearly established as
an indisputable fact that Jesus was handed over by the Jewish
authorities to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate . . . He
a esus) was murdered. "4

Again, there is the clear inference of "responsibility and guilt" on the

Jewish side.
The ringleader of the affair is declared to be the high priest Caiaphas,
who, according to the gospel accounts, presided over the Sanhedrin
hearing that condemned Jesus. But while we are on the topic of "great
injustice" we may note that Caiaphas and his associates have never had
the small courtesy of a day in court, the chance to cross-examine their
accusers and the chance to examine the evidence - rights given to war
criminals and to serial killers. Present-day Jews have been exonerated
by the Vatican from alleged participation in the alleged crime against
the alleged Jesus, but this makes the guilt of Caiaphas and his associ
ates all the more damnable.
We know nothing of Caiaphas beyond the gospel accounts. Our
main source, the Jewish historian Josephus, gives a terse half-line to his
appointment, and another half-line to his dismissal - and that is all.
Josephus records that the Roman consul Valerius Gratus "entrusted
the office of high priest to Simon, the son of Camith. This person held
the office for not more than a year and was succeeded by Joseph, who
was called Caiaphas. "5
The entry was dated AD 1 8 by our calendar. Eighteen years later, the
Roman consul Vitellius "removed from his sacred office the high priest
Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, and appointed in his stead Jonathan son of
Ananus." 6
The passage was dated AD 36. That is all we know about him. Nor
do we have any information as to the others allegedly involved. Where
is the presumption of innocence ?

I NTRODUCTION 13
 While there is much outrage against these individuals, no one seems
to know what they did or did not do. Anthony Saldarini writes:

"Scholars have been unable to determine exactly what charges

were brought against Jesus, the legality of the hearings or
trials before the Jewish council in Jerusalem and the Roman
governor Pilate, and the real reason for their verdicts. Since
the gospel accounts are highly charged defenses of Jesus'
innocence, they attack, rather than coolly assess, the motives
of Jesus' opponents. Modern attempts to write a historically
reliable account of why Jesus was executed depend substan
tially on how one reconstructs the historical Jesus."7

Thus the innumerable "lives of Jesus" each give the author's guess
work as to what happened, each version differing from the others, but
all leaving Caiaphas firmly strapped to the electric chair. In reply to
this chaos of accusations the present work is submitted as an amicus
curiae brief in support of the Jewish leaders. It will give them their day
in court, to which they are fully entitled. We will submit evidence in
support of the following statements and premises:

1 . The gospel story is an artificial, non-historical work. It has been

fabricated from source materials that can be identified and traced
to their incorporation into the gospels. There is not a particle of
hard evidence that "Jesus of Nazareth" ever existed. No detail of
the story has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, and there
is much dispute over what took place.

2. In particular, the passion sequence, dealing with the arrest, trial

and crucifixion of Jesus, is a contrived and synthetic work. All the
elements and individual episodes can be traced to source
documents that have been rearranged, edited, and radically chris
tianized.

3. An alternate explanation can be provided for Christian origins and

for early Christianity. Ordinarily the defendant is not required to
solve the case and explain how it all happened. It is for the prose-

14 I N T R O D U CT I O N
 cution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Here the
errors, contradictions, divergences and impossibilities in the four
gospel accounts, with clear evidence of fabrication, would soon
demolish the case in a present-day courtroom. However the
enormous facade of prestige, authority and invincibility that
Christianity has acquired over the centuries makes it necessary
that we use the approach of "solving the case" with our alternate
version. This will comprise the main content of the present work.

4. The opening chapters will deal with the founding and early
history of the Jerusalem church, and then with the career of the
apostle Paul. Here the "historical Jesus " plays no part in the story.
The Christian churches appear at a later stage, and these create the
gospels. Here we survey the critique of these gospels by the New
Testament scholars. It becomes clear that they have been unable
to prove any part of the story, or prove that "Jesus" existed.

We ask the candid reader to give the Jewish leaders their day in
court, and to examine the evidence for their acquittal.

I NT R O D U C T I O N 15
NOTES:
I . Ramsay MacMullen, Enemies ofthe Roman Order, 2 1 0
2. Raymond Brown, The Death ofthe Messiah, 382, 386
3. Josef Blinzler, The Trial ofjesus, 290, 293
4. Hans Kiing, On Being a Christian, 332, 336
5. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:35
6. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:95
7. Anthony Saldarini, Bible Review, February 1 998, 42

16 I NTRODUCTION
 1

Too MANY JESUSES

"The indictment or information must so describe the person

killed that the accused may know whom he or she is
charged with having killed. If known, the name of the
deceased must be alleged."
Corpus Juris Secundum, "Homicide" 144a. (vol.40, 551)

The name Jesus appears frequently in the writings of the Jewish

historian Josephus. In the Loeb edition of his works the index lists this
name no less than twenty-one times referring to different persons, and
it is one of the most common names in the index. The famed and
much-disputed reference to "Jesus the Christ" appears as number nine
on the list, with many J esuses before and after. Some of these had
outstanding careers and some met death under strange and tragic
circumstances. The premise of a unique and remarkable Jesus is thus
placed in question at the very outset of our inquiry. Others had their
share of drama as well.
Josephus has been accused many times of writing as little as possible
about "the" Jesus, and suppressing what he knew. One would think
that the very name would cause a guilty start and a quick glance over
the shoulder. However our historian writes freely about the other
twenty with no accusation of suppression as to the others. In fact it is
the scholars who do the suppressing, writing as little as possible about
the name frequency and the other references.

The books of Josephus appeared in Greek, and we give the list of

names in their Greek form, as given in the index or in the text:

1 . Jesus son of Naue

2. Jesus son of Saul
3. Jesus, high priest, son of Phineas

C H A PT E R 1 19
 4. Jesus son of the high priest Jozadak
5. Jesus son of Joiada
6. Jesus, high priest, son of Simon
7. Jesus, high priest, son of Phabes
8. Jesus, high priest, son of See
9. Jesus the Christ
1 0.fesus son of Damnaeus, became high priest
1 1 . Jesus son of Gamliel, became high priest
1 2 . Jesus son of Sapphas
1 3 . Jesus, chief priest, probably to be identified with 1 0 or 1 1
1 4. Jesus son of Gamalas, high priest
1 5. Jesus, brigand chief on borderland of Ptolemais
1 6. Jesus son of Sapphias
1 7. Jesus brother of Chares
1 8. Jesus a Galilean, perhaps to be identified with 1 5
1 9. Jesus in ambuscade, perhaps to b e identified with 1 6
20. Jesus, priest, son of Thebuthi
2 1 . Jesus son of Ananias, rude peasant, prophesies the fall of
Jerusalem

The list shows clearly that Josephus follows the Judaic custom of
linking the son's name to that of the father: "X son of Y." He does this
throughout his writings, in literally hundreds of cases, and does so
here in the undisputed twenty cases, except for several minor figures
involved in the turbulent events in Galilee during the war with Rome.
We can guess that the information was lacking. But even here the text
indicates family linkages for all except 1 5 , "Jesus, brigand chief. " These
minor Jesuses appear in the narrative with every indication of time,
place and detail to show that they were authentic figures. This has
never been questioned.
Josephus was born into a priestly family and was particularly
concerned with ancestry and lineage since his own status and privileges
were derived as birthright. The priestly office was hereditary and was
jealously guarded. Almost automatically Josephus labels a man accord
ing to status (priest or layman) and descent. Ten names on the list are
priestly, with the father's name given. Josephus never leaves ancestry in
doubt where this is material to the story.

20 C H A PT E R 1
 This makes it strange that Josephus does not describe number nine
as "Jesus son of Joseph. " The father's name would certainly be known
to our historian if he knew anything at all or wrote anything at all.
After all, that would be the first question asked "Jesus " by a Jewish
court: "Who are you and what is your name ?" And there would be
little dispute about the passage if the name Joseph were included.
Instead the "Jesus-passage" begins: "About this time there lived Jesus,
a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. "1
Other versions of the passage also omit the father's name. Could
Josephus, Temple priest and historian, have written this way ?
The plain inference is that this line was written by a Christian for
Christian readers, for whom only one Jesus existed in all history, and
that one without human paternity. The simple pronouncement of the
word "Jesus" would immediately summon up the majesty of Christ to
the Christian reader, and with no need to mention a father, since these
Christian readers knew that Jesus was the Son of God. Hence the name
of a human father was omitted. But of course Josephus never thought
in those terms, hence he never wrote that opening line. And if he
didn't, then it would be difficult to salvage the rest of the passage. It
could not exist without that line.
The present writer has researched New Testament literature for a good
number of years and has never seen the Jesus list from the Loeb index
published and commented on by any writer. The Christian apologists are
anxious to preserve the uniqueness of Jesus, and play down all material
tending to question that uniqueness. The apologists are even more anxious to
preserve Josephus as an unshakable witness for the Christian case. If the list
were discussed then it would at once raise the question of why Josephus did
not write "Jesus son of Joseph." It appears that the charge of cover-up and
suppression should be directed at the scholar-apologists, not at Josephus.
The earliest reference in a Christian writing connecting Josephus to
Jesus is by the church father Origen, in his book Contra Celsus, dated
about AD 230. We will postpone discussion of the passage until that
stage in our inquiry. The failure of earlier Christian writers to cite
Josephus, when the passage would have been of great help to them
during the sharp disputes of the prior century, has always been a major
argument against the genuineness of this text. The Josephus passage in
its present form appears only after the time of Origen.

C H APTER 1 21
 Josephus will be a major witness in our inquiry, hence a biographi
cal note is in order. He was born into a leading priestly family in
Jerusalem in the year 3 7 by our present calendar and died some time
after 1 00. In his own life, as strange as any that he narrates, he was a
Temple priest, Pharisee, emissary to Rome, then briefly and dubiously
a general in Galilee in the war against Rome. He was captured, and to
save his life went over to the Roman side. After that he was an eyewit
ness to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Despite that - or
perhaps because of that, to atone for the desertion - he became a
spokesman and propagandist for Judaism in all his writings. Above all,
he was a historian of the first rank, a task to which he devoted his life
after the war. He worked with a staff of assistants and with matchless
documentation available to him from Judaic, Greek and Roman
sources. He devoted almost thirty years to these writings.
A tribute to his importance is given by Louis Feldman, who did the
English translation for several of his books in the Loeb Library
edition. Feldman writes:

"Josephus is our most important extant source for the period

from the end of the second century BCE to the year 70, when
the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans . . . He is
indispensable for our understanding of the political, social,
economic and religious background of the rise of Christianity
and of the other sects of the era, as well as of Jewry of the
Diaspora. He is our most important literary guide to the
geography, topography and monuments of Palestine, so that
the archaeologist must dig with a spade in one hand and a
copy of Josephus in the other. And he is most important as a
historian of the Gneco-Roman world who sheds crucial lights
on events of the last century of the Roman Republic and on
the first century of the Roman Empire. " 2

Josephus wrote but four texts however two of these are large,
encyclopedic works - the War in seven books, the Antiquities in
twenty books. He composed two shorter works - the Life in one
book, and the Contra Apion in two books. All show his fondness for
names and details, for time and place, for anecdote and sharp camera-

22 C H A PT E R 1
like descriptions. The index to the Loeb ten-volume edition runs to
225 pages, small print, double column per page. It is mainly a list of
names, and these run to the formidable total of 1 ,932 individuals (this
by my count; I may be off slightly). And of this large number, only
two have come under challenge as to their genuineness: Jesus and
"James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ. " The others are unques
tioned. Josephus is a model historian 99.99 percent of the time, and
fails only where he does not confirm the official story.
Returning to our Jesus list, we note that a number of the individuals
referred to show linkages and parallels to the gospel Jesus. Again
Josephus shows no awareness of this where we would expect him to
note this at once. The list can be reduced to eighteen names, omitting
"Jesus the Christ" and numbers 1 8 and 1 9, as not clearly identified. Of
these eighteen, six show linkages to the gospel story - from marginal
literary resemblance to apparent plagiarism from Josephus by the
gospel writers. Thus one-third of the names are relevant, and as
indicated below, every major aspect of the career of the gospel Jesus is
echoed in these other figures cited by Josephus - and without the
need for the " historical Jesus. "
This is an odd development. If Josephus were aware of the historical
Jesus then he would certainly be aware of the resemblances and dupli
cations to his own writings. How could he be silent? We leave this to
the experts to answer.

We list these six individuals in summary form, giving the Loeb index
numbers, and with further discussion in later chapters:

Loeb 1 . "Jesus son of Naue. " This is the Scriptural Joshua son of
Nun. It is a distinct coincidence that the heir and successor to
Moses in Hebrew history has the same Greek name as the heir
and successor to Moses in Christian doctrine. The name "Iesous"
in the Greek texts applies equally to Jesus and to Joshua.

Loeb 4. "Jesus, son of the high priest Jozadak. " This is the Scriptural
J eshua, the high priest of the Return and the rebuilding of the
Temple. He figures prominently in the Book of Zechariah and has
been made a prefiguration for Christ. Numerous proof-texts

C H A PT E R 1 23
 found in Zechariah are also quoted and utilized in the gospel. We
would expect Josephus to comment on all this, since he claimed
special expertise on the interpretation of Scripture, but he shows
no awareness of this. Instead he treats this Jesus as a figure of
complete orthodoxy, and the founder of a dynasty of high priests
that endured till the Maccabean era. At every point Josephus
diverges from the gospel account.

Of the remaining figures, three can be linked together: in each case a

Jesus is slain in Jerusalem, and disaster befalls the city as a form of
divine judgment. This was a basic motif with Josephus. He had gone
over to the Roman side during the war and was under the greatest
compulsion to justify this desertion to his fellow Jews and to himself.
The rationalization that he arrived at was that the Jewish cause had
come under divine condemnation for its sins, and that in surrendering
to the Romans he was really accepting the divine will. For that reason
he eagerly searches out and cites all material pointing to divine punish
ment upon Jerusalem, elaborating and inventing if need be to bolster
his argument. Indeed, the argument by Josephus that the city had come
under divine punishment was the major reason his writings were
preserved by the Christians. He cites the three "martyr-Jesuses":

Loeb 5 . "Jesus son of Joiada." As Josephus tells the story, "Joannes

the high priest of the Jews murdered his own brother Jesus in the
Temple . . . The Deity was not indifferent to this, and for this
reason the people were made slaves and the Temple was defiled by
the Persians. "3
We have the motif that the slaying of a Jesus in Jerusalem brings
disaster.

Loeb 14. "Jesus son of Gamalas, high priest. " This is another Jesus
slain in Jerusalem, with divine vengeance upon the city. This time
the slaying was by the Edomites, allied with the Zealots during
the war with Rome. Killed with him was Ananus, a former high
priest. Josephus was horrified at these murders and considers
them among the worst of the crimes committed by the Zealots.
He writes:

24 CH APTER 1
 "But I suppose it was because God had condemned the city to
destruction because of its pollutions, and desired to purge the
Sanctuary by fire, that He thus cut off those who clung to
these places with such tender affection. "4

This is a clear statement that the city would be destroyed for the
slaying of "Jesus."

Loeb 2 1 . "Jesus son of Ananias, rude peasant, prophesies the fall of

Jerusalem. " This is a third Jesus slain in Jerusalem, this time by
"stoning" from the Roman catapult during the siege of the city.
This man had prophesied tirelessly, "Woe unto Jerusalem. "
A s in the gospel version, he was handed over b y the Jewish
authorities to the Roman governor for punishment. "Though
flayed to the bone he neither sued for mercy nor shed a tear . . . He
answered never a word. "5
This comes close to plagiarism by the gospel writers.

If Josephus knew anything of the Christians he would know of their

constant charge that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the crucifix
ion of Jesus. Therefore we cannot understand why he would be silent
in this regard in his reference to "Jesus the Christ," since he had
brought up the other Jesus figures. The supreme need to justify his
own desertion would override every other consideration. He certainly
would have mentioned Jesus as one more figure prophesying the
destruction of Jerusalem. Again the apologists have to do the explaining.

Loeb 1 5 . "Jesus, brigand chief. " We include this entry for the record.
In recent decades, writers of the Brandon-Winter school have
argued for the "political Jesus," namely one who was allied to the
Zealots and who favored a war against Rome. Whatever the
merits of this scenario, we note that Josephus has encountered
this version of Jesus along with all the other roles. If the histori
cal Jesus had been a "brigand" or allied with them, then here too
Josephus would have no reason for suppression of any kind. All
is set down plainly.

C H A PT E R 1 25
The previous list gives us the main points in the career of the gospel Jesus:

1 . Joshua/Jesus is the heir to Moses and brings his followers to a

promised land of salvation. Indeed he is frequently made a type
or prefiguration for Christ.

2. Jeshua/Jesus, the priest of the Return, is also made a prefiguration

for Christ, and the book of Zechariah is the source for numerous
proof-texts to support the Christian polemic. Jesus is the perfect
High Priest, foreshadowed by the earlier model. We would expect
Josephus, a resolute defender of Judaism, to be aware of this.

3. He is a martyr figure, whose death in turn brings tragedy and

destruction to Jerusalem. In each of the three cases he is rejected
and punished by wicked Jews. This is a basic motif with Josephus.
As mentioned, his insistence that Jerusalem was destroyed for its
sins was a major reason why his works were preserved by the
Christians.

4. Jesus the brigand chief indicates the turmoil and violence that
Jesus and his followers brought about, threatening the authori
ties, Jewish and Roman, and causing their punitive response.

The prior material indicates that the person of "Jesus of Nazareth"

could be constructed out of Judaic sources, without the need for a
historical figure. Thus the gospel story comes under doubt at the very
outset of our inquiry.
So strange is the silence of Josephus in the places where we would
expect him to speak out that John Meier, a leading New Testament
scholar, has given us the dubious explanation that Josephus never read
a Christian document, which is close to saying that he never met a
Christian. Meier writes that "in my opinion there is no probative
evidence that Josephus knew any of the Four Gospels. "6
But Josephus was the most tireless and inquisitive of historians,
describing the most insignificant of events, with access to all documen
tation, and he lived to a date past 1 00 He was a direct contemporary
.

to the alleged trial of Paul, and he was in Rome during the alleged

26 CHAPTER 1
persecution of the Christians by Nero. What are we to think? How
could he be uninformed ? It seems Meier wants it both ways: he must
have the decisive and all-important "Testimonium" - as the Jesus
passage in Antiquities is often referred to. This states that Jesus existed
and was crucified. Meier wants to block off all the inconvenient
passages in Josephus which cast doubt on that existence. At the very
least we have the inference that the gospels date after AD 1 00.
We will continue with the witness of Josephus. If he can break free
of his custodians and can testify independently then perchance he will
provide further material raising questions and doubts.

NOTES:
1. Josephus, Antiquities, 18:63
2. L. Feldman, josephus, the Bible and History, 17 - 18 .
3. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 1 :298 - 300
4. Josephus, \.%r, 4 :323
5. Josephus, \.%r, 6:304
6. J. Meier, A MarginalJew, vol.2, 97, n. 179
7. Jesus Passage: Josephus, Antiquities, 18:63 - 64

CHAPTER 1 27
 2

THE ALTERNATE SAVIOR

"I think that I have drawn up the whole story in full and
accurate detail. .. I assert that no one else, either Jew or
gentile, would have been equal to the task, however willing
to undertake it, of issuing so accurate a treatise as this for
the Greek world ... "
Josephus, Antiquities 20:26 1- 262

Referring again to the Loeb list of Jesus names, we note that the
most prominent and important one is the first on the list. This was
Joshua son of Nun, heir and successor to Moses, and the commander
who brought his elect into salvation - against great odds and with
divine aid. Through the indispensable Josephus, we learn that this
Joshua/ Jesus is no longer a figure of remote antiquity, but has been
projected with great dramatic force into events of the late period.
Against the lack of attention to "Jesus of Nazareth" there is remark
able attention towards the "first Jesus" who is now the dominant
figure.
Josephus narrates that towards the middle decades of the first
century, about the period AD 30 - 60, a series of extraordinary mass
assemblages took place in the Holy Land. The populace would gather
in many thousands, unarmed but swept by religious exaltation, and
then go on a mass pilgrimage to an ancestral site, in the belief that a
miraculous event would take place that would bring deliverance to the
nation. "Impostors and deceivers called upon the mob to follow them
into the wilderness. For they said they would show them unmistakable
marvels and signs. " 1

The Roman occupying power understood full well just which hated
enemy the populace wanted to be delivered from. Rather than wait till
the pilgrimages reached the desired site where religious frenzy would

C H A PT E R 2 29
create the miracle, the Romans attacked savagely to break up these
gatherings, with heavy loss of life among the masses. And yet these
huge pilgrimages continued.
Josephus reports these events accurately - as usual, he is our sole
witness for very important events. However, he failed to notice their
linkage and significance: all were concerned with reenacting events in
the careers of Moses and Joshua, with faith that this reenactment
would bring salvation.
One scholar points out the common theme and lists events reported
by Josephus within that theme. He writes:

"Prophetic pretenders to messiahship promised to the people a

startling authentication of their case and the arrival of
imminent salvation. To this type belong the Samaritan who
promised to show to his followers the Temple-furniture
which had been hidden by Moses on Gerizim2 ; Theudas who
promised to the people the repetition of Joshua's miracle in
the cleaving of the Jordan3; the 'false leaders' and 'impostors'
who again and again led the people into the wilderness4; and
the prophet from Egypt who held out the prospect of the
repetition of the Jericho miracle at J erusalem5; These prophets
were convinced that the eschatological [i.e. final and supernat
ural] age of salvation would correspond to the early history of
Israel, hence the wilderness and Moses typologies, that the age
of salvation was imminent, and that they were called as the
second Moses or Joshua to bring things to a head. " 6

Other writers have noted the Moses!Joshua motif in these enormous events.

"These actions of deliverance are understood as new, eschato

logical actions that typologically correspond to or are
informed by the great formative acts of deliverance led by
Moses and Joshua. "7

"The Jews went back to their own ancient stories and then
ritually reenacted those great inaugural acts of Exodus from
bondage in Egypt and arrival in the Promised Land. " 8

30 C H A PT E R 2
 The impostors and the great multitudes did not think to go to
Bethlehem, city of David. Nor did they think to go to Modiin, city of
the Maccabees. Instead they went to the scenes in remote antiquity
where victory and salvation had been manifest. There would be a
Second Coming - signs and wonders would take place, and there
would be the supernatural appearance of Moses and his lieutenant,
Joshua/Jesus. And no one else could equal the grandeur of these ances
tral saviors. The latter-day prophets and deceivers gained their
authority only by speaking in the name of the early figures and
promising to repeat their miracles.

We had thought that Moses and Joshua were figures of remote antiq
uity, as far as popular awareness at that period went. Now we find
these figures propelled to the forefront. And we are told many times
by the scholars that there was a widespread Messianic Hope centered
on the advent of the Son of David. Prior to this there would be a
Forerunner symbolizing Elijah to proclaim this Advent. But the
frenzied emphasis on Moses and Joshua plainly means that this was the
only Messianic hope at that period. There was no Davidic Hope and
there was no "Elijah Forerunner. " The only saviors would be Moses
and Joshua.
Josephus has been accused by one and all of concealing the
Messianic Hope. He has received stern reprimands for his dishonesty.
But here he is shouting from the housetops that he knows all about the
Hope, and that it has been going on for thirty years. Only it is the
wrong Hope and the wrong Savior - that is the offense of Josephus.
As if in a Kafka novel, he is guilty because he doesn't confess to what
he doesn't know.

It comes as a surprise to the modern reader that Moses and his

lieutenant Joshua could hold so much power over the Jews of that
period, since the Exodus events were dated more than twelve centuries
earlier. But a reading of the literature then current gives us a sense of
what was going on. Josephus indicates the great awe and reverence that
all Jews felt for Moses. The Lawgiver was considered an abiding
presence.

C HAPTER 2 31
 "But the admiration in which that hero [Moses] was held was not
confined to his lifetime. It is alive today. Certainly there is not a
Hebrew who does not obey the laws laid down by Moses, just as
if he were still there and ready to punish him for any breach of
discipline . . . That legislation, believed to have come from God,
caused this man to be ranked higher than his own natural state. "9

The Book of Sirach, then considered a supplementary book to the

Scriptures, declares that "The Lord made him equal in glory to the
angels. " 1 0
At the Qumran community at the Dead Sea the sect members did
not so much as dare pronounce his name. They referred to him only as
the "Lawgiver. " and this Law was studied there in courses, without
cease day and night.
Philo of Alexandria uses extravagant language verging on deification:

"Since God judged Moses worthy to appear as a partner of His

own possessions, He gave into his hands the whole world as a
portion well fitted for His heir. Therefore each element
obeyed him as its master, changed its natural properties, and
submitted to his command ... His partnership with the Father
and Maker of all was magnified also by the honor of being
deemed worthy to bear the same tide. For he was named god
and king of the whole nation and entered, we are told, into the
darkness where God was . " 11

Philo also emphasizes the role of Moses as intercessor, and here he

uses language readily applicable to the gospel Jesus:

"He took the part of mediator and reconciler. . . and made

prayers and supplications, begging that their [the Israelites']
sins might be forgiven. Then when this protector and interces
sor had softened the wrath of the Father, he wended his way
back [to the Israelite camp in the wilderness] with mingled joy
and dejection. He rejoiced that God had accepted his prayers,
yet was ready to collapse with the dejection and heaviness that
filled him, at the transgression of the multitude."1 2

32 CHAPTER 2
 This is a concise picture of the later Jesus in the gospel: protector,
mediator, suppliant before the Father, but filled with grief at the trans
gressions of the people.
A document dated as directly contemporary to the gospel period,
known as the Testament of Moses (or alternately as the Assumption of
Moses), carries the exaltation process to a bestowal of divine status
upon Moses and also notes the role of intercessor. Concerning this
book one commentator writes that . . .

"the parallels with the New Testament doctrine of Christ are

remarkable. Moses appears to fill the place which would be
taken by Christ in Christian belief, as a divinely appointed
mediator, bound by no limitations of time and space, inter
ceding on behalf of God's people . . . He was 'prepared before
the foundation of the world' to be the mediator of God's
covenant . . . But not only is Moses regarded as shepherd,
compassionate guide, and intercessor; in 1 1 : 1 6 he is described
as 'the sacred spirit who was worthy of the Lord, manifold
and incomprehensible, the lord of the word, who was faithful
in all things, the most perfect teacher in the world . . . ' In 12:6
Moses is 'appointed to pray for Israel's sins and make inter
cession for them.' Moses was also the appointed revealer of
God's hidden purpose. Testament of Moses, 1 : 1 2, 1 5. " 13

The presence of Moses in the late period effectively transfers

Joshua/Jesus, the lieutenant of Moses, to the late period as well. And
as the image of Moses becomes more grandiose, there is a correspond
ing exaltation of the image and role of Joshua/Jesus.
The Testament describes the transfer of authority from Moses to the
first Jesus:

"And he called to him Joshua the son of Nun, a man approved

of the Lord, that he might be the minister of the people and of
the tabernacle of the testimony with all its holy things. And
that he might bring the people into the land given to their
fathers . . . saying to Joshua, Be strong and of good courage to

CHAPTER 2 33
 do with all your might all that has been commanded . . . And
Moses took his hand and raised him into the seat before him,
and said . . . You shall root out the nations . . . " 1 4

From the foregoing texts we can conclude that if but a fraction of the
aura and greatness of Moses were transferred to the successor, we
would have a supernatural being named Jesus who would mediate
between God and man, and who would make intercession to God for
the removal of sin. And this would be arrived at without the need for
the "historical Jesus of Nazareth." And we can be sure that it was this
view of Joshua as the hero and commander who would "root out the
nations" that inspired the masses to seek out the ancient sites where he
would again manifest himself.
We have here a clear and plausible explanation for the creation of an
exalted and supernatural person named "Jesus." He was the second
Moses and took over all the authority and attributes of his teacher. But
if we turn to the gospel figure, then there is nothing plausible there at
all. How could the obscure backwoods parson from Galilee achieve
"high Christology" and be made a grandiose cosmic figure within
forty years of his death - and this in divergent Greek gospels ?
The Testament of Moses, above mentioned, has been preserved in a
single manuscript, dated in the sixth century, written in Latin, and
described by the editor as a translation from the Greek which in turn
was translated from the Hebrew. The Testament, on the face of it, is an
ultra-orthodox Judaic tract, based on the farewell address of Moses as
given in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy. There Moses urges
strict obedience to the Law, and prophesies disaster and tragedy if
Israel strays from this.
Obedience to the Law and punishment for disobedience are the
timeless lessons of orthodoxy. Josephus, Temple priest and Pharisee,
states this in the opening pages of his Antiquities:

"Speaking generally, the main lesson to be learned from this

history by anyone who cares to read it, is that men who
conform to the will of God and do not venture to transgress
laws excellently laid down, will prosper in all things beyond
belief, and God will grant them happiness for their reward. But
------

34 C H APTER 2
 in proportion as they depart from the strict observance of these
laws, their paths become more difficult, and whatever imagi
nary good thing they strive to do ends in hopeless disaster. " 1 5

We may then ask why was this document copied, translated and
preserved by Christian authorities for centuries after the original
composition? As it stands, it is an orthodox Judaic text. The reason it
was translated into Latin is that the translator saw the name "Jesus"
(1esous' in the Greek) and promptly concluded that it must refer to the
Lord Jesus as the heir to Moses - no matter what the intent was of the
original writer. This must be put down as a conscious decision by the
translator. He took Joshuan material and deliberately transferred it to
Jesus, making the gospel Jesus the heir to Moses. Here we have an
intermingling of the persons of Joshua and Jesus on the highest doctri
nal level. The supernatural Joshua has become the supernatural Jesus,
now made the heir to Moses by sleight-of-hand.
This decision by the translator assured the preservation of the
Testament. Only those Judaic texts deemed useful to the Church and
thus worth capturing have managed to survive, albeit in christianized
form. If we ponder the implications of the foregoing material, we note
that we have two J esuses at the same time and the same place, both
inciting the masses, and both arousing fear and anger in the authorities:
Joshua and Jesus of Nazareth. This is one Jesus too many. They could
be separate and independent figures, but as we have seen there is a
blending, with Joshuan material being transferred to the gospel Jesus.
Thus we are led to a major premise: we do not need the human
"Jesus of Nazareth" as the starting point, nor do we need a process of
legend and myth building lasting decades and generations to arrive at
an exalted and supernatural Christ. We can start right at the top and
posit that Jesus is a radically christianized version of the supernatural
Joshua. We thus have an alternate statement for Christian origins.
Those who question the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth" have
always received the challenge: if this Jesus never existed, how do you
account for Christian origins ? Thus Alfred Loisy, himself the most
skeptical of writers - and duly excommunicated from the church for
his views - gives this explanation for the existence of Jesus:

C H APTER 2 35
 "That Jesus was one among a number of agitators and enthusi
asts who appeared in Judea between the years 6 and 70 of our
era . . . that Jesus was crucified as a pretended Messiah by
sentence of Pontius Pilate - all this has the highest degree of
probability; to be more exact, the whole Christian movement
becomes unintelligible if these beginnings are suppressed. No
consistent argument authorizes their elimination. and there is
nothing to replace them. " 1 6

Loisy is compelled to accept "the historical Jesus" only because no

other explanation makes sense. But what, perchance, if a "consistent
argument, " quite intelligible and also having a high degree of proba
bility, were offered to replace these beginnings ? Loisy would then have
to give it a hearing, since that is what he asked for.

A similar line of reasoning is used by Hans Kiing. He argues that we

must posit the existence of Jesus because that is the only way to under
stand how the early church came to "proclaim Christ. "

"The primitive Christian proclamation of Christ could have

emerged and can be understood only in the light of the history
of Jesus . . . It is only in this way that the primitive Christian
and thus too the modern proclamation of Christ can be
protected from the suspicion that it is not founded on a histor
ical fact, but is merely an assertion, a projection of faith, or
even a pure myth, an apotheosis." 1 7

That is, we need the "historical Jesus" to guard against the suspicion
that Christianity is based only on faith and myth, and it is "only in this
way" that the charge of myth can be answered. Here Kiing is being less
than candid. As an ordained priest of the Catholic church he knows
very well that this church originated precisely in faith and myth, and
that the Lord Jesus is not there as historical fact but through the
miracle of the Incarnation. This is stated clearly in the Creed: "We
believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God . . . For us men
and for our salvation he came down from heaven and was made
man . . .
"

36 CHAPTER 2
 Kung, writing for present-day secular readers, skeptics and rational
ists, presents the "Jesus of history" - otherwise the readers would
simply shrug off the book. But he hasn't proved anything, and he
certainly hasn't eliminated an alternate premise that would explain
how this faith church itself came into existence.
We ask the candid reader to give our premise a hearing and a day in
court. We propose to examine the Joshua premise in detail, to see what
role it played in the origins of Christianity. At each point we will
compare our premise with the "official version" to see which stands up
better. As Walter Lowrie puts it . . .

"That theory which, without artifice or violence, best accords

with the greatest number of facts recorded, and so best
preserves the credit of the documents upon which it seeks to
found itself, is presumably the right theory. " 18

CHAPT E R 2 37
NOTES:
1. Josephus, Antiquities, 20: 1 68
2. Josephus, Antiquities, 18:85
3. Josephus, Antiquities, 20:97
4. Josephus, Wzr 2:259
5 . Josephus, Antiquities, 20: 169
6. E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:602
7. R. Horsely, cited by J. Crossan in The Historicaljesus, 159
8. J. Crossan, The Historicaljesus, 1 59
9. Josephus, Antiquities, 3 : 3 17, 320
1 0. The Book ofSirach, 45:2
11. Philo, Questions and Answers Exodus, 1 : 1 56 - 1 58
12. Philo, Questions and Answers Exodus, 2: 1 66
13. A. L. Davies, Dictionary ofthe Apostolic Church, article Assumption of Moses, 107
14. Testament ofMoses 1 :9 - 10; 1 2:2, 9
15. Josephus, Antiquities, 1: 1 4
1 6. A. Loisy, Birth ofthe Christian Religion, 12
17. H. Kung, On Being a Christian, 1 59
1 8. W Lowrie, intro. to The Mystery ofthe Kingdom of God, by A. Schweitzer, 34

38 CHAPTER 2
 3

THE jERUSALEM CHURCH

"The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history

seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over
the first age of the church."
Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall

A convenient starting point for comparing the merits of the rival

explanations will be the question of the origins of the Jerusalem
church. Following the four gospel accounts the next book in the New
Testament canon is Acts of the Apostles. This purports to narrate the
setting up of the Jerusalem church by the disciples of Jesus, and also
narrates the career of the apostle Paul. Our alternate explanation for
Christian origins eliminates the " disciples of Jesus" as the cause and
also provides an alternate biography for Paul. Hence a clear-cut test is
now available as to the merits of the two premises.
The whole question of the Jerusalem church was thrown wide open
by a sensational discovery in the 1 940s, namely, that of the Dead Sea
. Scrolls found at Qumran. Tucked away in the vast literature created by
the Dead Sea Scrolls are two short paragraphs by Theodore Gaster that
are of basic importance to our present inquiry. Gaster prepared one of
the earliest translations of the scrolls then available, his text appearing
in 1 956. In the introduction to his book, he noted some "affinities"
between several of the documents and the Epistle of James, one of the
books in the New Testament canon. This James appears as head of the
Jerusalem church - but how did he get there ?
To explain the linkage Gaster then wrote:

" Indeed, we may perhaps not unreasonably conclude that the

Dead Sea Scrolls actually open a window upon the little
community of Jewish Christians clustered around James in
Jerusalem. These men may have been originally the urban

C HA P T E R 3 41
 brethren of the hardier souls that betook themselves to
Qumran and to other camp settlements in the Desert of Judah.
For the Zadokite Document provides expressly for urban as
well as camp communities." 1

Abruptly, we have a "window" opening to an alternate starting

point for the Jerusalem church, and an alternate line of development.
If Gaster is correct, the sect was not started by the Galilean disciples of
"Jesus of Nazareth" but was an offshoot of the Qumran brethren,
sharing their beliefs and literature and organization. And this had
nothing to do with Christianity, since Gaster states flatly . . .

"The community envisaged by the Dead Sea Scrolls and trans

lated into reality at Qumran is in no sense Christian, and
holds none of the fundamental theological doctrines of the
Christian faith. "2

A further inference would be that if all derived from Qumran, and

nowhere else, then perchance the Jerusalem members knew nothing of
"Jesus of Nazareth" since the Qumran members also knew nothing of
him.
A. Powell-Davies, another early writer on the scrolls, was in
substantial agreement with Gaster and noted many linkages between
Jerusalem and Qumran.

He states:

"Both the Essenic sect (at Qumran) and the Jerusalem commu
nity call the congregation considered as a whole the Many;
both have an executive committee called the Twelve; both
have a superintendent or episkopos - translated by our word
'bishop.' In both cases the communities have 'all things in
common,' which means that the wealth of the members and
their current wages must be contributed to a central treasury
in charge of a steward, who will make the necessary disburse
ments on behalf of the community . . .

42 C H A PT E R 3
 "Both the Essenic sectarians (at Qumran) and the Jerusalem
community call themselves people of the New Covenant -

which is exactly the same as New Testament; both practice

baptism and have a sacred meal; both speak of themselves in
such terms as the Elect or the Poor and speak of the truth of
God as Light and themselves as Sons of Light. These are a few
among the large number of identical practices and concepts.
"Must we not then see that the Jerusalem community as a
whole was an Essenic body which had existed considerably
before the crucifixion of Jesus, perhaps for several generations
before, and that it was in fact an urban and less monastic
counterpart of the Qumran society fifteen miles away on the
shores of the Dead Sea?
"The Twelve of James, we may confidently infer, were of
Jewish faith and remained such . . . Indeed, the more we look at
James the more it occurs to us that irrespective of our earlier
assumptions, we must ask a searching question: Was he truly
a believer in the Risen Jesus ?"3

If the Jerusalem church indeed derived from Qumran and was non
Christian, as Gaster and Powell-Davies affirm, then James and his
fellow sectarians would logically know nothing of "Jesus of
Nazareth," since nothing in the copious Qumran texts shows any
awareness of the said Jesus. Especially so if the Jerusalem church
existed "generations before" the appearance of this Jesus. And among
the sect members, the most famed and prominent one was the apostle
Paul. What if he didn't know either ? Then the whole story of early
Christianity begins to fall apart. A lot of rethinking is in order.
The "official version," that this church derives from Jesus of
Nazareth, is supported by a single work, Acts, the book immediately
following the four gospels. Acts is generally attributed to Luke, the
author of the third gospel. It is labeled the "sole authority" on the
Jerusalem church, and if this is shown to be without merit, then
perchance the Qumran premise should be accepted in the absence of a
better solution.
One writer states:

C H A PT E R 3 43
 "Whatever be the historian's judgment as to its' (Acts) value as
a record, without it he would be compelled to wander without
a guide in the trackless forest of conjecture as to the way the
Church organized itself and began its work. It is the sole
authority. "4

This is a large pronouncement and should be restated: Acts became

the sole authority through church censorship that removed all rival
versions, and through church declaration as to what should be in the
canon and what should be excluded. Only then did Acts attain its
authority.
During the turbulent early period many rival texts, put out by rival
sects, were in use, as the scholars are well aware. At the beginning of
our modern era a collection of these texts was published and other
collections have been published since then.

" In 1 703 Johann Albert Fabricius, the great Hamburg

compiler, published his Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti
[Collection of New Testament Apocrypha], which has
retained its worth to modern times. In volume I Fabricius has
collected Infancy Gospels, the Gospel of Nicodemus and
Epistles of Pilate, the Epistle of Lentulus, apocryphal Gospel
Fragments. Volume II contains Acta, Epistolae, Apocalypses
aliaque scripta Apostolis falso inscripta. [Acts, Epistles,
Apocalypses inscribed falsely in the name of Apostles] .
Finally volume III brought liturgies under apostolic names
and additions, as well as the Shepherd of Hermas. "5

It is only by accident of history that these other "acts of the

apostles" lost out and are labeled "false. "
While Luke, the author of Acts, appears to be a secondary figure in
terms of narrating the gospel story, since there are three other accounts,
he has been projected into a unique role in terms of narrating the origin
of Christianity as a functioning church. One scholar writes: "Many
years ago Kirsopp Lake said to a class that if Acts is not a basically sound
historical document, we know nothing of the origin of Christianity. "6
Bible experts place Kirsopp Lake in the front rank in this field.

44 C HAPTER 3
 Not only does Luke have the heavy burden of explaining Christian
origins all by himself, but Acts is now the sole authority that connects
Paul to the gospel story and makes him a witness to it. Henry Cadbury
states: "Acts is the only bridge we have across the seemingly impass
able gulf that separates Jesus from Paul."7 Thus if Acts should be
rejected by the historians as a source, then we would have a trackless
forest and an impassable gulf, and Paul would drop out as a witness.
There would be no way of explaining the "beginnings" - thanks to
church censorship in blocking off the rival explanations.
Luke cannot be dispensed with. His books Luke-Acts comprise the
largest contribution by a single author to the New Testament, making
up more than one-quarter of the volume. His gospel is granted a higher
importance than Mark and Matthew:

"The loss of neither of them (Mark and Matthew) would

reduce the amount of our information about Jesus as seriously
as would the loss of Luke. This volume contains the largest
part of the unique material in the Synoptic Gospels. " 8

The New Bible Dictionary lists no less than forty-six of these passages,
each one a vivid episode or parable, found in Luke and omitted in the
others. To this we must add of course the material common with the other
gospels, meaning that we could have the entire story from beginning to
end using only Luke, with far more detail and far more effectively than the
other two (the gospel of John is tacitly omitted as nonhistorical).
Luke's second book, Acts, gets this tribute:

"The Book of Acts is even more indispensable. No narratives

parallel to it have survived. It is our sole record of the
Apostolic age . . . Even the extensive and self-revealing corre
spondence of Paul would leave his life and setting afloat for us
in a sea of ignorance were it not for the succinct outline of his
career sketched for us in Acts. "9

If Luke drops out, then the historicity of the church origins must be
without any other confirmation. Is not the entire structure extraordi
narily fragile if so much depends on one man and one book?

C H A PT E R 3 45
 Let us emphasize that the issue is not so much Luke in himself, but
his achievement in connecting Paul to the gospel story, via Acts, and
thus recruiting Paul as a witness. For if we, by some mental process,
could blot out of consciousness all awareness of the content of the
gospel and the content of Paul's official biography as found in Acts, and
could then read Paul's epistles solely in terms of their separate and
independent statements, then we might arrive at a different story for the
origin of Christianity. The Qumran premise would then come into play.
This is blocked for us as long as Luke is in the path, and we cannot
get to the separate examination of Paul until the problem of Luke and
his books Gospel-Acts has been faced. And the scholars, for all their
criticism of Luke, are compelled to support Luke in his basic premises:
that there is the historical fact of a Jesus of Nazareth, his trial and
crucifixion; there is the historical fact of a Jerusalem church founded
by the disciples of this Jesus; and there is the historical fact of the
young Saul who first opposed this church, but who was converted and
became the apostle Paul, as witness to the gospel and the historical
Jesus. All Luke's faults are outweighed a thousand fold by the magni
tude of his achievement. Yet he remains the sole witness, and if Acts is
to be rejected in its entirety, then we are literally compelled to look
elsewhere for the origins of Christianity.
Putting it another way, if the scholar-apologists are committed in
advance to the historical Jesus, then they will support Luke-Acts to the
hilt, precisely to block off any alternate explanations that would
threaten this historical Jesus. On the basis of the evidence that we will
submit, however, we posit that the following critique of Luke can be
made:

The scholars have subjected Luke to very severe criticism. He is

labeled as an editor working with earlier source materials, and in no
sense a contemporary or witness to the events described though he
chooses to describe himself as a companion to Paul in their travels.
He is charged with freely altering or inventing as he sees fit.

His books are given late dates by many scholars. A common dating
is about 1 05, since a major source used by him is declared to be
Josephus, whose death is placed after 1 00. Others date Luke as

46 CHAPTER 3
 late as 1 50. This latter date projects Luke into the period of sharp
controversy among rival Christian sects as to the person and
career of Jesus, with free composition of rival gospels.

There is no reliable dating, since the earliest reference to this book is

near 200, and all we can say is that it was composed some time in the
second century.

"In the New Testament, the book immediately following the four
Gospels is the Acts of the Apostles (in Greek 'Praxeis Apostolon'). It
is mentioned first, as far as is known to us today, in the fragment of a
list of sacred books which is called the Muratorian Fragment, from the
end of the second century . . . Apocryphal Acts of individual apostles
were already numerous in those days and included miracle stories
without any historical value - for example, the Acts of Peter, Paul,
John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew and Barnabas." 1 0

But Luke's version is replete with miracles, with the Damascus Road
vision the centerpiece. What if that drops out? And why this Acts and
none of the others ?
The existence of a large number of other gospels and "acts" at that
period, and the apparent obscurity of Luke's version, leads to the clear
possibility that our author was but one of many in a crowded field of
gospel and "acts" composition, and that he may have had rather
modest hopes for his book at the time he wrote it. However Luke hit
upon a masterstroke that assured reception and acclaim for his two
books by the "catholic" Jesus-of-Nazareth party, and the inclusion of
these books in their canon. This was the capture of James and Paul and
making them witnesses to the gospel story. Apart from Luke's novel
we have no proof that they are indeed witnesses.
Johannes Weiss, a leading New Testament scholar of the early period,
expresses extreme skepticism as to Luke's text. He charges that Luke
fabricated all of Paul's speeches, that he fabricated his own presence as
a companion to Paul and that he gave a false account of the all-impor
tant Apostolic Council that supposedly granted Paul a charter of
independence. If Luke is wrong on all of these, then his credibility and
bona fides have been reduced to zero, and Acts becomes worthless.

C HAPTER 3 47
 J. Weiss has rejected the speeches outright: "The speeches by Paul (in
Acts) must be regarded throughout as interpolations by the editor. " 11
(i.e., Luke; Weiss does not deign to give the name). However Luke tells
the Damascus Road story three times in this book, wherein Paul
became converted to Christianity, and two of these require that Paul
recite the story himself, as dramatic speeches to large audiences. Thus
Paul is made to confirm the most famous event in his own biography,
while Paul's own version, given in very obscure and cryptic wording
in Epistle to the Galatians remains open to a far different interpreta
tion and certainly does not confirm the detailed and lurid account
given by Luke.
Writes another scholar: "The whole [Damascus] story is probably
legendary. . . It is quite possible that a pupil of Paul should have
embodied the story of his teacher's conversion in a legendary form. " 1 2
It is apparent that if the Damascus Road story drops out then it
undermines all that preceded it, namely the first eight chapters of the
book. Luke's literary skill, which had neatly plotted the narrative, is
now turned against itself, and the elimination of the climax acts as a
kind of domino effect eliminating all the prior episodes one after the
other. If Paul were not journeying to Damascus with letters of marque
and reprisal, then there was no general persecution in Jerusalem, no
slaying of Stephen, no fearless preaching by the Christians to arouse
the wrath of the authorities, and no commands by the risen Christ to
do the preaching. We lose all of the official biography of Paul, since
only a supernatural event is deemed sufficient to explain his lifelong
devotion to Christ, and we also lose the origin of the Jerusalem church.
No wonder the scholars are forced to say that something happened,
no matter what, on Damascus Road. Luke, as usual, has been the sole
guide and has left everyone lost in the wilderness. And if Luke makes
bold to invent the speeches of Paul, perchance he has also invented the
speeches of James, Peter, Stephen, etc.
J. Weiss states further that Luke was not a contemporary of Paul but
belongs to a much later period. Therefore Luke could not have been
Paul's companion on his journeys, and all the "we" passages are fictional.
Luke inserts himself in chapter sixteen, joining Paul in Troas, meaning
that he is supposedly there for the rest of the book, amounting to
thirteen chapters, all of them now suspect. This is almost half the book.

48 C HAPTER 3
 Weiss emphasizes that Luke pertains to a later era, with different
interests and viewpoint:

"It is the language, and above all the whole outlook of the
writer [Luke], that point conclusively away from the time of
Paul to a later, post-apostolic period . . . The author of this
work betrays his remoteness from the events of the earlier
period. Of Paul's distinctive teachings he gives only a pale and
faded picture. " 1 3

This means that Luke has carried out a brazen, large-scale fake in
making himself part of the early narrative.
The most jolting charge made by Weiss deals with the Council
meeting:

"Luke has been guilty of one of the most serious distortions of

the history of primitive Christianity. The representation of the
Apostolic Council cannot be upheld in the light of Ep.
Galatians. "14

The Apostolic council, narrated by Luke .in chapter fifteen of Acts,

is the central episode in the book - indeed, it is central to Christianity
itself. The Jerusalem leaders, according to Luke, formally granted to
Paul permission to preach to the gentiles that they could join the
church, but were free from observance of the Mosaic law. The overall
evidence shows that Paul never got this grant, that he faced sharp
hostility from the "Judaizers" at every turn, and that quite probably he
was expelled and excommunicated from the Jerusalem church. Luke
has given us a radically false version of the whole story.
Others have joined the chorus of criticism. Alfred Loisy:

"From one end of the book to the other, [Luke] is busy in

omitting from the facts which he knew all of those which he
did not wish to speak of, and in falsifying at will the shape of
those which it suited him to record, or which he found impos
sible to pass by in silence. "15

C HAPTER 3 49
 Frederick C. Grant: "If he [Luke] was acquainted with the epistles
of Paul, he certainly does not betray his familiarity in any of the crucial
passages of Acts."1 6
How then can we use Acts to get at the biography of Paul, if the
only genuine testimony comes from Paul, and Luke is not using this ?
In addition to the barrage of criticism thrown at Luke by the schol
ars in the matter of his honesty, we may note that this worthy is very
free in his accusations against the Diaspora Jews:

"We are reminded again and again, with wearisome monotony,

of the hostility and opposition of the Jews . . . It is repeated
over and over again that they contradicted and blasphemed,
that they would not believe, and that they were jealous. "17

Luke is free with these charges in his prior Gospel - there too the
Jews are constantly plotting, rejecting and persecuting. In fact there is
a free interchange of episodes back and forth in the two books, as the
scholars have uncomfortably noted. How reliable then is the gospel
story if the discredited Luke is narrating it?
In the foregoing material we again have two contradictory accounts,
this time concerning the origins of the Jerusalem church. The Judaic
version relies on the Qumran texts, which of course have complete
authenticity. The "official" version relies solely on Luke, and his
account in Acts is perhaps the most criticized book in the New
Testament canon. We can well understand why Gibbon stayed clear of
the whole area of Christian origins - waiting till chapter fifteen of his
'Decline,' about the year AD 250 - before discussing the new
religion. Only then did he find data that he could trust. All before that
was "susp1c1ous."

Our alternate premise holds up so far, namely that Christianity

originates with a Joshua sect.

50 C H APTER 3
NOTES:
1. T. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 17
2. T. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 19
3. A. Powell-Davies, The First Christian, 152, 169
4. Jackson-Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, !:vii
5. E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha vol . l , 66
6. E. Goodenough, Studies in Luke-Acts, 5 1
7. H . Cadbury, The Making ofLuke-Acts, 3
8. H.Cadbury, The Making ofLuke-Acts, 2
9. H. Cadbury, The Making ofLuke-Acts, 2
10. J. Klausner, 209
11. ).Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 146
12. Jackson-Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, 2:332
13. ).Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 6
14. ).Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 144
15. A. Loisy, Origim ofthe New Testament, 19 1
16. J .Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 115, n.60.
17. ].Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 208 - 209.

C H A PT E R 3 51
 4

THE HELLENIC DIASPORA

"Proudly the Jew felt that he had something to say and

bring to the world . . . "
A. Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity

In tracing out a line of development for the Jerusalem church - one that
diverges from the "official" New Testament story - we find that a good clue
is provided at the outset by Martin Luther. In his estimation, several of the
books of the New Testament canon were suspect and of doubtful genuineness.
He named four of these and placed them in limbo at the back of the book.

"In his translation he indicated his unfavorable opinion so far

at all events that he relegated James, Jude, Hebrews, and the
Apocalypse [i.e., Revelation] to the end of the New Testament
without pagination. " 1

For his motives in this, we can guess that two of these texts, Epistle
of James and Revelation, appear strongly Judaic, show no awareness of
the crucifixion story and contain passages hostile to the apostle Paul
and Paul was the great champion of Christianity to Luther. The other
two, Epistle to the Hebrews and Epistle of Jude, were also not suffi
ciently anti-Judaic to suit Luther, and moreover gave curious hints that
Jesus was himself present at the Exodus - pointing to a linkage with
Joshua and casting doubt on the crucifixion story. Luther wanted a
bible that was judenrein so these four had to go.
We can make the experiment of using the four excluded books as the
basis for our reconstruction. Several contain Christian additions, but
in their Judaic stratum they give us the basic nature of the Jerusalem
church that Paul joined. They serve as a counterstatement to Paul's
epistles and thus explain what he found himself in opposition to at a
later time, when he came to change his doctrines.

C H A PT E R 4 53
 The Epistle of James will be our starting point. If this is read in its
plain import and without Christian preconceptions, then we can see
what offended Luther.
The epistle gives us a good description of the sect. We never find out
how James came to be its head (nor do we get this information from
the content of Acts), but he states that the honor of belonging to the
sect derives from God alone, and that "Jesus" had nothing to do with
recruiting the members:

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
comes down from the Father of Light . . . Of his own will he
begat us with the word of truth, that we might be a kind of
first-fruits of his creatures. "2

We leave it to the experts to explain how James could come to write

this, if he knew the career of his brother.
The epistle is in the form of an encyclical to "the twelve tribes that
are in the Diaspora" meaning that there are branches abroad that are to
receive the instructions and admonitions that James will impart. Here
he shows that he is no naive, unlearned Galilean but that he speaks
with authority. This is noted by one scholar:

"The Epistle strikes us at once as the expression of a vigorous

personality. . . His short, decisive sentences fall like hammer
strokes. He constantly employs the imperative . . . His rebukes
contain some of the sharpest invective in the New Testament . . . "3

He is an astute formidable personage, as Paul found to his cost.

The sect that he heads is well-established and long in existence.
There are "elders" in charge of the local branches, which he calls
"synagogues "; there are widows and orphans on the scene, who are to
be supported; class differences have set in, since James complains that
preference is being given to the rich man when he enters the
synagogue. There is a body of accepted dogmas and practices, not part
of normative Judaism: James believes in "devils" and also in faith
healing. "Is any sick among you ? Let him call for the elders of the
church, and let them pray over him. "4

54 C HAPTER 4
 There is oral confession in public: "Confess your faults one to
another and pray one to another, that you may be healed."5
There is an austere way of life imposed on all, summed up in the
phrase "keep oneself unspotted from the world." 6

How did all this happen so fast?

Even the form of sermon is standardized: James throws startling

charges at the congregation, including adultery and murder, and all this
is accepted as a kind of convention. The sermon ends with gentle,
affectionate phrases, and with all this there is the insistence on
complete, unconditional orthodoxy. "For whosoever shall keep the
whole law yet offend in one point, then he is guilty of all. "7
Didn't James know that the death of Jesus meant the end to the
Mosaic law ? Instead James shows no awareness that a miraculous
event had appeared. "It is remarkable that the Epistle contams no
reference to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. " 8
Indeed remarkable.
As stated in a prior chapter, there is good evidence that this church
was a product of the Qumran community. This should lead us to
restate the wording of the opening line in chapter one. This reads:
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve
tribes which are in the Diaspora, greeting . . . "
The opening line of the second chapter is of a similar exalted nature:
"My brethren, you lack the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of
Glory . . . "
These are the Greek translations, but there is every likelihood that
James, of the old breed, wrote in Hebrew and thought in Hebrew. The
original text would then read: "Yacov, a servant of the Lord God and
of His anointed one, ( 'mashiach' ) Yehoshua . . . Our Lord God, and His
glorious mashiach Yehoshua . . . "
The cult hero was Joshua, and there is no sign that James considered
himself the biological brother of the human Jesus.
On the premise that the sect derived from Qumran, we can assume
that the sect had a similar program. The Manual of Discipline scroll of
Qumran states this program clearly:

C H APTER 4 ss
 "Everyone who wishes to join the community must pledge
himself to respect God and man; to live according to the
communal rule; to seek God with all his heart; to do what is
good and upright in His sight, in accordance with what He
has commanded by Moses and His servants the prophets; to
love all that He has chosen, and hate all that He has rejected;
to keep far from all evil and to cling to all good works; . . . to
love all the children of light, each according to his portion in
the community of God; and to hate all the children of
darkness, each according to the measure of his guilt, which
God will ultimately requite . . . They must not turn aside from
the ordinances of God' s truth, either to the right or to the
left. "9

The epistle of James, which appears to be an authentic statement of

the Jerusalem church, shows clear affinities to the Qumran text: total
orthodoxy, a withdrawal and separation from the evil world, and a
sharp division, a "we-they" between the elect and the outsiders. All
this raises question after question. What does a reclusive Essene-like
community at Qumran, and its assumed offshoot in Jerusalem, have to
do with the very wide outer world of the Diaspora and the Judaism of
the Roman empire? And how did a cosmopolitan Hellenic Jew like
Paul come to join an obscure tiny sect such as this ?
The epistle of James opens up areas scarcely touched by New
Testament scholars, which explains why this epistle is kept under
wraps. For to examine the background and implications of the text is
to open the way to an alternate explanation for Christian origins. What
we are dealing with is the epic of the Jewish- Hellenic Diaspora, and it
is this Diaspora that explains the sect and the career of Paul. Hence a
survey of this Diaspora Judaism is in order.
In the long journey of Israel down the centuries and down the
millennia, perhaps the most fortunate of times was the period of more
than two hundred years from the victory of the Maccabees, about
1 50 BC, to the war with Rome, which began AD 66. The pinnacle of
this era was during the rule of Augustus Caesar - the forty years from
27 BC to AD 14 - but overall there was optimism, prosperity, and a
large expansion of Jewish communities and synagogues to every part

56 C H A PT E R 4
of the Roman empire. If any thing, the Jews were overly favored, with
privileges and exemptions granted by Rome - a benefit for which the
Jews would later pay heavily.
However, in the high noon of the Hellenic Diaspora this Judaism
had a profound influence on the pagan world. Here we make the
discovery, known to the scholars but not to the layman, that the
Judaism of that period was of a universalist outgoing nature, with a
marked missionary aspect. The synagogues, in every major city of the
empire, had many gentiles in attendance. At every point the stereo
types and the preconceptions as to Judaism fall by the wayside.
This missionary effort has been noted by several writers. Adolf
Harnack, in his maj or work, The Mission and Expansion of
Christianity, estimated that the Jews numbered about 7 percent of the
population at that time, or about four and half million out of the
Roman total population of fifty-four million.1 0 He attributed this to
the missionary effort.

"It is surprising that a religion which raised so stout a wall of

partition between itself and all other religions, and which in
practice and prospects alike was bound up so closely with its
nation, should have possessed a missionary impulse of such
vigor and attained so large a measure of success. " 1 1

He continues:

"The duty and hopefulness of missions are brought out in the

earliest Jewish Sibylline books. Almost the whole of the liter
ature of Alexandrian Judaism has an apologetic [i.e.,
polemical] bent and the instinct of propaganda . . . Proudly the
Jew felt he had something to say and bring to the world, that
is, The one and only spiritual God, creator ofheaven and earth, with
his holy moral law. . . The keenness of Jewish propaganda
throughout the empire during the first century is also clear
from the introduction of the Jewish week and Sabbath
throughout the empire. Many pagans celebrated the Sabbath
just as Jews today observe Sunday. " 1 2

C H A PT E R 4 57
 Josephus confirms this and shows himself to be a missionary in his
own right:

" Our lawgiver Moses made excellent rules to secure our own
customs from corruption, and to throw them open ungrudg
ingly to all who choose to share them. To all who desire to
come and live under the same laws with us he gives a gracious
welcome . . . The masses have long since shown a keen desire to
adopt our religious observances. There is not one city, Greek
or barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of
abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and
where the fasts and the lighting of lamps, and many of our
prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed . . . As God
permeates the universe, so the Law has found its way among
all mankind."13

George F. Moore, pointed out that this mtsstonary effort was

considered as quite normal in the Jewish communities:

"The Jews did not send out missionaries into the partes
infidelium expressly to proselytize among the heathen. They
were themselves settled by the thousands in all the great
centers and in innumerable smaller cities; they had appropri
ated the language and much of the civilization of their
surroundings; they were engaged in the ordinary occupations
and entered into the industrial and commercial life of the
community and frequently into its political life. Their
religious influence was exercised chiefly through the
synagogues, which they set up for themselves and which were
open to all whom interest or curiosity drew to their
services. " 1 4

The gentiles, for their part, were drawn m varymg degrees to

Judaism, as Harnack explains:

sa C H A PT E R 4
 "The adhesion of Greeks and Romans to Judaism ranged over
the entire gamut of possible degrees, from the superstitious
adoption of certain rites up to complete identification. ' God
fearing' pagans constituted the majority; proselytes, i.e.,
people who were actually Jews, obliged to keep the whole
Law, there is no doubt were comparatively few in number. " 1 5

The " God-fearers " had merely taken the first step, such as observ
ing a few customs, and it would be this marginal group, the
"sympathizers" who would be most vulnerable when the showdown
came later. The Jews in turn were satisfied with this arrangement. One
writer states that the Jews would wait three generations to make a
convert:

"Judaism possessed the prudence and tact not to exact from its
converts at the outset full and complete adoption of the Jewish
Law. The neophyte was at first simply a 'friend' to the Jewish
customs, observing the least binding ones - the Sabbath,
certain fast-days, abstention from pork. His sons frequented
the synagogues and deserted the temples, studied the Law, and
contributed their oboli (coins) to the treasury in Jerusalem. By
degrees habit accomplished the rest. At last the proselyte took
the decisive step: he received the rite of circumcision, took the
bath of purity . . . and offered, doubtless in money, the sacrifice
which signalized his definitive entrance into the bosom of
Israel. Occasionally, in order to accentuate his conversion, he
even adopted a Hebraic name . . . In the third generation,
according to Deuteronomy 23:8, there existed no distinction
between the Jew by race and the Jew by adoption. " 1 6

Aside from synagogue Judaism there were the individual spokes

men. On the best level we have Philo of Alexandria, who composed
numerous missionary tracts devoted to expounding the Mosaic Law in
his own speculative theology. At the other end were the street healers,
who formed their own guilds .

C H APTER 4 59
 "Phrygia, like the rest of Asia Minor during the Apostolic Age,
was full of strolling Jewish sorcerers who undertook for
money to cast out devils, to effect and destroy enchantments,
to send and interpret dreams, and to manufacture love
philtres. " 1 7

Their gentile counterparts and rivals also utilized Hebrew mystery

words in their exorcisms.

"This is abundantly borne out by the spells preserved for us by

the Magic Papyri . . . The names of the angels Gabriel, Michael
and Raphael given in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha
are also common in all this literature. " 1 8

All in all, Diaspora Judaism showed "pluralism" in the extreme, and

got along very well with that pluralism.
The great achievement of this Hellenism was its literary creativity
showing a wide range and diversity and a universalist outlook. The
sheer volume of its literary output reaches hundreds of texts and we
can list the main components.
The masterpiece of the Jewish-Hellenic Diaspora was the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures of some thirty-nine books,
known as the Septuagint. This was used in all the synagogues, and was
the main source of missionary Judaism. To this Scripture was added
some seventeen books known as the Apocrypha and which had near
canonical status with the Judaism of that period. These include the
Maccabean wars, in I and II Maccabees, the extensive wisdom books,
Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, and fictional favorites such as Tobit,
judith and Susannah. These texts remain part of the Catholic editions
of Scripture, but have been dropped by the Jewish and Protestant
editions.
A second group was the Pseudepigrapha [psood-ePIG-rapha] which
was a genre of religious fiction, popular among Jews of the late Temple
period. The texts were composed in the names of revered ancestral
figures, and purported to give testaments, revelations and guidance to
the Jews of the later period. A recent edition gives some seventy-eight
writings, from fragments to lengthy texts, and include ' apocalyptic

60 C H A PT E R 4
literature and testaments, expansions of the Old Testament with
legendary material, wisdom and philosophical literature, prayers,
psalms and odes, and fragments of lost Judeo-Hellenistic works.' The
preface extends this by listing 96 of these pseudepigrapha (pages xlv to
xlvii); apparently only 78 were printed, but the content fills two
volumes.19
Overall, we can quote tributes from modern scholars to this litera
ture. In the R. H. Charles edition of the pseudepigrapha, published
1 9 1 2, the editor states:

"The ethical element is the fundamental element in the chief

books of this literature . . . It would be possible to fill many
pages in setting forth the teachings of U ewish] apocalyptic on
such ethical subjects as conscience, courage, endurance, long
suffering, justice, truthfulness, temperance, singleness of
heart, [avoidance of] deceit, calumny, folly; on religious
themes of an ethical character as love, faith, works, forgive
ness, compassion, humility, reverence, [condemnation of]
covetousness, lust; or on metaphysical themes influencing
ethics, as foreknowledge, freedom, determinism, heredity,
individualism, universalism . . . "20

Prof. James Charlesworth, the editor for the modern edition of the
pseudepigrapha, writes:

"It is obvious that post-exilic Judaism (i.e., the period after the
return from exile, and marked by the inauguration of the
Second Temple, about 450 BC) was distinguished by a
voluminous and varied literature . . . During the post-exilic
period the Jewish genius exploded into creative new
wntmgs . . .
"Apocalypses that stressed the grandeur and transcendence
of God were customarily interspersed with hymns that
celebrated God ' s nearness, and by prayers that were perceived
as heard and answered. Post-exilic Judaism was a living and
devout religion [with] new hymns, psalms and odes . . .

C H APTER 4 61
 "The simplistic picture of Early Judaism should be recast; it
certainly was neither a religion which had fallen into arduous
legalism due to the crippling demands of the Law, nor was it
characterized by four dominant sects . . . It is obvious that
Judaism was not monolithically structured nor shaped by a
central and all-powerful ' orthodoxy ' . . . The documents
contained herein certainly demonstrate the rich vitality and
diversity of Judaism during the early centuries . . . "2 1

Samuel Sandmel, in the introduction, joins in the tribute and states

that the modern reader "can still be astonished, amazed, enlightened
and overwhelmed by the abundance and variety and recurrent high
quality of the Jewish literary activity of that period."22

Given these tributes on the record, several questions arise: What was
the need for a new religion to replace Judaism, and what was mankind
being rescued from ? It is apparent that the Judaism of that period had
many admirable qualities, and this was recognized in the empire. Long
after the war with Rome, Judaism remained a licita religion. About AD
230, Origen writes:

"Now that the Romans rule and the Jews pay them the half
shekel, the Jewish E thnarch (the Patriarch residing at Tiberi as)
through concessions from Caesar holds great powers and
differs little from a true king. "23

We are now in the high noon of the Hellenic Diaspora, before the
long night fell. Against this background and broad panorama of
Diaspora Judaism we can safely find a place for the Jerusalem church
of James and Paul. The center was in Jerusalem, presided over by
James, but the plain wording of the Epistle of James indicates that it
was basically a missionary church with branches in the Diaspora. It
was marginal, ascetic, apart from the main stream of the Diaspora
synagogues, but this too had its place. There were Hellenized Jews
who were fond of the theater and the stadium; at the other extreme
were Jews who found their way to tiny sects that pored over arcane
texts. It is in this area of borderline sects that we find the church of

62 C H A PT E R 4
James, with its own doctrines and practices, its own program and view
of history, yet part of the Diaspora spectrum. It was considered quite
in order at that period.
R. H. Charles notes that several of the texts in his edition had clear
links to early Christianity. The Book of Enoch " . . . has had more influ
ence on the New Testament than any other apocryphal or
pseudepigraphic work. "24
As to The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,

"St. Paul seems to have used the book as a vade mecum [a

constant guide] . . . The Pauline borrowings are too numerous
to be dealt with here. The reader can consult my [separately
published] text. "25

At this point we may posit that Paul joined the Jamesian sect for the
good reason that he, as a Diaspora Jew, agreed with the particular
program of the sect. He states that in his first visit to Jerusalem he
spent two weeks in the home of Peter, with James present. 26 The
simplest explanation for this meeting with the top sect leadership was
that this was Paul's initiation, along with a study course in sect
doctrine. Leaving Jerusalem, where he had been ordained a missionary
after his study course with James, Paul took up his career as an
emissary of the Jerusalem sect. His early career is indicated in 1 and 2
Corinthians, and here too we find a background at wide variance from
that given in Acts.
In these epistles Paul shows himself to be an itinerant missionary, far
down in the ranks of the sect, and having a difficult time of it. The
difficulty, strangely enough, does not come from the task of preaching
a new faith to a pagan world, but from the overabundance and compe
tition of his fellow-missionaries who are doing the same thing. Paul
finds himself in a bible belt so crowded with rival missionaries, so
swamped and crisscrossed with speakers that he is hard put to get a
speaking engagement. He is not the originator, the lone pioneer preach
ing a new gospel, but one of many in a well-established movement.
These rivals are not the Hellenist refugees who had fled Judea as a
result of the alleged persecution led by Paul years back. Not only are
they veritable Jews but Paul argues vehemently that he is just as Jewish

C HAPTER 4 63
as they are, and his only wish is to become as respectable, as accepted,
as well-established as they are. "Are they Hebrews ? So am I. Are they
Israelites ? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham ? So am I. Are they
ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool, but I am more so."27
Instead of being the pioneer, he is trying to make his way in an
organization that was there long before he arrived. And the scholars
never tell us how all this came about.
The impression that emerges is of a church structure well organized
in various Diaspora cities, all devoted to a 'Jesus,' but with a spectrum
of ideas and dogmas concerning this Jesus, and various speakers would
come to each branch giving their own message. The idea of guest
speakers on circuit was in all likelihood used by Diaspora synagogues
generally. The popular figures got letters of commendation from one
branch, which gave them entree to other branches, and here Paul is on
the defensive:
"Not that we venture to class or compare ourselves with some of
those who commend themselves [i.e., they are well established in the
field and have every right to be there] . . . "26

Paul shows no great affection for these leaders. They appear to be

smug bureaucrats who travel about in style, accompanied by their
wives, none of which denotes martyrdom and persecution. Paul
himself supplies a rather startling list of floggings, shipwrecks and
arrests that he had undergone29, but in context it is to show that he is
the only one taking the thing seriously and no one else is having any
trouble or making any sacrifices - which is just what he is complain
ing about. And there is the gentle hint that Paul is building it up to gain
sympathy from the Corinthians and to help himself get speaking
engagements (let him who never faked a job resume cast the first
stone). All in all, the picture is one of normalcy and stability.
Part of this normalcy is the alertness and inquisitiveness of the
membership, their readiness to debate and argue and ask questions.
They are not the humble recipients of a new doctrine. Rather they are
the ones who pick and choose among the speakers. In the Corinthian
church Paul has all he can to do restore harmony in what seems to be
a Greek debating society.

64 C H A PT E R 4
 "How is it then, brethren ? When you come together, every one
of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revela
tion, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for
improvement. "30

Again we ask - how did this come about?

Paul reveals that Peter is well-known in the Diaspora, as are the
"brothers of the Lord," and writes:
" Have we no right to lead about a sister, a wife, as do the other
apostles and as do the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter) ?"31
We cannot believe that the siblings of Jesus of Nazareth all left
Galilee and took up missionary careers, taking their wives with them.
The phrase "brothers of the Lord" can therefore be given the interpre
tation as referring to the leading officials of the sect. And none of this
is hinted at in Acts.
As to these figures, the impression we get is that we are dealing with
able, intelligent men who handle themselves as experienced debaters
and missionaries. These are the "Judaizers. " Could men of this calibre
be totally mistaken about the content of Christianity ? More likely they
knew very well what they were doing. They were preaching the origi
nal program of the Jesus sect and they defended it ably. It is Paul, the
brilliant diaspora Jew, who in the end was worsted by his opponents.
Further insights as to the daily life of the sect can gleaned from other
passages in Paul's epistles. He speaks of "collections for the saints" -
that is, the Jerusalem church. He also reminds his readers, rather
bluntly, that he too requires support from the collections. In Galatians
he is the sworn enemy of the Law, but at this earlier stage he finds a
good word to say for it:

"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle

the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn . . . Even so hath
the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should
live off the gospel. "32

We might compare this arrangement to what the older generation of

Jews called a shaliach. Such a man travelled about for a religious-chari
table organization, collecting funds - some he remitted, some he kept

C H APTER 4 65
for himself. The impression we get is of a loose sect, all branches linked
to the "Lord Christ" but with different preachers on circuit, jostling
for position, and with the center in Jerusalem able to supervise, and in
extreme cases - as befell Paul - to intervene if doctrinal matters got
too far out of line.
His career, as we gather from Corinthians, involved building up
churches to the cult Jesus in cities along the northeast Mediterranean.
In some places he seems to have been the pioneer, in others there is a
question of various rival missionaries who also appear, and whom he
warns his readers against. These are "false apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for
Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. "33

To one encountering these texts for the first time, and not taken in
by the aura of sainthood given to Paul, he appears as a spiteful, trucu
lent adversary towards all who disagree with him, and ready to thrust
his way forward by any means necessary. In his chafing resentment at
the leaders he shows no awareness that these were the actual disciples
and companions of Jesus, directly commissioned by him. Otherwise
he would not dare challenge their authority. This in itself is evidence to
be weighed on the question of whether he knew of the existence of the
said Jesus. Thus, from a single document, namely the Epistle of James,
we have a large new area opening up.

At this stage, Paul is far down in the ranks, living a harried existence
and with no chance of advancement. All this would be changed by
catastrophic events in the future.

66 C H A PT E R 4
NOTES:
1 . W Bousset, Encyclopaedia Biblica, article: "The Apocalypse", 1 : 1 96
2. Epistle ofjames, 1 : 1 7
3. Dictionary ofApostolic Church, james, 629
4. Epistle ofjames, 5 : 1 4
5 . Epistle ofjames, 5 : 1 6
6 . Epistle ofjames, 1 :27
7. Epistle ofjames, 2: 1 0
8 . Dictionary ofthe Apostolic Church, james, 630
9. The Manual ofDiscipline scroll ofQumran, Rule 1 : 1 - 1 9
1 0. A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 8
1 1 . A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 9
1 2. A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 9 n.3, 1 1 n.2
1 3 . Josephus, Contra Apion, 2:2 1 0, 282, 284
1 4. G.F. Moore, judaism in the First Centuries ofthe Christian Era, 1 :323
1 5. A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 1 2
1 6. jewish Encyclopedia. 4:570
1 7. F. Legge, Forerunners of Christianity, 2:33
1 8. F. Legge, Forerunners of Christianity, 2:34
1 9. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth
20. R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament, 2:x
2 1 . J. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 , xxviii - ix intro
22. S. Sandmel, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 , xiii intro
23. Origen, Africanus, 1 4
24. R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament, 2: 1 80
- citing twelve parallels to the epistles of Paul, ad loc
25. R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament, 2:292
26. Epistle to the Galatians. 1 : 1 8
27. 2 Corinthians, 1 1 :22, 23
28. 2 Corinthians, 1 0: 1 2
29. 2 Corinthians, 1 1 :23 - 27
30. 1 Corinthians, 1 4:26
3 1 . 1 Corinthians, 9:5
32. 1 Corinthians, 9:9, 14
33. 2 Corinthians, 1 1 : 1 3 - 14

C HAPTER 4 67
 5

jESUS AND THE EXODUS STORY

"Behold, I send my angel before your face, that he may

guard you in the way . . . Obey his voice, provoke him not. . .
My name is upon him."
Exodus 23:20 - 21

The epistles of Jude and Hebrews, in our Luther list, are relevant to
our inquiry in that they represent christianization of prior Judaic
material. These epistles point to late speculative Judaism, also to the
theology of Paul and the Jerusalem church. There is no awareness of
"Jesus of Nazareth." However there are clear linkages to Joshua and
Moses, with confirmation for the premise that Joshua was the prototype
for the gospel Jesus. Here we can trace out the line of development.
Basically there has been a christianization of the Exodus story, with
Jesus replacing Moses as the leader in the wilderness, and then replac
ing Joshua in bringing the Israelites into salvation - the spiritual
Christian version rather than the Canaanite version. Traditionally, the
Passover story and the Exodus story comprise the national epic of the
Jews. God rescued his people from Egypt with signs and wonders.
There was the giving of the Law at Sinai, the years of wandering in the
wilderness, and then God fulfilled his promise made to Abraham, by
bringing the Israelites into the promised land. All this was carried out,
on the human scene, first by Moses, then by his lieutenant Joshua.
Their role in the story conferred the highest prestige and authority
upon them. If the story were left just as it stands, and unchallenged by
the Christian side, then Judaism would represent the divine will, and
would have the highest legitimacy unto this day. Hence the need to
capture and christianize.
However the Exodus story had undergone interpretations and
revisions in late Hellenic Judaism, and in some speculative groups the
story had been altered from the nationalist and historical plane to the

C H APTER 5 69
spiritual and mystical plane - with Christianity as the end product. In
particular the writings of Philo of Alexandria led to this development.
Philo was a thoroughly Hellenized Jew, a member of one of the wealth
iest and most influential Jewish families in Alexandria, and a fervent
admirer of Greek art and culture. He lived about 25 BC - AD 45.
With full leisure and Hellenized background, he took it upon
himself to present Judaism in a manner familiar to and sympathetic to
educated Greeks, and did so in extensive writings that represent a
remarkable literary and philosophical achievement. But as the saying
hath it, 'No good deed will go unpunished.' His writings, in their end
result, went nine-tenths of the way towards Christian theology, and
were fully taken over by Christian writers. Philo marks the transition
from Hellenic Judaism to Christian theology.
The Passover story recites the passage from slavery to freedom, with
the Israelites led by Moses. Philo transformed the story from the
historical and national plane to the personal and spiritual plane. Thus
he defined the Passover as . . .

"the change from ignorance and stupidity to education and

wisdom . . . from fear and cowardice to courage and confi
dence . . . And there is another Passover of the soul, which is
the sacrifice of passing over from [i.e. - abandoning] the
body. " 1

It is the transfer from the material to the spiritual, from the lower to
the higher. "The true sacrifice of God -loving souls consists in
abandoning an empty and visible splendor, and attempting to change
to the non-apparent and invisible. "2 A similar thought appears in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, where Moses rejects the 'treasures of Egypt' to
gain a spiritual reward.
As Philo describes it, in his consistently allegorical manner, God
rescued Israel from Egypt (that is, rescued the virtuous man from the
corrupt material world) not by 'historical' means but by means of his
intermediary and agent, described variously as Word or Logos, also as
"angel" and Power, by which God communicates with man - a
concept basic with Philo. Israel "took refuge in God the Savior, who
sent his beneficent Power and delivered from their difficult and

70 C H A PTE R 5
hopeless position those who made supplication. "3 That is, Israel was
rescued from Egypt by the Divine Word. If this Word is made to
represent Jesus, then we have the message of Epistle to the Hebrews.
This Word or "Logos" is the key to Philo's system, and he uses this
throughout his allegorical explanations of Scripture. Among the attrib
utes and powers of the Word/Logos, as given in one index list, are . . .

" . . . administrator of world, all-powerful, angel, bond of world,

disciplines wicked, foundation of world, head of all things,
instrument in creation, intercessor, judge of world, mediator,
overseer of God's power, physician, prophet of God, word of
God."

The complete list contains 37 attributes.4

Philo also describes the Word as the eldest son of God, and the first
born: "God's first-born, the Divine Word."5 This means that we do not
need the "historical Jesus of Nazareth" to arrive at the full Christian
theology. The Logos is God's way to reach downward towards man.
However man can also ascend upwards towards God, and if not able
to reach God, can at least hope to attain communion with the Word. It
is in this borderline region where Joshua, according to Philo, merges
with the Word and is identified as the Word.
A key passage in Scripture reads:

"Behold, I send my angel before your face, that he may guard

you in the way, in order that he may lead and bring you to the
land that I have prepared for you. Give heed and listen and do
not disobey. He will not show consideration for you, for My
name is upon him. "6

Philo quotes this text then gives this interpretation:

"An angel is . . . wholly mind, wholly incorporeal, made to be a

minister to God, and appointed over certain needs and
services of the race of mortals since this race was unable,
because of its corruptible nature, to receive [directlyJ the gifts

C H A PTE R 5 71
 and benefactions extended by God . . . Of necessity was the
Logos appointed as judge and mediator, and is called 'angel' . . .
The entry into the land is an entry into philosophy . . . The
divine Name is called upon the angel, who is the most sover
eign and principal being known to heaven, earth and the
universe. And he who has so great a power must necessarily
be filled with all-powerful wisdom."7

That is, the angel of the way is to be identified with the Word or
Logos, in the fullest sense. In context, this identifies Joshua with the
"angel of the way. " Thus it was Philo who first linked Joshua/Jesus
with the Word. Essentially, Philo created Christianity.
Elsewhere, Philo states that when Moses changed the name of his
lieutenant from Hoshea to Joshua, this in a mystical way effected a
change from the individual and the mortal (i.e., the man Hoshea) to a
supernatural state that was timeless and "perfect" (i.e., the new being
Joshua/Yehoshua). "The state is everlasting, active, perfect. The
individual is mortal, acted on, imperfect. The imperishable is higher
and greater than the mortal. " 6
We may note here that in the Greek text the change of name reads
from "Oshee" to "Jesus" - that is, the new name that is everlasting
and perfect. And it also represents the divine name "Jehovah is salva
tion." Thus the scriptural text 'My name is upon him' applies to Jesus.
In Epistle to the Hebrews, we read that Jesus, "being made perfect,
became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. "9 We
now turn to these epistles in greater detail.
Rendel Harris, a well-known scholar of the early 1 900s, points to "a
curious variant in the Epistle of Jude. " 1 0 Jude is very brief, comprising
a single chapter of twenty-five verses. Verse 5, in most editions, reads
in part: "the Lord, having saved a people out of Egypt, afterwards
destroyed those that believed not. " Harris argues that . . .

" . . . there is good support, both from external and internal

evidence, for reading jesus [instead of Lord] . . . especially when
in the previous verse [verse 4] Jesus Christ has been declared
to be the only Master and Lord . . . "

72 C H A PT E R 5
 That is, the text should read, "Jesus saved a people out of Egypt. "

Harris cites another Christian text in support of this: "Lo! the Virgin
has borne Emmanuel. He came down from Heaven, and saved from
the land of Egypt the people that went astray. " 1 1
H e could also have cited Justin o n the same theme. I n the Dialogue
with Trypho, Justin informs the Jewish disputant Trypho that "Christ
was the Mighty God and was to be worshiped . . . Jesus brought your
fathers out of Egypt." 1 2
Since Jesus is God, according to Justin, he has the power to intervene
anywhere in history.
Harris then discusses Epistle to the Hebrews, where a key verse -
chapter 4, verse 8 - deals with the same punishment for "disbelievers "
mentioned in the Epistle of Jude: the "Lord " will grant deliverance and
"rest" to those that believe, but will inflict punishment and deny rest
to those that do not believe - and in both cases dealing with the rebel
liousness of the Jews in the desert. Just who is the "Lord" that speaks
and warns ? If it is Jesus, then he was present and acted as God in the
Exodus.
The key verse, in the Greek, Latin and King James, reads: "If Jesus
had given them rest, then he would not have spoken afterwards of
another day [for granting the true rest] . " 1 3
This seems clear enough, and Harris defends this as the obvious
meaning: "We should therefor infer that it was Jesus who gives the
Rest to believers, and who does not give it to unbelieving Jews." 1 4
The simple matter of trusting his eyesight and his common sense has
led Harris to adopt this reading. However it places Jesus directly in the
Exodus story.

The epistle discloses further that not only is Jesus present, but he has
displaced the "Old Testament" leaders, Moses and Joshua. Moses is
down-played, and Joshua does not appear at all. Jesus is the dominant
figure throughout. In chapter eleven Moses is merely one of a long list
of ancestral figures who "lived by faith." He joined the Exodus as an
outsider, on generous impulse, with no hint in the text that he was the
supreme leader. The text reads:

C H A PT E R 5 73
 "By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known
as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He chose to be mistreated
along with the people of God, rather than to enjoy the
pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the
sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt,
because he was looking ahead to his reward. "15

The inference is that Christ was present "as of greater value" and
could "reward Moses" - and that Moses chose to join though he was
free to remain in Egypt. It is all a personal decision on his part. It is
never mentioned that the God of Israel throughout spoke with Moses
and commanded him. One would never suspect the Passover and
Exodus stories from this brief, dismissive account. All has been chris
tianized.
In the case of Joshua the down-playing is more extreme: He is not
mentioned at all. In a long section in chapter eleven of some thirty
verses, seventeen ancestral figures from the Scriptures are listed and the
faith of each one is extolled. Joshua is conspicuously omitted. The list
comprises Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Esau,
Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David,
Samuel "and many others." How could Joshua have been omitted,
when so many minor figures were included?
This was not mere oversight since the Jericho story, where Joshua
was in command, is told in a way that carefully eliminates him:

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched
around them for seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab,
because she had welcomed the spies, was not killed with those
who were disobedient. " 1 6

Joshua, the central character, has been omitted. The " Old
Testament" Scriptural version reads:

"Then the Lord said to Joshua, See, I have delivered Jericho

into your hands . . . Joshua commanded the people, Shout, for
the Lord has given you the city . . . Only Rahab the harlot and
all who are with her in her house shall be spared."17

74 C H A PT E R 5
 Joshua is so prominent in the original text that his elimination must
have been deliberate.
As we recall, the passage in Epistle to the Hebrews 4:8 reads: "If
Jesus had given them (the Israelites) rest, then he would not have
spoken afterwards of another day. "
In several modern Bible editions (NIV and NEB editions among
these), this line appears in a revised version: "If joshua had given them
rest, then God would not have spoken afterwards of another day. "
This is is a blatant mistranslation amounting to deception.
The modern Bible editors felt that to place Jesus in the Exodus
would be too much of a contradiction to the "historical Jesus of
Nazareth." Therefore the text was revised, with the inconvenient Jesus
removed and "Joshua" substituted. The Bible editors, ordained clergy
men, proceeded to deny their Lord, and denied his power to intervene
in the Exodus, all in the matter of expediency and to pander to modern
views of the historical Jesus. But we must ask how Joshua can abruptly
appear in chapter four when he has been carefully suppressed in
chapter eleven. In the Greek Christian texts, such as this epistle, the
name "Jesus" by itself always refers to the Jesus. If another Jesus, such
as Joshua, were intended, then the full name of that person would be
spelled out - "Jesus son of Nave" for Joshua. Therefore the text of
Epistle to the Hebrews must logically retain the presence of Jesus in
the Exodus story, with the passage in chapter four remaining as it was.
Furthermore in the Judaic Scriptural reading, Joshua indeed brought
the Israelites to their rest, and God fulfilled his promises to Israel.

"Joshua took the whole land [of Canaan] according to all that
the Lord said to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance
to Israel. . . and the land rested from war. . . And the Lord gave
them rest according to all that he had sworn to their fathers . . .
There failed none of the good things which the Lord had
spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass." 18

Therefore the modern revisionist translation must be wrong, and

"Jesus" stays in the text.

C HAPTER 5 75
 Proof positive that in Christian doctrine Jesus was present in the
Exodus is found in the "Reproaches," recited and prominent during
the Good Friday services to the present day. Here Jesus-as-God recites
the many benefits he conferred upon the Jews in leading them out of
Egypt and contrasts this with the base ingratitude and wickedness of
the Jews in mocking and crucifying him. It is the same Person and the
same unrepentant Jews in both cases.

We quote these edifying passages from the "Reproaches":

"For your sake I scourged Egypt with its firstborn, and you
scourged Me and delivered Me up . . . I led you out of Egypt,
having drowned Pharaoh in the Red Sea, and you have deliv
ered Me to the chief priests . . . I opened the sea before you, and
you with a spear have opened My side . . . I went before you in
a pillar of a cloud, and you have led Me to the judgment hall
of Pilate . . . I fed you with manna in the desert, and you have
beaten Me with blows and scourges . . . I gave you the water of
salvation from the rock to drink, and you have given Me gall
and vinegar. . . For your sake I struck the kings of the
Canaanites, and you have struck My head with a reed . . . I have
given you a royal sceptre, and you have given Me a crown of
thorns . . . I exalted you with great strength, and you have
hanged Me on the gibbet of the Cross . . . "

With this on the record, it becomes pointless to deny the presence of

the supernatural Christ in the Exodus.

Other maj or themes in Epistle to the Hebrews, in exalting Jesus, are

that he was the Creator of the universe and is the eternal High Priest.
Both themes are anticipated in Philo, who assigns these roles to the
Logos. In Philo's version, the universe is created by God's "saying"
but the form of things derives from the logon. "At His saying, heaven
and earth and the entire world were created, and the whole of
substance received its form from the divine principles ['logon'] as
fashioners. " 1 9
This appears in the Epistle as . . .

76 CHAPTER 5
 "His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom
he also made the worlds . . . Thou, Lord [Christ], in the begin
ning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the
work of your hands. "20

The specific role of Jesus in the Epistle is that of the Eternal High
Priest. This too is the role of the Logos, as given by Philo. "The High
Priest is His [God's] First-born, the divine Word."2 1
The transition from Philo to Christianity consists precisely in
substituting Christ for the Logos and then incarnating the Logos
Christ in the role of High Priest. Philo states in one passage that "the
great high priest" is himself the officiator and the ritual offering, and
the editor explains that this refers to the Logos.
Philo writes:

"Who then is God's cup-bearer? He who pours the libation of

peace, the truly great high priest who first receives the loving
cups of God's perennial bounties, then pays them back when
he pours that potent undiluted draught, the libation of
himself. " 22

Here the editor notes that the "cup-bearer is the Logos. "23
With Philo, the Logos-priest offers himself up, while in the Epistle
the Christ-priest does the same. Jesus became "a merciful and faithful
high priest . . . He offered up himself. "24
From the foregoing we see that the epistles of Jude and Hebrews,
plus the writings of Philo, can give us maj or elements in Christian
theology - with no need for the presence of "Jesus of Nazareth. "
What will b e added to Philo b y way o f Christian doctrine will be the
incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus, and then the acting-out
of the self-sacrifice of the High Priest, in the form of the Passion,
where Jesus offers himself up. The doctrines will be presented in
historical guise, but still embodying church doctrines.
Turning to Paul, we find that he has the same exalted view towards
Christ that Philo had to the Word, and that he has also placed Christ
in the Exodus story. He describes Jesus as the Rock of living water in
the wilderness.

C H A PT E R 5 77
 "All [the Israelites] did drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank
of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. "25
Paul knows only the supernatural Christ. "Christ is the power of
God and the wisdom of God. "26
"He is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every
creature. "27
This is close to Philo.
Passages in Paul's epistles that purport to refer to a human Jesus can
be labeled as "orthodox" Christian additions meant to make Paul a
witness to the gospel story where the original text did not have the
orthodox passages. The scholars are well aware that the first collection
of Paul's epistles was made by Marcion about AD 1 30. Marcion, called
an archheretic by the early church, proclaimed a Lord Jesus who was
a supernatural being, and used Paul's epistles to confirm his position.
Marcion would not have wasted a moment on Paul if it were known
that Paul had conceived of Jesus as a human figure.
The early Christian Tertullian undertook to challenge Marcion's
version of Paul's epistles with his own supposedly orthodox version,
in a polemical work, Against Marcion written about AD 1 90. But in
making the text comparison, Tertullian reveals that his own text is
missing the Christian additions, which therefore were added at a later
date.
In his dispute with Marcion over the text of the Epistle to the
Romans, Tertullian begins with Rom. 1 : 1 6, wherein Paul states: "For I
am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salva
tion. "
I t is incredible that Tertullian did not start with verse 1 :3 : "Jesus
Christ, our Lord, was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh. "
Obviously he would have quoted this if it were in his copy, since this
would have refuted the claim of Marcion that Jesus was purely a spiri
tual figure. Tertullian states elsewhere: "He who wishes to see Jesus must
also believe him to be the son of David, by descent from the virgin. "28
This makes it all the more strange that Tertullian did not comment
on Marcion's omission of the "son of David" in his edition of Epistle
to the Romans. Plainly, Paul had omitted it, and it is an "orthodox"
Christian addition.

78 C HAPTER 5
 Another variation in text is found in Epistle to the Galatians 4:4. The
present text reads: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent
his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem those that
were under the Law. "
Tertullian quotes the opening words, "But when the fullness of the
time had come, God sent his Son," then adds a long explanatory
passage of about fourteen lines, then continues with the quote, giving
as the text, "to redeem those that were under the Law. "29
The plain inference is that his text - and that of Marcion - read
simply "God sent his Son to redeem those that were under the Law. "30
The added words - "made of a woman, made under the law" -
meant that Jesus had come in the flesh, which Marcion and the
Gnostics had denied, and that Jesus pertained to the orthodox Jewish
Christian God, which Marcion also denied. Paul was thus captured
from Marcion and has been made to recite the orthodox doctrines. It
is obvious that Tertullian would have quoted the orthodox text if he
had it in front of him, since that would have demolished Marcion at
once. But Tertullian is silent. He had only Marcion's original text. "The
dog didn't bark. "
Again we have evidence that Paul's original text did not confirm the
historical Jesus. This 'confirmation' has been created by orthodox
Christian forgeries of the text. We must ask where is the moral stature
of a religion that must go in for these tactics.
If Paul did not know of the orthodox Judaic birth of Jesus, then the
inference is that the others in the Jerusalem church did not know this
either. All this confirms that this church had an origin and line of
development entirely separate from that given in the gospel. A further
inference is that if Jesus has replaced and supplanted Joshua in Epistle
to the Hebrews, then this Jesus is a christianized version of Joshua.
We turn now to Revelation, the last of the four Luther texts. This
deals with the death and resurrection of Jesus - but in the Jamesian
version. Due to its importance in our inquiry we will submit an intro
ductory chapter, giving the background events.

C H A PT E R 5 79
NOTES:
I . Philo, Questions and Answers Exodus, I :4
2. Philo, Questions and Answers Exodus, I : I I
3. Philo, Questions and Answers Exodus, 2 : 1 3
4. Philo, Jesus Index, 293, vol. I O Loeb edit
5. Philo, On Dreams, I :2 I 5
6 . Exodus, 23:20, 2 I
7. Philo, Questions and Answers Exodus, 2: I 3
8. Philo, On Change ofNames, 1 2 I - 1 22
9. Epistle to the Hebrews, 5:9
I O. R. Harris, Testimonia, pan 2, p.5 I
I I . R. Harris, Testimonia, pan 2, p.52, referring to Papyrus Gr. 7 , Rylands Lib.
I 2. The Dialogue, 76:7, 1 20:3
I3. Epistle to the Hebrews, 4:8
I4. R. Harris, 'Testimonies' pan 2, p.53
1 5 . Epistle to the Hebrews, I I :24 - 26
1 6. Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 1 :30 - 3 I
I 7. joshua, 6:2, I 6, I 7
I 8 . joshua, I I :23, 2 I :44 - 45
I 9. Philo, Questions and Answers Exodus, 2:42
20. Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 : 2, I O
2 1 . Philo, On Dreams, I :2 I 5
22. Philo, On Dreams, 2 : I 83
23. Vol.5, 524 Loeb
24. Epistle ofjude, Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 : I 7; 7:27
25. I Corinthians I 0:4
26. I Corinthians I :24
27. Colossians I : I 5
28. Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, 36: I 2
29, Tenullian, Against Marcion, Book 5 , 4:2 - 3
30. Epistle to the Galatians, 4:4

80 C H A PT E R 5
 6

JESUS AND THE FALL OF JERUSALEM

"Never did the men lack courage."

Josephus, War, 3:41

Josephus rescues us from the sealed-off inner world of the tiny sect
and presents the wide panorama of Roman events. Yet these events
were to impact very strongly upon the James ian church by the
enormous tragedy of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the
Temple. This brought its own crisis to that church. Josephus devotes
seven books to his account of the war, which we must compress to but
a few pages. He shows that none of these events had anything to do
with Christianity, though captured and made central to the Christian
polemic.
The high noon of the Hellenic Diaspora was the period of about
sixty-five years, from the beginning of the rule of Julius Caesar in 49
BC, to the death of Augustus, the second Caesar, in AD 1 4. The long
downward path to disaster and tragedy began after that.
Tiberius, who succeeded Augustus, was hostile to foreign cults that
were making headway in Rome and gaining converts, notably Judaism
and the Isis cult from Egypt. Suetonius reports that Tiberius . . .

" . . . abolished foreign cults at Rome, particularly the Egyptian

and Jewish, forcing all citizens who had embraced these
superstitions to burn their religious vestments and other
objects. Jews of military age were removed to unhealthy
regions, on the pretext of drafting them into the army. Those
too old or too young to serve, including non-Jews who had
adopted similar beliefs, were expelled from the city and
threatened with slavery if they defied the order. " 1

This is dated about AD 1 9.

C H A PT E R 6 83
 Josephus gives an anecdotal version of these events. As to the Isis
cult, he narrates a Boccaccio-like story wherein the lady Paulina, a
Roman matron renowned for her virtue, was seduced by the roguish
Decius Mundus, a Roman of high station. The lady was persuaded by
his accomplices to go to the Isis temple, and to spend the night in the
bed of the god Anubis - in the person of Decius. "It was a nightlong
service that she performed for him, thinking that he was the god."
Tiberius, lacking a sense of humor, inflicted brutal penalties on all
involved - exile for Decius, crucifixion for the temple priests.2
As to the Jews, "Fulvia, a woman of high rank, had become a Jewish
proselyte" and was mulcted out of a large sum of money by four Jewish
confidence men who promised to forward the money to the Temple in
Jerusalem but kept it. The story was reported to Tiberius "whereupon he
ordered the whole Jewish community to leave Rome . . . And so because
of the wickedness of four men the Jews were banished from the city. "3
Presumably the Jews returned to Rome in the course of time. The
next reported act of Tiberius with regard to the Jews was on a smaller
scale but equally hostile: he appointed Pontius Pilate as procurator to
Judea and Samaria, about AD 28. Josephus and Philo show sharp
antagonism towards this official. Josephus writes that he offended the
Jews by attempting to bring military standards bearing images into the
city, and was compelled to back down only when the Jews showed
they would resist this to the death.4
Many thousands also protested Pilate's appropriation of Temple
funds to build an aqueduct to bring water into the city. A riot took
place where "many were slain and injured" by the action of Pilate's
troops.5 We are dealing with a violent, brutal figure.
Philo writes that the Jerusalem authorities were ready to bring
charges against Pilate, "specifying in detail his bribe-taking, his
violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent
executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. " 6
This is the kindly compassionate Pilate depicted in the gospel
accounts. The plain import is that Philo, directly contemporary, and
Josephus, a near-contemporary, show no awareness of the alleged
gospel events and are giving a widely divergent view of a central figure
in tha:t story. As always, when testimony from the Jewish side is
allowed to intrude, the gospel story becomes suspect.

84 C H A PT E R 6
 Tiberi us departed this life AD 3 7 and was succeeded by Gaius
('Caligula'). The real disaster then began; Caligula was convinced of
his own divinity and demanded that worship and divine honors be
rendered to him throughout the empire. The other cults shrugged this
off and went along with the charade but the Jews were forced to resist.

Philo writes:

"It was only of the Jews that Gaius was suspicious, because
they were the only people who deliberately opposed him.
They had been taught from the very cradle, by parents, tutors,
teachers, and by holy laws and unwritten customs, to believe
that the Father and Creator of the universe is One God. All
the other men, women, cities, countries, nations and regions
of the world, although they deplored what was happening,
flattered Gaius none the less, glorifying him more than was
reasonable, and so increasing his vanity . . . The change he
brought about was an absolutely fundamental one, namely the
apparent transformation of the created, destructible nature of
man into the uncreated, indestructible nature of God. This
change the Jewish nation judged to be the most horrible of
blasphemies, for God would change into man sooner than
man into God . . . Accordingly, total and truceless war was
waged against the Jewish nation. "7

As part of the war Gaius-Caligula ordered a giant statue in his own

image to be constructed, this to be placed inside the Temple in
Jerusalem. The governor of Syria was ordered to mobilize the legions
to carry this out. The Jews in turn prepared for all-out war. The
showdown was avoided by the timely assassination of Caligula in
Rome.
In hindsight, considering the terrible cost of the war that broke out
twenty-five years later, we may ponder the question that the
confrontation with Rome would have been much better at the time of
Caligula. At least the Jews had far better morale and unity than at the
later time, and much of the Roman empire would have sided with them
against the deranged Caligula.

C H A PT E R 6 as
 As it was, the Roman bureaucracy now viewed the Jews as a danger
ous and intractable element in religious matters, and ready to confront
the legions. We can well guess that the senior elements of that bureau
cracy held a "Wansee Conference" and decided that Judea had to be
destroyed. It would be a staged plan and it would take years, but the
Roman empire operated methodically that way.
The first step was taken by Claudius, who succeeded Caligula. He
was called upon to adjudicate the rights of the Jews in Alexandria,
where riots approaching civil war had recently broken out between the
Jews and the Greeks in that city. Claudius decreed decisively against
the Jews. The long advance of the Jewish-Hellenic Diaspora had
ended.
Claudius issued two edicts on the "Judenfrage. " The first stated that
the Jews throughout the Empire . . .

" . . . would be permitted to keep their ancient customs. I enjoin

them by this kindness to act in a more reasonable spirit, and
not to set at naught the beliefs about the gods held by other
peoples, but to keep their own laws. " 8

It was a plain order to tone down, or halt, the missionary effort.

The second edict was an extensive one, dealing with various matters
in Alexandria. R. Graves, in his historical novel Claudius the God,
gives this version for the key passage:

"I desire the Jews to press for no privileges in excess of what

they already hold . . . nor to enter competitors for athletic or
other contests at public games. They must content themselves
with what they have, enjoying the abundance supplied by a
great city of which they are not the original inhabitants. "9

Josephus tries to argue that the Jews had equal rights and citizenship
there ("ises politeias''). 10 However the decision was totally negative.
The Jews had been in the city for almost four hundred years, since
its founding by Alexander in 325 BC. They had long outgrown the
original quarter assigned to them, and were now pressing for full
equality. This was now barred, as was participation in civic events such

86 CHAPTER 6
as the games. If the largest and wealthiest Jewish community in the
empire could be classed as alien, then the Jews of every other city could
expect the same. If local citizenship was barred, then Roman citizen
ship would be impossible. There would be no advances anywhere.
The next step was to destabilize and disintegrate the province of
Judea. This was done by the procurators sent there by Rome. Emil
Schi.irer has noted the pattern:

"When we glance over the history of the procurators, to whom

once more the government of Palestine was entrusted, we
might readily suppose that all of them, as if by secret arrange
ment, so conducted themselves as most certainly to arouse the
people to revolt. " 1 1

The conduct o f Pilate, as described above b y Philo, became the norm

of brutality and violence.
Under the rules of the game, if a province was orderly, obeyed the
Roman authority and paid all taxes, there could be no intervention by
Roman troops. In fact the province had the right to bring charges of
misconduct against the Roman governor where warranted. Only if the
province took the initiative and started an uprising could the troops be
sent in. Therefore the tactic was to goad Judea into an uprising.
The last two procurators were Albinus and Florus. With Albinus
"there was no form of villainy that he failed to practice. " 1 2

"His successor, Gessius Florus, made Albinus seem by

comparison to be a paragon of virtue . . . Florus abstained from
no form of robbery and violence . . . He stripped whole cities,
ruined entire populations . . . Certainly his avarice brought
desolation upon all the cities, and caused many to leave their
ancestral abode and seek refuge in foreign provinces. " 13

We may note that the Roman officials of that period, who run
amuck and butcher at will, are depicted in Luke's novel - Acts 24, 25
- as giving a courteous hearing to Paul and sending him to Rome with
a large escort. Josephus had the courage to tell the truth.

C HAPTER 6 87
 Yet even in this anarchy, many drew back from the prospect of a war
with Rome. They appealed to Herod Agrippa II, who ruled Galilee, to
intervene with his friend the emperor Nero. Florus had carried out a
massacre in Jerusalem with 3,400 slain and, as Josephus reports,

" . . . had ventured on that day to do what no one had ever done
before, namely to scourge before his tribunal and nail to the
cross men of equestrian rank. These were men who, if Jews by
birth, had at least been invested with that Roman dignity. " 1 4

Agrippa, in Jerusalem at that time, was forced to reply to this appeal.

Here Josephus presents a long oration, of fully twelve pages of text,

which transparently gives his own position, but ostensibly was
addressed by Agrippa to the populace. A war against the legions was
hopeless, and here Agrippa presented a long roll call of all the
provinces in the empire, renowned and warlike, that had yielded -
what could tiny Judea hope for?15 The oration was Josephus' own
apologia. Agrippa's appeal failed. When he urged the people to put up
with Florus till a successor could be appointed, "they poured abuse on
him and ordered him banished from the city. Some threw stones."
Agrippa then returned to Galilee.
The war was ignited by the Jewish side, as the Romans had planned
all along.

"Eleazar, son of the high priest Ananias, was a very daring youth and
captain of the Temple guard. He persuaded the (lower) priests who
officiated in the Temple services to accept no gift or sacrifice from a
foreigner. This act led to the war with the Romans, because the sacri
fices offered on behalf of Rome and the emperor were rejected. The
chief priests and the notables earnestly pleaded with them not to halt
the customary offering for their rulers, but these priests remained
unyielding. "1 6

The Roman occupation kept the facade of legality and consent, but
demanded the "loyalty oath" in the form of the daily sacrifices. These
were carefully defined as "on behalf of Rome" and "for the welfare of

88 CHAPTER 6
Rome," rather than as Caesar worship, but were mandatory and the
halt was casus belli. In that fateful year, AD 66, the war began and lasted
four years. It ended in tragedy beyond measure.
Josephus is our sole eyewitness to the events of those years, with
description incredibly difficult because of the chaos and complexity of
what took place. Instead of the unity at the time of Caligula, the nation
was split into factions, regions, classes and rivalries. There were the
war-party, the pro-Roman party, the large public helpless and neutral,
all with many local leaders. Given these conditions, and the special
partisanship of Josephus, his narrative has come down the centuries as
a masterly achievement.
The siege of Jerusalem is the high point. In the defense of the city the
bravest and the best were the Galileans. They had trooped in their
thousands to the city under the leadership of John of Gischala and
Simon Bar-Giora. These two were the sworn enemies of Josephus, and
he blames them for all the disasters that befell Jerusalem in prolonging
the resistance. Yet in his honesty in reportage he depicts the marvelous
courage and initiative of their troops. For those who have dismissed
the war as a remote abstract event, confined to prayer services at Tisha
B' Av in the synagogue or unknown altogether, we cite several passages
from Josephus, directly on the scene, who gives us the raw immediacy
of the events.
The Romans had raised large earthworks near the walls, with the
siege engines to be placed on the earthworks.

"But while the engines were being brought up, John from
within the city had undermined the ground from Antonia
right up to the earthworks. The tunnel was supported by
props, leaving the Roman works suspended. Then he brought
in timbers smeared with pitch and tar, and set the whole mass
alight. The tunnel props were consumed, the mine collapsed
in a heap, and with a tremendous crash the earthworks fell in.
"At first dense volumes of smoke arose with clouds of dust,
with the fire smothered by the debris. But as the materials
were eaten away a vivid flame now burst forth. The Romans
were in consternation at this sudden disaster and were
disheartened by the enemy's ingenuity. Moreover, coming at

C H A PT E R 6 89
 the moment when they imagined victory within their grasp,
this loss dampened their hopes of ultimate success. It seemed
useless to fight the flames. Even when these were extin
guished, the earthworks had been destroyed." 1 7

Simon was not a whit behind.

"Two days later, Simon's party launched an attack on the other

earthworks. The Romans had brought up the rams there and
were already battering the walls. But a certain Gephthaeus of
Garis, a town in Galilee, with Magassarus, a soldier of the king
(i.e., a deserter from Agrippa), along with a man from
Adabiene called 'Lame-leg' from his handicap, snatched up
torches and ran forth from the wall towards the engines. No
bolder men than these three went forth from the city during
this war, nor created greater terror.
"As though racing through friendly ranks and not into a mass
of enemies, they plunged through the Roman ranks to set fire
to the machines. Attacked on all sides by arrows and sword
thrusts, nothing could remove them till the rams caught fire.
The flames were now blazing aloft, and Romans came rushing
from their camp to the rescue. Then Jews came down from the
rampart, without regard for their own lives, and fought with
those trying to put out the flames. On the one side were the
Romans trying to drag the battering-engines out of the fire,
though the wicker frames were now ablaze. On the other side
the Jews held on, clutching the red-hot iron and refusing to let
go.
"From there the fire spread to the earth-works, outstripping
the Roman defenders. These were themselves enveloped in
flames and despaired of preserving anything. They retreated to
the camp, with the Jews now in full pursuit along with
reinforcements coming from the city. Flushed with success,
they stormed right up to the camp entrenchments and grappled
with the sentries . . . [Other troops joined.] In the medley of the
fight, blinded by the dust and deafened by the din, neither side
could any longer distinguish friend from foe . . . " 18

90 CH APTER 6
 Only the appearance of Titus, commander and later emperor,
rescued the Romans. All honor to Josephus for recording that brave
day.
Yet the Romans pressed on relentlessly against the doomed city.
New earthworks were erected, new siege engines brought up. Indeed
the Romans built a wall around the entire city to cut off all hope of
escape. Josephus describes the siege minutely, with scores of details.
Ultimately the north wall fell, the troops poured in with ghastly fight
ing, and the Temple was destroyed in flames on the fated Ninth of Ab
(Tisha B' Av). The war was lost. There were tortures and crucifixions
beyond number. Heroism was replaced by martyrdom and Israel went
to the cross.
Josephus unflinchingly describes the torture of the Essenes:

"The war with the Romans tried their souls through and
through by every variety of test. They were racked and
twisted, burnt and broken, and made to pass through every
instrument of torture in order to blaspheme the Lawgiver
(Moses) or to eat some forbidden thing. But they refused to
yield to these demands, nor did they ever show fear to their
persecutors nor did they weep. "20

The tortures were inflicted on many others. Then came the cross for
the prisoners:

"The soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by

nailing their prisoners in different postures. So great was their
number that space could not be found for the crosses, nor
crosses for the bodies."2 1

The enormous shattering reality of the events, the heroism that

ended in suffering, the need to explain and comprehend the tragedy
that was beyond limit, led inevitably to the composition of martyr
accounts. Here we come upon the death of the Savior. Apart from the
witness of Josephus, very few Jewish writings have survived that deal
with the fall of Jerusalem and were composed in the years closely
following that event. The short list comprises the books known as

C H APTER 6 91
2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, preserved in Christian custody and with
Christian additions. A third document may be included, also in
Christian custody. This is Revelation, the Apocalypse of John - a
Jewish apocalyptic work based on the fall of Jerusalem.
Revelation is on our Luther list of Judaic works showing links to the
James ian sect and to Joshua, and is of central importance to our
inquiry since it deals with the "death and resurrection" of the Savior.
It was the defiant answer of the Jamesian sect to the fall of the Temple.

From the foregoing we see that it derives from events having no

connection to the gospel story or to "Jesus of Nazareth" hence we can
derive a passion narrative involving the Jamesian Jesus through this
alternate sequence of events. We turn to this text in greater detail.

92 C H A PT E R 6
Footnotes:
1 . Suetonius, Tiberius, 36
2. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:66 - 80
3. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8: 8 1 - 84
4. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8: 5 5 - 5 9
5 . Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:60 - 62
6. Philo, Legation to Gaius, 302
7. Philo, Legation to Gaius, 1 1 5 - 1 1 9
8. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 9 :290
9. R. Graves, Claudius the God, 167
1 0 . Josephus, Antiquities, 1 9:28 1 - 285
1 1 . Emil Schurer, History ofjewish People, 224
1 2. Josephus, 'War, 2:273
1 3. Josephus, 'War, 2:277 - 279
14. Josephus, 'War, 2:307 - 308
1 5 . Josephus, 'War, 345 - 40 1
1 6. Josephus, 'Wa r, 409, 4 1 0
1 7. Josephus, 'Wa r, 5 :469 - 472
1 8. Josephus, 'War, 5 :473 - 487
1 9. Josephus, 'War, 499 - 5 1 0
20. Josephus, 'War, 2 : 1 52
2 1 . Josephus, 'War, 5:451

C H A PT E R 6 93
 7

THE DEATH OF THE SAVIOR

"You have been slain and you have redeemed us to God with
your blood."
Revelation, 5:9

We submit evidence that the original form of the passion narrative

derived from the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.
Here too we have an orthodox Jamesian text, with the martyr figure
linked to Joshua. In the standard Christian practice of capture and
radical restatement, this was later transferred to the gospel "Jesus."
It is common in Judaic writings to shift from the community to an
individual who symbolizes the collective experience. This is explained
by one writer:

"It is characteristic of Israelite thought to pass from the collec

tive to the individual, and to represent the group by a single
individual . . . This probably happened with the concept of the
Suffering Servant. What was first a collective figure, repre
senting the community, became the figure of an individual
who in himself embodied its mission. " 1

In Revelation we have the historical event restated in a visionary and

mythic manner - a literary form known as the Jewish apocalyptic.
This text arose out of the fall of Jerusalem and deals with the martyrs
who were put to death. "And they cried out with a loud voice, saying,
How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, do you not judge and avenge our
blood on them that dwell on the earth ?"2
Here we find mention of many slain, while in the gospel account
there is but a single death - that of Jesus. However, we note that the
martyrdoms began with the Disturbances as described by Josephus,
with "many slain" and continuing on to the war itself.

C HAPTER 7 95
 One of these episodes shows direct linkages to Revelation:

"During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judea (AD

44 - 46) . a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded a
majority of the masses to take up their possessions and follow
him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet, and
that at his command the river would be parted and would
provide them an easy passage. With this talk he deceived
many. Fadus however did not permit them to reap the fruit of
their folly, but sent against them a squadron of cavalry. These
fell upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took
many prisoners. Theudas himself was captured, whereupon
they cut off his head and brought it to Jerusalem."3

Josephus, bitterly partisan, again reports accurately.

The account in Revelation reads, "And I saw the souls of them that
were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and
who had not worshiped the beast nor his image. "4
Theudas had borne witness to the first Jesus/Joshua in reenacting the
crossing of the Jordan, and had been beheaded. And the others had not
yielded to the Roman images and insignia on their standards, and had
been slain. Nowhere is there resistance to Rome in the gospel accounts.
Which Jesus are these people a witness to ? Therefore, which Jesus is
the subject of Revelation?
This text deals also with the martyr figure, called the Lamb, who
sums up the collective experience and who brings redemption: "You
have been slain and you have redeemed us to God with your blood. "5
We have here a mythical slaying, but based on very real events.
Revelation is written in the visionary, mystical language of the Jewish
apocalyptic. The Lamb is made the symbol for the fearful destruction
of Jerusalem and its Temple, and for a glorious restoration. In the
present text, "John," the narrator of the visions, gives us a good clue as
to the identity of the Lamb:

"And I Uohn] saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous,

seven angels having the seven last plagues, to fill up the wrath
of God . . . And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of

96 C H A PT E R 7
 God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous
are your works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are your
ways, you the King of the ages. "6

There is a clear parallel to the Song in Deuteronomy: "And Moses

came and spoke all the words of this song in the ears of the people, he
and Hoshea [i.e., Joshua] the son of Nun."7
The clear juxtaposition of the Lamb in the place of Joshua points to
the identity of the Lamb. The "song" is one of Jewish orthodoxy, with
praise for the one God, and the parallel is found in the same chapter of
Deuteronomy: "Ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock. His
work is perfect, and all his ways are justice. "8
The Scriptural text confirms the Revelation text.
The Lamb in the person of Joshua can also be linked to the
Testament of Moses. There Joshua is given a sealed scroll by Moses, to
be opened at a future date, at the time of the final battle. He is told to
be "of great courage" and to "root out the nations."
And he is given an exalted status, by being raised to a seat at the side
of Moses. Here Revelation appears to be the fulfillment of these
episodes but on a divine scale, with the Lamb now commissioned by
God and therefore worshiped by all.
In this text, the scroll, bearing seven seals, is given to the Lamb by
one seated on the throne, apparently the Person of God. The Lamb is
then acclaimed by those before the throne: "You are worthy to take the
scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain and you have redeemed
us to God with your blood . . . "
An innumerable choir of angels then adds: "Worthy is the Lamb that
was slain, to receive power and riches and wisdom . . "9
.

We thus have a slaying and a resurrection, separate and apart from

the gospel story, which explains why Luther rejected this book.
The legend of the martyrdoms during this war passed down the
centuries, and there arose the tradition of a 'Messiah son of Joseph'
who fell in battle against the Romans. It is very likely that Jewish
accounts such as Revelation were the origin of this tradition. Again the
name of Joshua intrudes into the story: he was an Ephraimite, and
therefore a "son of Joseph." He was slain by the armies of "Gog and
Magog," a symbol for Rome. He is also named here "Ephraim, the

C H A PT E R 7 97
Righteous Messiah, " which confirms the identification with Joseph
and with Joshua. We give several of these "son of Joseph" texts, found
in the valuable collection published by R. Patai, The Messiah Texts:

"In that hour the Messiah will come forth from Jerusalem to
make war . . . In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, will
descend from the highest heaven above, and the ministering
angels with Him . . . It is Gog and Magog who have come
against Ephraim, the righteous Messiah of the Holy One,
blessed be He, and His people Israel, to make war against
them." 10

Another text reads:

"At that time a man will arise from among the children of
Joseph . . . and he will be called the Messiah of God. And many
people will gather around him in Upper Galilee, and he will be
their king . . . Then Messiah ben Joseph, with the men who
rally around him, will go up from the Galilee to Jerusalem,
and they will slay the procurator of the king of Edom . . . And
when Messiah ben Joseph and all the people with him will
dwell in Jerusalem, then Armilus [leader of Gog and Magog]
will hear of this, and will come and make magic and sorcery to
lead many astray . . . And he will slay Messiah ben Joseph, and
it will be a great calamity for Israel. " 1 1

A further text reads:

"Israel will be gathered in Upper Galilee, and there Messiah

ben Joseph will look for them . . . And he will go up to
Jerusalem, and rebuild the Temple and offer sacrifice . . . After
this, Gog and Magog will hear and will go up, and will enter
and will kill him in the streets of Jerusalem . . . And Israel will
see this and say, 'The Messiah is lost to us and no other
Messiah will come.' And they will mourn for him in four
family groups. " 1 2

98 CHAPTER 7
 This Messiah is also called "Ephraim" and is described as a martyr
figure who offers his life "for the sins of others.":

"The Fathers of the the World [the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac

and Jacob] will in the future rise up in the month of Nissan
and will say 'Ephraim, our Messiah! Even though we are your
fathers, you are greater than we, for you suffered because of
the sins of our children, and cruel punishments have come
upon you . . . ' And the Messiah answered them, 'Fathers of the
World ! Everything I did, I did only for you and for your
1 ren . . . ' 1 3
ch"ld

The reference to Nissan points to the Passover, which occurs in that

month. The son of Joseph is slain at that month.
The above texts date centuries after the fall of Jerusalem but illus
trate how myths can have a historical basis. The origin points to the
Jewish sources of Revelation. In that text the Lamb, though slain,
resumes the warrior role of Joshua, who takes vengeance against "the
kings of the earth":

"These shall make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall
overcome them. For he is Lord of lords and King of kings.
And they that are with him are the chosen and elect and the
faithful. " 1 4

From the foregoing, we have a statement for the death and resurrec
tion of the martyr hero, named Joshua/Jesus. It is a compensatory
myth for the catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem, and therefore remains
in a historical framework. And we can name the sect that put out the
myth: it is the Jeruslem church of James and his followers.

Thus the suspect Book of Revelation cannot be brushed aside. It

may be the most important of all. The central proclamation of
Christianity was the death and resurrection of Jesus, established as
historical fact - and we have that here. "I am the first and the last. I
am he that lives, and was dead. Behold, I am alive forever. " 1 5

CHAPTER 7 99
 It is a martyrology dealing with the death of "Jesus" but it pertains
to the first Jesus not the second. It is in mystical, apocalyptic form, but
it derives from real events in the real world hence it is plausible and
credible throughout. However it shows no awareness of the gospel
events. Nowhere in Revelation is there any hint that the Jews are
responsible for the death of Jesus. Jerusalem is called "the beloved
city." 1 6
The loss of Jerusalem is not a punishment for the Jews. Instead, in
the New Jerusalem there will be no Temple, "for the Lord God
Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it. " 1 7 The all-pervasive
Judaic spirit of the book explains why Luther rej ected it. The writer of
Revelation had every opportunity to refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" and
to ascribe the fall of Jerusalem to his crucifixion - yet the writer fails
to do so.
The content of Revelation shows linkages to other texts. Here the
martyr figure is called the Bridegroom. In 4 Ezra, which also derived
from the destruction of Jerusalem and was written in visionary, mysti
cal style, there is an "old woman" who recites:

"I was barren and bore no child, though I had a husband thirty
years. And it came to pass after thirty years God looked upon
my affliction and gave me a son . . . When he was grown up I
arranged a wife for him and made a feast day. And it came to
pass that when my son entered into his wedding chamber, he
fell down and died . . . And now I propose to neither eat nor
drink, but continually to mourn and fast till I die."

She is then told by "Ezra," the narrator, that much greater tragedies
have also taken place.

"Do you not see our mourning and what has befallen us ? For
Zion, the mother of us all, is in great grief and deep afflic
tion . . . Our altar is thrown down, our Temple is destroyed . . .
Our nobles are dishonored, our priests burnt, our Levites
gone into captivity . . . our youths enslaved, our heroes made
"
power1 ess . . .

1 00 CHAPTER 7
 Ezra then narrates:

"And it came to pass, that while I was speaking to her, lo, on a

sudden her countenance shone exceedingly. . . And when I
looked, the woman was no longer visible, but there was a City
built and of large foundations . . . "

The interpreting angel explains all this to Ezra:

"The woman that you saw is Zion, whom you now see as a
builded city . . . And when she said to you that her son died on
entering the marriage-chamber, this was the fall of Jerusalem
that has come to pass." 18

In Revelation, the angel makes a similar explanation, this time to

"John":

"And one of the seven angels said, Come, I will show you the
bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away to a great and
high mountain, and he showed me the great city, the holy
Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God."19

The above passage contains a number of linkages to the gospels.

There we find cryptic references to the "Bridegroom," taken to refer
to Jesus, who will be "taken away. "
"The days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them,
and then they shall fast. "20
The death of Christ is linked to the symbolic destruction of the
Temple: "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
bottom. "2 1

The later Christian polemic made this destruction the direct conse
quence of the death of Jesus. Yet the present writer fails to bring in that
message.
Most important of all, the book, while written after AD 70, appears
to be carrying on the feud between the Jamesian church and the
Pauline faction - meaning that both sides are still in existence after

CHAPTER 7 1 01
that date. The book condemns "those that say they are apostles but are
not . . . who say they are Jews but are not, but are of the synagogue of
Satan . . . [whoJ eat food offered to idols. "22
These are charges that the "Judaizers" threw at the Pauline groups.
Are these the later followers of both factions or - a jolting thought
are the original parties, James and Paul, still in existence ?
In the foregoing, we have submitted an alternate explanation for the
martyrdom and death of "Jesus" and his supernatural resurrection
one that does not require the historical "Jesus of Nazareth." At this
point one may argue that the crucifixion story in the gospels has the
highest historical certainty, therefore it is pointless to consider any
alternate premise. But can we be sure of that?
Despite the efforts of innumerable scholars over the past three
hundred years, not a particle of hard conclusive evidence has been
produced confirming any part of the life of Jesus. The prevailing mood
of doubt and skepticism has been expressed by Rudolf Bultmann:
"One can only emphasize the uncertainty of our knowledge of the
person and work of the historical Jesus, and likewise of the origin of
Christianity. "23
Concerning the crucifixion story, a key episode is the assumed trial
of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin. Here Bultmann writes:

"I think the whole narrative in (gospel of) Mark is a secondary

explanation . . . The account of the proceedings before the
Sanhedrin in Mark 14:55 - 64 must be reckoned as a faith
legend. "24

Meaning that Mark, considered to be the earliest and most historical

of the gospels, is giving a fictional account.
John Dominic Crossan, a recent writer, is even more emphatic:

"It is impossible, in my mind, to overestimate the creativity of

Mark, but those twin trials (i.e., before the Sanhedrin and
before Pilate) must be emphasized for what they are, namely,
consummate theological fiction . . . It is magnificent theological
fiction, to be sure, but entailing a dreadful price for
Judaism. " 25

1 02 CH A P T E R 7
 Mark did the inventing because, according to Crossan, the crucifix
ion was a short brutal affair with nothing much to record, and
moreover the disciples had fled, so there was no one on the scene to
record what little there was.

"It is difficult for the Christian imagination, then or now, to accept

the brutal informality with which Jesus was probably condemned and
crucified . . . [As] I maintain, Jesus' followers had fled upon his arrest
and knew nothing whatsoever about his fate beyond the fact of cruci
fixion itself. "26

Here we must be crude enough to ask "What fact ?"

If Mark is giving us magnificent fiction, perchance the whole cruci
fixion tale is without factual basis.
Since the scholars themselves have placed large questions over the
crucifixion story, we are free to continue with our separate sequence of
events. This will involve the radical premise that the quarrel between
James and Paul is continuing after AD 70. That possibility will have to
be examined.

CHAPTER 7 1 03
NOTES:
I . Rowley, Relevance ofApocalyptic, 34
2. Revelation 6:9 - I 0
3. Josephus, Antiquities, 20:97 - 98
4. Revelation, 20:4
5 . Revelation, 5:9
6. Revelation, I 5 : I, 3
7. Deuteronomy, 32:44
8. Deuteronomy, 32:3 - 4
9. Revelation, 5 : I - I 2
I 0. Patai, The Messiah Texts, I 54, quoting 'Mid. Alpha Betot' 2:438 - 42
I I . Patai, The Messiah Texts, I 68 - I 69 quoting 'Hai Gaon Responsum'
I 2. Patai, The Messiah Texts, I 70, quoting 'Mid. Leqah Tov' 258 - 259
I3. Patai, The Messiah Texts, I I 3, quoting 'Pesiqta Rabbah' ch. 36
I 4. Revelation, I 7: I 8
I 5. Revelation, I : I 8
I 6. Revelation, 20:9, 2 I :2
I 7. Revelation, 2 I :22
I 8. 4 Ezra 9:43 - I 0:49
I 9. Revelation, 2 I :9 - I O
20. Matthew, 9: I 5
2 1 . Matthew, 27: 5 I
22. Revelation, 2:2, 9 , 4
23. R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 20
24. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 270, 305
25. J.D. Crossan, The Historicaljesus, 390
26. J.D. Crossan, The Historicaljesus, 390, 392

1 04 C H A PT E R 7
 8

A CHRONOLOGY FOR PAUL

"I have seen many of Your people who have withdrawn

from Your Covenant, and cast from them the obligations
of Your law . . . "
2 Baruch 41:3

The premise that Paul, James and Peter were alive after the war with
Rome, that is, after AD 70, will appear bizarre and hard to accept. It
goes against the entire tradition and chronology. However a number of
items of evidence - which the scholars term "multiple independent
attestation" - point to this possibility:

There is the blunt fact that Revelation, which undeniably dates

after 70, shows that the bitter feud is continuing between Paul and
the James ian church.
Luke had every opportunity in Acts to narrate the deaths of these
persons, yet failed to do so. We cannot well believe that Luke
would pass up martyrdom stories if he had this material on hand.
The impression given by Josephus is that after the war Jerusalem
was simply wiped off the map and no one survived. A correction
to this is given by E. Mary Smallwood in her book The jews
Under Roman Rule. She indicates that the Romans took prompt
and energetic measures to restore the province - both as a source
of revenue and because of its strategic value on the eastern
frontier.

She writes:

"The province Qudea) was now put under an experienced

governor, an imperial legate of praetorian rank, with a procu
rator under him in charge of the financial administration; and

C H A PT E R 8 1 07
 the garrison was doubled or trebled in size when the six auxil
iary units were replaced by a complete legion, X Fretensis,
supported by auxiliaries . . . The establishment of a permanent
legionary garrison in Palestine was not merely an attempt to
contain the political aspirations of the Jews and prevent a
recurrence of the prewar anarchy. It was also part of
Vespasian's reorganization of the defenses of the eastern
frontier. . . Within a decade the province was back on a suffi
ciently even keel that tax exemptions could be granted. " 1

The reference to "containing political aspirations" with a large show

of force indicates that many unreconstructed militant Jews were still
on the scene. There were enough Pharisees to afford the luxury of a
schism: the Romans permitted a collaborationist religious center at
Jamnia (Yavne) near the coast, implying that the Jews there felt unwel
come, or unsafe, in Jerusalem. However the Romans made no attempt
to interfere with Judaism as such.

"The Jews emerged from the war with the status of Judaism as
a religio licita unscathed both in Palestine and among the
Diaspora . . . Rome's quarrel had been primarily with Jewish
political nationalism, not with the religion which she had
tolerated for a century. "2

Thus the Jerusalem leadership, along with Paul and his associates in
the Diaspora, could well have survived. Roman pragmatism took wars
and rebellions in stride, then restored order, military force, and tax
collections as before.

The traditions and chronology put out by official Christianity

derive solely from the premise that Jesus existed and that the
gospel events are basically historical. Once this premise is
rejected, then the chronology vanishes also. We ask the scholar
apologists to show us clear and conclusive evidence that Paul,
James and Peter indeed met their deaths prior to AD 70. Until
this evidence is produced, our alternate chronology remains
open.

1 08 C H A PT E R 8
 In support of our dating we can cite two leading scholars of the early
1 900s whose writings are still standard in the field. They argue that
materials in Paul's epistles, considered perfectly genuine, nevertheless
indicate a date after AD 70. That is, the material was called for by the
destruction of the Temple, meaning that Paul was alive and well at that
time.
R. H. Charles names two key texts, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, as deriv
ing from the loss of the Temple and links Paul to both. As to 4 Ezra,
Charles writes:

"This material is comparable with the speculations of the

Pauline letters . . . This discussion was felt to be concerned with
one of the burning subjects of the day, the religious signifi
cance of the Fall of Jerusalem."3

We cannot expect Paul to speculate on the event before it happens;

he has to be present at the time. The other text, 2 Baruch, is described
by Charles as "a good representative of the Judaism against which the
Pauline dialectic was directed. "4 Again Paul must be present to do the
debating.
Albert Schweitzer, in his study of Paul, shows surprise that the
scholars . . .

" . . . make scarcely any use of the parallels to Pauline ideas and
conceptions which are found in Enoch, the Apocalypse of
Baruch, the Apocalypse of Ezra (i.e., 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra) and
here and there in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. It is
nothing less than astonishing that the close affinities with the
Apocalypse of Ezra do not receive any recognition. . . The
close affinity between this writer and Paul strikes the eye at
once."5

The reason the scholars are unwilling to see "close affinities" is that
4 Ezra was written after AD 70, and for Paul to be concerned with the
same problems, then he also would have to be on the scene after that
date. His epistles, especially Galatians, indicate that leading figures of

CH APTER 8 1 09
the Jerusalem church such as James and Peter are also on the scene.
This demolishes all the chronology of Acts concerning the Jerusalem
church, since church tradition had killed off these figures years before.
All this would force an alternate theory for Christian origins and an
alternate "life of Paul," meaning a collapse of the Christian case. The
scholars therefore maintain discreet silence.
Given the emphatic statements of Charles and Schweitzer, it
behooves us to examine the Epistles of Paul that point to the late date.
Paul writes outside history; he lives in the enclosed heated world of the
tiny sect, with its grandiose program and its strangely violent factional
quarrels. However the hints are there, and it turns out that at least four
of the epistles point to the late date.
The most striking example is Galatians: "The Jerusalem of the
present time (Gr: nun) is in captivity with her children, but the
Jerusalem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all." 6
The direct meaning is the period after 70, with Jerusalem conquered,
Jews on the slave blocks in Roman cities, and Roman coins bearing the
inscription judea capta. The word "nun" is emphatic, and is defined as
"at this very time" in the Liddell-Scott lexicon.
We note that Paul's wording parallels that in 4 Ezra. There the writer
sets forth the vision of an old woman in mourning, her garments rent,
and then the revealing words:

"Zion, the mother of us all, is in great grief and deep afflic

tion . . . Our Levites are gone into captivity, our righteous
youths are enslaved . . . This was the fall of Jerusalem, which
has come to pass."

The woman is transformed and appears in glory: she is the heavenly

Jerusalem.

"And it came to pass, while I spoke to her, her countenance on

a sudden shone exceedingly, and her aspect became brilliant as
lightning . . . And when I looked, lo, the woman was no longer
visible, but there was a city built, a place that showed itself of
large foundation."

1 10 C H A PT E R 8
 The vision is then interpreted by an angel: "This woman whom you
saw is Zion, and whom you now behold as a built city . . . and lo, you
have seen the heavenly pattern of her. "7
In the above, we have the juxtaposition of the earthly Jerusalem in
captivity and the heavenly city that is free. R. H. Charles, in a footnote ad
loq8, points out that the words "Zion, mother of us all" are to be compared
to Galatians 4:26. Would that other scholars had the same honesty.
Our second epistle to be dated after AD 70 is Romans, which with
Galatians gives us the full Pauline theology. All of chapter eleven of
Epistles to the Romans reveals an utter finality, a new world of ideas. A
vast historical event has taken place which has caused the rejection of
Israel and the election of the gentiles. Throughout, Paul counterpoises
the "fall" of Israel to the "salvation" of the gentiles. Surely this is not
written in a complete vacuum, and Paul is aware that an enormous and
fearful event had taken place. "Through their fall, salvation has come
to the gentiles . . . Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God:
on them which fell, severity, but towards you (the gentiles)
goodness. "9
Where do we find this enormous Fall before AD 70 ?
Our next example from Paul's writings is from 1 Thessalonians:

"The Jews killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets and
have persecuted us, and they please not God but are contrary
to all men, forbidding us to preach to the gentiles that they
might be saved, filling up their sins always, for the wrath has
come upon them to the uttermost. "1 0

One commentator, F. C. Baur, defends the passage as genuine and

written by Paul, but admits that other scholars consider it a later, non
Pauline passage. He writes:

"The bitterness of this reference to 'the Jews' is unparalleled in

Paul's writings and it has been suspected of being an interpola
tion . . . 'The wrath has come upon them to the uttermost' has been
thought by some to presuppose the destruction of Jerusalem in
AD 70, which would mean that this section is a later addition to
the letter or that the whole letter is a pseudepigrapha. "11

CHAPTER 8 1 1 1
 The writer defends the passage as genuine, however we have his
admission that "some" date the passage as later than AD 70. The
language certainly indicates this. Only then had the extreme wrath
fallen upon the Jews.
In the matter of bitterness, Paul has shown in the past that he is quite
capable of that emotion. In Galatians he pronounces a curse on all who
present a rival teaching. He throws contempt and insult on the Jerusalem
leaders, and in Corinthians he describes his rivals as satanic beings who
clothe themselves in garments of light. In particular, the phrase here
"forbidding us to speak to the gentiles that they might be saved" points to
the factional fight raging in the sect. His opponents are hounding him in
all the churches, finally wrenching the extreme of accusations from him.
The fourth epistle to join the list is Ephesians. It contains a reference
to "the middle wall of partition" which has been removed, and the
gentiles are no longer separated from the Jews.

"Now in Christ Jesus, you [the Ephesians] who were

sometimes far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For
he is our peace, who has made us one, and has broken down
the middle wall of partition between us. " 1 2

Several scholars have taken this as an allusion to the barrier set up in

the Temple beyond which the gentiles were not permitted to pass.
Thus C. L. Mitton, citing two other scholars, writes:

"The literal reference is to the stone wall in the Temple beyond

which no Gentile might advance into the inner court [citing
Weymouth] . . . It is its actual destruction that suggests its
figurative use here [citing Goodspeed] . . . The destruction of
the actual physical barrier must imply a date after its demoli
tion, that is, a date later than AD 70, when the Temple, barrier
and all, was razed to the ground." 1 3

To Mitton, this proves that the passage is late and that Paul could not
have written it. But to the general reader, the passage is clear and effec
tive, and as "Pauline" as any other passage he wrote. The scholars make
free to dismiss every text that does not fit into the official chronology.

1 12 CHAPTER 8
 The candid reader may grant, however, that the four epistles cited
above could reasonably point to a date after AD 70.
Overall, a date after 70 goes far towards explaining Paul's new theol
ogy: he was an orthodox Jew before that, albeit with the Essenelike
doctrines of the sect that he had joined. But the catastrophe of the
destruction of the Temple brought chaos and disintegration to all of
Judaism, and Paul, with the other Jews, now had to ask whether the
Law had failed. This was a question that was unthinkable in the earlier
period but now had become central. The "Holocaust" had to be
confronted and explained.
Let us examine the late Judaic documents "against which the Pauline
dialectic was directed. "
The Book of Revelation shows unswerving militancy: the slain will
be avenged, fearful punishment will fall upon Rome ("Babylon"), and
Zion will be rebuilt infinitely better than before. But this was the
exception. Other documents such as 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra show despair
and heartbreak. In the bleak, unendurable world after the War there
was disintegration and chaos. There were questions that had to be
answered. Why was Israel punished and the gentiles left untouched ?
And there was the ultimate loss of nerve: the wish that this world come
to an end. The split between the embittered, orthodox party and those
that despaired and left Judaism will define the conflict between Paul
and the Jerusalem faction.
The sense of catastrophe is found in 2 Baruch:

"Blessed is he who was not born, or having been born, has died.
But woe unto us, because we have seen the affliction of Zion,
and what has befallen Jerusalem . . . Earth, why give your
harvests ? Vine, why yield the wine, for an offering will not be
made again in Zion, nor will the first-fruits again be offered.
Sun, withhold the light of your rays, and moon hide your
light, for the light of Zion is darkened . . . " 1 4

Baruch asks God to "bring an end to mortality . . . reprove the angel

of death, and let Sheol be sealed so that it may not receive the dead." 1 5
This would bring life and death to an end and would force the
Judgment. It is a wish that the world come to an end.

C H A PT E R 8 1 13
 Here Schweitzer states that Paul's theology is permeated with the
concept of the End-Time ("eschatology"), with the conviction that the
present natural order had come to an end, and that the death and resur
rection of Christ, as set forth in Revelation, operated as proof that the
End-Time had come.

"The Apostle's doctrine is integrally, simply and exclusively

eschatological. . . The believer is united with Christ, experi
ences with Him death and resurrection, and becomes a new
creature, emancipated from fleshly corporeity." 1 6

In Paul's early career, with its daily squabbles and rivalries, there is
no sign of this cosmic theology. There he was concerned with having
his expenses paid, as with the ox that treads out the grain. The chronol
ogy now begins to take shape: Paul joined the sect prior to the war, in
a stable world, where the sect's program seemed in order. But all
crashed down after the war, as Paul came to understand.
The change is shown in the text of Baruch:

"Moreover, you priests, take the keys of the Sanctuary and cast
them into the height of heaven. Give them to the Lord, and say,
'Guard Your house Yourself, for we have been false stewards.' " 1 7

Here the reproach is almost open: the priests blame themselves, but
the implied reproach is to God. "You fooled us. We obeyed all Your
commands, and this is what happened." The bitterness cannot be
mistaken. Imagine Temple priests rejecting their office. Can Paul be
blamed for his questioning?
Most galling and incomprehensible is that "Babylon" was left
untouched:

"I, Baruch, say this against you, Babylon. Your grief should be
equal to that of Zion. But now our grief is infinite and the
lamentation is without measure. But you have prospered and
Zion is desolate. Who will judge regarding these things ? To
whom shall we complain regarding what has befallen us ?
Lord, how have You endured this ? " 18

1 14 CHAPTER 8
 The same demand for an explanation is found in 4 Ezra:

"And now, Lord, why have you delivered up the one [Israel] to
the many, and dishonored the one root above the rest, and
scattered your only one among the multitude ? And why have
they who denied your promises been allowed to tread under
foot those that have believed your covenants ? If you hated
your people so much then they should have been punished by
your own hands." 1 9

At the very least, this indicates that no one was aware of the
Christian explanation - that there was divine punishment for the
slaying of Jesus.
All this indicates a period of breakdown and questioning. It was a
period of widespread disintegration. Baruch noted the split among the
Jews, with many - especially the recent converts - deserting, yet,
incredibly, others j oining the beleaguered Jews even in that dark
period, and with proselytes remaining loyal. He writes:

"I have seen many of Your people that have withdrawn from
Your covenant, and cast from them the obligations of Your
law. But others again have I seen who have forsaken their vain
things, and have sought refuge under Your wings."20

However Baruch stands fast and urges the waivers to do so also:

"Do not withdraw from the way of the Law, but guard and
admonish the people that remain, lest they withdraw from the
commandments of the Mighty One . . . Zion has been taken
from us and we have nothing now save the Mighty One and
His law. If therefore we direct and dispose our hearts, we shall
receive everything that we lost, and much better things than
we lost by many times. For what we lost was subject to
corruption, and what we shall receive shall not be corruptible.
And let these things be always before your eyes, because we
are still in the spirit and power of our liberty. " 2 1

C H A PT E R 8 1 1s
 Josephus, who lived through those tragic years, also stood fast, to his
honor as priest and Pharisee:

"Robbed though we be of wealth, of cities, of all good things,

our Law at least remains immortal. There is not a Jew so
distant from his country, so much in awe of a cruel despot, but
has more fear of the Law than of him. "22

More than that, R. H. Charles states that the Judaism after AD 70

became hardened and ascetic:

"It should be remembered that the destruction of the Holy

City - and above all of the Temple - in AD 70 gave rise to
a widespread ascetic movement among the Jewish people who
survived, especially in Palestine. Many gave expression to
their grief in severe and regular forms of fasting. "23

By placing Paul after AD 70, much of his career and his theology
become clearer. He was a product of the Hellenic Diaspora and had
joined a missionary sect, but now the missionary effort had almost
collapsed. The world he had moved in was that of the gentile near
converts, the proselytes who had been newly drawn to Judaism. But
with the Jews deserting the faith, the gentile proselytes now were far
more likely to abandon a religion that had suffered so many blows.
Paul, the authentic genius of Christianity, was able to construct a
system whereby the convert would enter the True Israel, would gain
the promises and hope and salvation, yet would evade the desperate
situation that the Jews now found themselves in.
Paul understood the spirit of the times. His new theology is contem
porary to documents like 4 Ezra, Revelation and 2 Baruch. Paul is in
the maelstrom of events with all the others, as noted by Charles and
Schweitzer. In the mean streets of Grxco-Syriac slums he knew the full
measure of the disaster that had befallen the Jews. And it was precisely
in restating the elements of the destruction that Paul created his new
theology.

1 16 CHAPTER 8
 All the parts began to fall into place. The fall of Jerusalem and the
loss of the Temple could only mean that the natural order had
collapsed, and that the End-Time was approaching, as 2 Baruch had
stated. The Lord Jesus had been slain, yet lived forevermore, as
Revelation had stated. The Law had come to an end, as many under
stood.
With remarkable simplicity, Paul now decided that faith in the death
and resurrection of Christ replaced the Old Judaism and created the
New Israel. His epistles refer some twenty-five times to this death and
resurrection, and is the central teaching in his theology.
However his orthodox opponents were strangely unaware that this
"death" had changed the nature of Judaism, which is further evidence
that we are dealing with a symbolic "death," not a factual one. John
Gunther, in his book St. Paul and his Opponents writes:

"Apparently the Judaizers found insufficient significance in the

Crucifixion to consider it part of their musterion (mystic teach
ings) . . . The Judaizers found in the Old Testament no new
krupta (secrets) concerning the Passion and Resurrection. " 24

These Judaizers insisted on the Mosaic Law. "The cross was not
central in their teaching because of their attachment to the law. They
denied that the cross decreased the need of the law. " 25
Paul's views were therefore heretical. With the self-deception of the
fanatic, Paul could not admit that his theology was forced on him by
necessity as the only way he could keep his pagan proselytes from
deserting. He would preach all this because it had been revealed to him
by the Lord. The gentiles would then remain in his churches under the
new rules. And if the Jerusalem elders objected, so much the worse for
them.

The showdown between Paul and the Jerusalem church would now
take place.

C H A PT E R 8 1 17
NOTES:
1 . E. Mary Smallwood, The jews Under Roman Rule, 33 1 , 333 - 334
2. E. Mary Smallwood, The jews Under Roman Rule, 344
3. R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament, 2:554
4. R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament, 2:470
5. Albert Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 5 1
6. Epistles to the Galatians, 4:25 - 26
7. 4 Ezra 9:38; 1 0:22, 27, 43, 49
8. R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament, 603
9. Epistle to the Romans, 1 1 : 1 1 , 22
1 0. 1 Thessalonians, 2: 1 5 - 1 6
1 1 . F. C . Baur, as quoted i n New Bible Commentary, 1 0 5 5
1 2. Ephesians, 2: 1 3 - 1 4
1 3. C . L. Mitton, Epistle to the Ephesians, 232
14. 2 Baruch, 1 0:6 - 1 2
1 5. 2 Baruch, 2 1 :23
1 6. A. Schweitzer, Paul and his Interpreters, 244
l 7. 2 Baruch, 1 0: 1 8
1 8. 2 Baruch, 1 1 : 1 - 3
1 9. 4 Ezra, 5 :28 - 30
20. 2 Baruch, 41 :3 - 4
2 1 . 2 Baruch, 44:3; 45:3 - 7
22. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2:277
23. R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ofthe Old Testament, 2:601
24. John Gunther, St. Paul and his Opponents, 279 - 280
25. John Gunther, St. Paul and his Opponents, 2 1 0

1 18 CHAPTER 8
 9

PAUL AND THE JERUSALEM CHURCH

"If any man preach any other gospel to you than that which
you have received (from me), let him be accursed."
Paul, Epistle to the Galatians, 1 :9

The key document gtvmg Paul's version of his relation to the

Jerusalem church is the Epistle to the Galatians. We may call this the
defining text by which Christianity came into being, separate and apart
from Judaism. It is bitterly partisan, and clearly the Jerusalem leaders
had their own version. But enough is there to let us see what was
involved. It deserves study in detail.
The epistle is a statement of total independence from the church of
James. It is more than emancipation, since Paul argues that he received
nothing from that church in the first place - neither their teachings
nor their authorization of apostleship. Paul declares this in the opening
line of the epistle: "Paul, an apostle, not by human appointment nor by
human commission, but from Jesus Christ. " 1
His apostleship had nothing to do with man.
The epistle, while addressed to the Galatians, is in the nature of an
appeal to the rank and file of the sect in all the branches, and is aimed
at the leadership. It is a position paper, and it is aimed at the overthrow
of the leaders and winning over the rank and file.
The epistle narrates four episodes involving the Jerusalem church. In
each, Paul carefully separates himself from all influence and from any
hint of subservience as to that church. The first is his conversion story
- time, place and circumstance unknown, but coming directly from
God and dated three years before any contact with the church elders.
He took his own good time after the supernatural conversion,
journeying about the Levant for three years before that first meeting,
to underline the degree of separation and lack of urgency - also his
earlier date.

C H A PT E R 9 121
 Paul writes:

"When it pleased God, who made me separate [unto him] from

my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his
Son in me that I might preach him among the gentiles,
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither
went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me,
but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then
after three years I went up to Jerusalem to get to know Peter,
and abode with him fifteen days. "2

The Son was revealed "that I might preach him to the gentiles. " This
can only mean that they would be preached to qua gentiles, that is, free
from all obligation towards the Mosaic law. Anything less than that
interpretation would not require a divine revelation, since the James ian
sect, and synagogue Judaism in general, would be willing to preach to
gentiles, with the understanding that there would be conversion to
Judaism at the end of the line. This revelation is what Paul now swears
to, in writing to the Galatians more than seventeen years after the date
of that occurrence. But if that is the meaning, why did he bother going
to Jerusalem? He could have gone off on his independent missionary
career from the very outset. The answer is that Paul most certainly did
not get his final theology at the early date, though he now persuades
himself that this is what happened.
The second reference to the Jerusalem church is in his introductory
visit. This is narrated in an evasive and obscure manner, and again the
impression is that he wants to distance himself, and deny any commit
ment or obedience. He has to admit the visit, but he wants to deny its
implications:

" . . . Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to get to know

(Gr: historeo) Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other
of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. . .
Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was
unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in
Christ. But they had heard only, that he who persecuted us in
times past now preaches the faith which once he destroyed."3

1 22 C H A PT E R 9
 That is, the visit was of a neutral nature - merely to "get to know"
Peter, and no one else of importance was there except James. The
phrase "the Lord's brother" is ambiguous. It may mean a favored
position in the sect and "companion" to Christ. In context it need not
mean blood kinship to Jesus since Paul shows unrelieved hostility to
all the Jerusalem leaders throughout the epistle. Elsewhere James is
referred to as "a pillar" who "seemed to be a somebody" - language
that Paul would not use if James indeed were of the family of Jesus.
Paul states also that he was "unknown by face" to all the other sect
members, and besides he had persecuted them so much - and from
long distance - that he could not have learned anything from them.
All in all, it is an adversarial text that denies all contact with Jerusalem.
But then, why is he on the defensive ? Just what did those two weeks
represent? A two-week visit has to be more than a getting-to-know
you.

We can be sure that during those two weeks in the home of Peter,
and in the grim formidable presence of James, the young Paul observed
each of the six hundred and thirteen rules of the Law, along with
prayer, fasting and ablutions, and with total orthodoxy. Given Paul's
fervent nature and intensity, which show in all his writings, we can
well believe that the young man, seeing the Temple in its glory, joined
in the processionals with faith unfeigned. Whatever he would say in
later years it is obvious from this episode that he was orthodox at this
ume.
We can give the strongest interpretation to this episode and posit
that the two weeks represented Paul's novitiate and instruction period
into the Jerusalem sect, with full acceptance of the program of the sect.
James and Peter would not have accepted anything less. That is why
Paul is trying to cover up the visit, and why his opponents were
playing it to the hilt. Under any interpretation Paul's missionary career
does not begin until after that Jerusalem visit, and we posit that he was
ordained a missionary at that time.
The key question is, when did all this take place ? We know that Paul
did not return to Jerusalem for a second visit for fourteen years, and
when he did return it was with a radically different theology. He was
no longer a devout Jew but was now numbered with the apostates

C HAPTER 9 1 23
described in 2 Baruch: "I see many of Your people who have
withdrawn from Your covenant, and have cast from them the yoke of
Your Law. "4
The inference forced on us is that it was the catastrophic event of the
fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple that had changed
Paul. Therefore the chronology has to fit that.
A date for Paul after 70 explains the strange interval of fourteen
years between his first and second visit to Jerusalem. We can now posit
that he was converted before the war, with Judaism having full force
and authority upon him. Then the war intervened and changed every
thing, with his new theology developed after that. The chaos of the war
years and the aftermath made travel impossible for a long time. It also
explains the ignorance of the Jerusalem leaders as to what he had been
up to in the Diaspora and explains the collection of money that he was
going to donate. The desperate conditions in Jerusalem made it appear
that he could dictate terms. This was the occasion for the second visit.
We must therefore set the fourteen-year interval with the first visit
prior to AD 66, when the War began, and the second one well after AD
70, when the War had ended and some small beginnings of travel to
Jerusalem had become possible. A reasonable chronology would be
AD 60 for the first visit, when Paul joined the sect and became a
missionary, and AD 74 for the fateful second visit.
As mentioned, the impression given by Josephus is that Jerusalem
was totally destroyed, but E. Mary Smallwood indicates that a fair
amount of recovery took place within a few years after the end of the
war, and with indications that a good part of the population had
survived. Several of Paul's letters, as quoted, show that he too was on
the scene. Paul, James and Peter would now have their confrontation.
Paul had his new theology, and he had his own fief, with a number
of churches he had set up that followed his teachings. However one
thing more was needed - he needed the full sanction and approval of
the Jerusalem church, and formal recognition from them of his
apostleship. This would convince the wavering gentile converts that he
was preaching a fully authorized doctrine, and it would make his
position as apostle invincible. Jerusalem was still in a precarious state.
Perhaps the elders there would be amenable to what he had in mind.
Paul now decided to stake everything on the journey.

1 24 CHAPTER 9
 Paul states that he made the trip on "revelation" meaning that an
inner call had come to him to go to Jerusalem. We can accept this as
correct, for if he had gone on direct orders from Jerusalem that would
undermine his claim for complete independence, nor does it appear in
the text that he was ordered to report. On the contrary, his visit
appears to have taken them by surprise. Perhaps the element of
surprise and confronting them with a fait accompli as to what he had
been doing in the Diaspora were all part of his strategy. Paul had been
on his own, free of all supervision during those years. Now he is going
to Jerusalem to report and to win recognition for his work.
He took several of his associates along to aid him in the presentation.
"Then fourteen years afterwards I went up again to Jerusalem with
Barnabas and took Titus along with me also. "5
Barnabas was a respected apostle in the movement who would
confirm to the Jerusalem leaders that Paul had done remarkably well
in the Diaspora. Titus was to be the test case. He was a gentile
converted by Paul, yet outside the Law in that he was uncircumcised.
No doubt Titus was a model of piety and learning, and would other
wise be quite eligible to join the sect. How would he be received?
Paul took along a third "companion," not least in persuasiveness.
This was a sum of money that he planned to donate to the church,
made up of collections from his gentile branches. The inference here is
of a quid pro quo: Paul wanted his branches recognized as legitimate
and valid within the Jamesian sect, fully on a par with all the orthodox
branches, and with the collections as the mark of legitimacy. They
would forward collections regularly to Jerusalem as did the other
branches of the sect - and in that way Paul's doctrinal position would
be honestly recognized since all his members would be deemed in
good standing by Jerusalem itself.
If this had worked out, there would have emerged a mixed church
with two separate doctrines, but with each branch legitimate. This
appears to have been Paul's basic plan when he went to Jerusalem. The
plan, and the premise of collections from each branch, assumes the
formal, organizational supremacy of the Jerusalem center - and more
important than that, it assumes that Paul was trying to retain, but on
new terms, what had been his status in the past: that of an apostle
authorized by Jerusalem. The whole obscure business of the collection

CH APTER 9 1 25
may be strong evidence that Paul was, after all, an apostle "from man"
and that he was trying to gain doctrinal independence via the back
door. He would be bound organizationally to Jerusalem, but not
doctrinally.
Let us take up the events in sequence. Paul got to Jerusalem with his
two companions and then broke the news as to what he had been up
to.

"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them

that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately
to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should
labor, or had labored in vain. " 6

That is, only men with strong nerves could be trusted to hear Paul's
gospel that he preached to the Gentiles, and any agreement worked out
with him would have to be behind the back of the rank and file, who
would never have permitted it.
We have here Paul's admission that he did not dare face the entire
membership of the Jerusalem church on this gospel, "lest he had run in
vain." Here we must ask why he must present his gospel in so covert
a manner at the second Jerusalem visit, and why didn't he present it
openly to Peter and James at the first meeting? For surely he must have
known it by then, since he tells us in the present epistle that God had
revealed this to him three years before that first meeting. We have here
proof positive that Paul had developed his new gospel after his admis
sion into the sect. That entry was the occasion of his two week stay
with Peter. He has changed the rules and now wants the Jerusalem
church to change as well.
The next passage is perhaps the most important in the epistle, and
deals with Titus. In our present text it reads . . .

"But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised. False brethren sought to spy out
our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us
into bondage (to the Law) but we gave them no subjection,
not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue
with you [Galatians] ."7

1 26 C H A PT E R 9
 If this is the case, then Paul had won a complete victory, and had his
gospel and his apostleship accepted by Jerusalem. If he had gained the
highest concession from James and the Jerusalem elders on this point
then no one would have dared dispute Paul in any city after that. Titus
had been admitted as a member of the sect, yet outside the require
ments of the Law. And if this were the case, there would be no real
need for the epistle.
Here Johannes Weiss dumps ice water on the Titus passage as it now
reads:

"Unfortunately it is not certain and is even liable to very grave

suspicions. The question might first be asked: If Paul had won
such a complete triumph, how then was it possible for his
opponents in Galatia to be able to use the occurrences in
Jerusalem against him, and why is he so remarkably upset in
just these verses that we can scarcely today understand his
words ?" 6

The present text states emphatically that Paul refused to yield to the
false brethren, presumably those who demanded that Titus agree to
the circumcision. Weiss now points to the alternate, and correct
verswn:

"There is in Galatians 2:5 an excellently attested reading which

says the direct opposite, namely that Paul had given place in
the way of subjection for an hour. This reading is not only the
oldest but it also inspires confidence, for the reason that it
certainly did not owe its origin to any ecclesiastical or
dogmatic interest . . . If we adopt that older reading, we then
get the following meaning: in order to take away from the
false brethren every possible reason for finding fault, in order
to establish the truth of the Gospel more firmly in principle,
Paul 'yielded for an hour' . . . Then, however, verse 3 must
mean: Titus was not compelled to be circumcised but under
went it of his own free will. Thus Titus really was circumcised,
and this was ever afterwards a weak point in Paul's position. It
could be said further, he yielded to the demand of the original

C H A PT E R 9 1 27
 Apostles [and] he was not able then to have his Gospel
ratified . . . From his agitated words it can be discerned that he
had here to defend a step which could be interpreted as a
defeat."9

Again we have a major forgery of a Pauline text: the present fake

wording indicates full victory for Paul's position, while the original
text shows a total defeat. Paul never did get his apostleship, his gospel
and his independence ratified in Jerusalem. Just as he must acknowl
edge the fact of a two-week stay in Jerusalem as a confession of
orthodoxy at the first meeting, so he must acknowledge orthodoxy at
the second meeting. All he can do by way of reply is to play down the
importance of those people who had forced the decision on him:
"Those who seemed to be somewhat, whoever they were, it maketh no
matter to me. "
The Jerusalem leaders took Paul back to the fold, took the money he
had brought, and sent him back to Diaspora in the belief that he had
given up his heresies. They were mistaken. Paul left Jerusalem and
journeyed to Antioch and there he announced, with remarkable
effrontery, that the Jerusalem elders had granted him full authority to
preach to the gentiles on his own terms. Thus he turned the Jerusalem
events upside down.
He writes to the Galatians:

"They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added

nothing to me. But contrariwise, they saw that the gospel of
the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the gospel of the
circumcision was to Peter. . . And when James, Cephas and
John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was
given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand
of fellowship, that we should go unto the gentiles, and they
unto the circumcision. Only they desired that we should
remember the poor [i.e., the collections] which I also was
forward to do. " 1 0

The elders "saw" - but did not agree or grant. Paul is falsifying the
story.

1 28 CHAPTER 9
 Word of Paul's activities got back to Jerusalem, and he was now
considered a lapsed heretic. He had resumed his former views. A
control commission of "Judaizers " was sent to Antioch, which
imposed Jerusalem rules, and forced the rejection of Paul's faction.
Almost certainly the word went out to all the other branches of the
church that Paul was to be shunned. The showdown at Antioch was
Paul's last face-to-face contact with the Jerusalem leaders. After that he
went his own way.
The epistle to the Galatians appears to be Paul's reply to the order of
excommunication put out against him and shows that in this church
too he is being undermined and vanquished by the Jerusalem leaders.
The violence of the letter is proof positive that the split was far beyond
any repair or compromise. He cannot be challenged nor can there be a
rival gospel:

"There be some that trouble you [Galatians] and would

pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from
heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we
have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we said before,
so say I again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you
than that ye have received (from me), let him be
accurse d . . . 1 1

The epistle states that Paul is not beholden to anyone nor can he be
judged by anyone, since he received his apostleship by supernatural
means: "The gospel which was preached by me was not after man, for
I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revela
tion of Jesus Christ. " 12
The Jerusalem church had nothing to do with it. The Jerusalem
leaders are throughout treated with open enmity. Paul's tone varies
from disdain to anger to unforgivable insult. The leaders are . . .

" . . . those who seemed to be somewhat, whosoever they were, it

maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person, for
they who seemed to be somewhat in conference imparted
nothing to me."13

C H A PT E R 9 1 29
 These observations culminate with what Weiss calls "a harsh wish,
which is even coarse and indecent." The Jerusalem church insisted that
the proselytes accept the full letter of the law, including circumcision,
and this particularly exasperated Paul. "I Paul say unto you that if ye
be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing . . . I wish they that are
confusing you would cut off their own selves." 1 4
The word used, apokopto, appears in a similar passage in the gospel:
" If thy right hand offend thee, cut it of. " 1 5
Paul is telling the Jerusalem elders to try major surgery on the male
organ. How were they expected to react to that ?
Paul's arraignment of the Law is worked out with such finality and
completeness of rejection as to make it impossible that he could
consider himself part of the same sect as the Jerusalem leaders, or even
of the same religion. We let Weiss summarize this, with his text refer
ences to Epistle to the Galatians:

"The Law was unable, indeed was never meant, to 'make

alive' 1 6; it was to bring men into the dominion of sin 1 7; it had
brought a curse on men. 18 Not through the Law, but from the
Law has Christ redeemed men 1 9 and made them God's posses
sion. God and the Law appear almost as [mutually] hostile
powers20; Slavery to the Law and Sonship to God are irrecon
cilable opposites2 1 ; the Law was mediated by angels and not
received directly from God22 ; it stands indeed in the closest
connection with those world-elements [i.e., the stoicheia],
those cosmic powers by whom humanity was kept in the most
miserable bondage before the coming of Christ23. " 24

We can see why Marcion took over Paul's epistles.

This bondage to the Law is "a melancholy episode which can only
be compared to an unworthy bondage to a stern and surly tutor, or
even an imprisonment. "25
The most lax and indifferent Jew in the matter of orthodoxy could
not be expected to agree with Paul's savage indictment. Nor could the
Jerusalem church ever have granted Paul a franchise to preach these
doctrines. The break was absolute.

1 30 CHAPTER 9
 The expulsion of Paul has major implications. It means that
Christianity split off from Judaism in a radically hostile manner. No
trace of 'joint-heritage' and 'sister-religions' can be found. These are
present-day myths having no basis in historical fact.
Johannes Weiss, writing in the early 1 900s, had the old fashioned
candor to state the exact meaning of these events.
Paul was now a sworn enemy. He had broken with Judaism and
belongs to a new order of faith:

"Now he and all believers are a new Israel of God26; the true
sons of Abraham27; children of the heavenly Jerusalem28;
descendants of Isaac who was miraculously born 'after the
Spirit' 29 Here the breach with Judaism has been effected with
decisive bluntness. It lies behind him in shadowy semblance,
it belongs to the era of the flesh, of the world, of heathenism,
and for him all that has lost its value by the death of Christ on
the cross. It is dead, as far as he is concerned, and he himself is
dead to all these things which are simply past and over. He
feels that he is a 'new creature' 30; that he has begun a new life,
the life that is lived in the power of the Spirit of God31 " 32

The "breach with Judaism" has been glossed over in Acts, and here
we find Luke at his worst. In his version, the "certain from James"
who overthrew Paul at Antioch have been replaced by two men named
Judas and Silas, who now accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch,
and who bear an epistle from James and "the apostles and elders and
brethren" addressed to Antioch, commending "our beloved Barnabas
and Paul." The fake epistle informs the Antioch church that they can
ignore the Mosaic law and circumcision:

"Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from

us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls,
saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the Law, to whom
we gave no such commandment. "

The epistle i s read at Antioch upon which the members "rejoiced for
the consolation. "33

C H A PT E R 9 131
 This whole section with its version of the Jerusalem meeting and the
aftermath at Antioch cannot be put down to carelessness or naivete. It
shows Luke engaged in careful and deliberate fraud. Weiss gives his verdict:

"The author [Luke] has been guilty of one of the most serious
distortions of the history of primitive Christianity. The repre
sentation of the Apostolic Council here given cannot be
upheld in light of the Epistle to the Galatians. "34

After the showdown at Antioch, Paul split with his associate

Barnabas who went over to the orthodox faction. "Barnabas was also
carried away with their dissimulation. "35
Luke falsifies this also, making the split a personal squabble on the
matter of taking one John Mark along on their further missionary
journeys: "And the contention was so sharp between them that they
departed asunder from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and
sailed unto Cyprus, and Paul chose Silas. "36
Luke counts the day lost when he cannot fake the text.
After that Paul's opponents attacked him relentlessly, undermining
him in all his churches. Paul, seeing his lifework destroyed, was finally
driven to lash back at them. He saw that the Jews themselves were
under attack in many Diaspora cities, and he saw this as divine punish
ment upon the Jews for opposing his own doctrines. The fate of
Jerusalem was proof that the extreme of punishment had fallen upon
them. In the heat of factional hatred and bitterness, he makes the
harshest of accusations:

"The jews killed the Lord jesus and their own prophets and have perse
cuted us. And they please not God and are contrary to all men,
forbidding us to preach to the gentiles that they might be saved, thus
filling up their sins always, for the wrath has come upon them to the
utmost. ,gy

The key phrase here, "forbidding us to speak to the gentiles that

they might be saved" points to the factional fight raging in the sect. His
opponents are hounding him in all the churches, finally wrenching this
accusation from him.

1 32 CHAPTER 9
 The scholars are in agreement that, whatever the chronology, the
Pauline epistles are earlier than the gospels. Therefore the accusation
that "the Jews killed Jesus" must be set down as the earliest instance of
the charge that would achieve grim fame at later times, and which
would be basic to the Christian polemic. Paul has the harsh distinction
of being the first Christian, and the first to make the murder charge.
As Paul saw it, the sect-Jesus had been slain and the Law was dead
but in denying Christ and clinging to the Law, the Jews had made
themselves party to his death. And the Jews denied the words of the
prophets who had proclaimed Christ, therefore the Jews were party to
the slaying of the prophets. Quite properly the Jews were to be
punished to the uttermost, and to be hated by all mankind.
All this was outside the realm of history, but it was the denial of
Christian doctrines that created the guilt of the Jews - and this guilt
was to be spelled out in the Christian polemic. The starting point was
the murder accusation made by Paul, void of any historical detail, and
with no awareness of "Jesus of Nazareth." It will be the task of the
gospel writers to transform this into the slaying of "Jesus of Nazareth"
placed in a historical framework, and given the form of a vivid passion
narrative. We can trace out the development of this narrative.

C H A PT E R 9 1 33
NOTES:
1 . New English Bible version.
2. Epistle to the Galatians, 1 : 1 5 - 1 8
3 . Epistle to the Galatians, 1 : 1 8 - 23
4. 2 Baruch, 4 1 : 5
5. Epistle to the Galatians, 2: 1
6. Epistle to the Galatians, 2:2
7. Epistle to the Galatians, 2:3 - 5
8. Johannes Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 27 1
9. Johannes Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 272
1 0. Epistle to the Galatians, 2:6 - 1 0
1 1 . Epistle to the Galatians, 1 :8, 9
1 2. Epistle to the Galatians, 1 : 1 1 , 1 2
1 3 . Epistle to the Galatians, 2:6
14. Epistle to the Galatians, 5:2, 1 2
1 5. Mark, 9:43
1 6. Epistle to the Galatians, 3:21
1 7. Epistle to the Galatians, 3 : 1 9, 22f
1 8. Epistle to the Galatians, 3 : 1 0, 1 3
1 9. Epistle to the Galatians, 3: 13, 4: 5
20. Epistle to the Galatians, 2:9
2 1 . Epistle to the Galatians, 4:5
22. Epistle to the Galatians, 3: 1 9
23. Epistle to the Galatians, 4:3ff
24. Johannes Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 303
25. Epistle to the Galatians, 3:23!
26. Epistle to the Galatians, 6: 1 6
27. Epistle to the Galatians, 3: 1 9
28. Epistle to the Galatians, 4:26
29. Epistle to the Galatians, 4:29
30. Epistle to the Galatians, 6: 1 5
3 1 . Epistle to the Galatians, 2:20, 5 :25
32. Johannes Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 304
33. Acts, 1 5:22 - 3 1
34. Johannes Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 144
35. Epistle to the Galatians, 2: 1 3
36. Acts, 1 5:37 - 39
3 7. 1 Thessalonians, 2: 1 5 - 1 6
 10

JUDAISM AFTER THE FALL

"I consider it my duty to reply to the attacks made against

us by our enemies, and to convict them of falsehood and
malignity."
Josephus, Contra Apion, 1:3.

Diaspora Judaism, in a beleaguered state after the war, came under

further attack from the emperor Domitian (AD 8 1 - 96). Prior to this,
Titus had seized the funds forwarded annually by all Diaspora Jews to
the Jerusalem Temple, now destroyed, and had converted this to a tax
on the Jews. In return Judaism continued as a religion licita. Domitian
went far beyond this. In his hostility towards the Jews and his avarice
for further revenue he applied the tax to the near-proselytes. All who
had "adopted Jewish ways " such as attending the synagogue were
declared Jews, hence subject to the tax.
Suetonius describes the process:

"Domitian's agents collected the tax on Jews with a peculiar

lack of mercy, and took proceedings not only against those
who kept their Jewish origins a secret in order to avoid the tax,
but against those who lived as Jews without professing
Judaism. As a boy, I remember once attending a crowded
court where the prosecutor had a ninety-year-old man
stripped to establish whether or not he had been circum
cised." 1

Robert Graves, in his translation of Suetonius, adds this note ad loc:

"A great many Greek converts to the Jewish ethical system, the
so-called 'God-fearers,' had declined to undergo circumci
sion, which would have made them technically 'Children of

C H A PT E R 1 0 1 37
 Abraham,' and were not therefore subject to the tax, though
they kept the Sabbath and worshiped Jehovah as the One
God. Suetonius probably refers to these rather than to the
Christians, who rejected the Sabbath and did all they could to
prove they were not Jews. "2

Domitian forced the near-proselytes to decide whether to join

Judaism openly and completely or to be split off from it and thus
escape Roman agents. As one alternative the near-proselytes formed
churches of their own, which in time merged with Christianity.

"Some of them developed an eclectic monotheism of their

own . . . Some of them, at least, took over many Jewish customs
but rejected circumcision. Communities of this kind survived
until the fifth century. "3

We can readily guess that the same process took place in the small
marginal sects far down in the social scale. The Pauline churches had a
wide spectrum of adherents, from orthodox Judaism to near-paganism,
from ascetic to libertine, with each faction seeking to make "the Lord
Jesus" preach the doctrines of that faction. We note that John Gunther,
in his book St. Paul and his Opponents lists a bewildering and chaotic
array of factions that the scholars speculate may have been found in
these tiny churches. They have come up with dozens of factions
including "Syncretistic Jewish Christians, Libertine Gnostics, Jerusalem
Judaizers, Judaizing Gnostics, Platonic and Pythagorean Stoics, Gnostic
Ebionites, Ascetic Syncretistic Jews [et cetera, et cetera]. "4
Here too the split took place, and early Christianity had its spectrum
of rival churches from the outset.
Here we put the question: how can all this be explained if the start
ing point is made the human Jesus of Nazareth, and if Paul's career is
supposed to date within thirty years of the death of Jesus ? How can so
much happen in so many cities in so short a time ? The failure of the
scholar-apologists to come up with any explanation means that there is
something very wrong with the assumed starting point of a historical
Jesus, and something very wrong with the assumed chronology of
Paul's career, in the official version.

1 38 CHAPTER 1 0
 These groups, both in the synagogues and the small sects, found a
need to justify their break with Judaism. The human mind is
resourceful in discovering rationalizations and defenses. Rather than
blame the Romans for their predicament, the breakaway sects blamed
the Jews. The dark period after AD 70 saw onslaughts against the
Jews not only on the social and political fields but on the literary
field as well. The antisemites put out lampoon-histories and attack
pamphlets on the "Jewish question, " with a barrage of accusations
against the Jews . It appears more than a coincidence that the break
away factions found it expedient to take over many of the arguments
of the antisemites.
In the early centuries many polemical works were put out by
Christian writers with titles such as Contra judaeos and Adversus
judaeos. To a surprising extent these tracts employ the arguments
used by the pagan antisemites, but given a Christian garb. This justi
fied the injured innocence of the Christians in their break with
Judaism.
Here, as we have found constantly in the course of our inquiry, our
main witness is Josephus. He took pen in hand to reply to the barrage
of tracts against Judaism that had appeared at that time. His riposte,
Contra Apion ['Against Apion'] is dated by the editor "to the begin
ning of the second century" (i.e. after AD 1 00). This tract, together
with The Life, were his last works. He remained a truculent and effec
tive debater to the end.
The date is important. In this book, as in his other writings,
Josephus shows that he will retort promptly and sharply to any attacks
on Judaism. The book searches out all opponents and shows enormous
detailed research. A score of Greek historians are mentioned in his
reply to books that attacked Judaism in general and that dealt with
events in remote antiquity such as the Exodus. Then why didn't he
reply to direct immediate attacks by Christianity on his own class of
priests in his own home city? The chief priests were the primary
targets of the gospel invective, and were accused of bringing about the
death of an innocent man. Yet he is silent.
The term "chief priests " occurs fifty-five times in the gospels, and
always in a hostile sense:

C H A PT E R 1 0 1 39
 "The chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take
him Uesus] by craft, and put him to death . . . [He] will be
betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall
condemn him to death . . "5
.

We may put the silence of Josephus in his tract Contra Apion as

further evidence that he showed no awareness of Christianity and that
the jesus Testimonium was not written by him.
Also surprising is that the Jewish spokesmen in the later period -
from what we can recover from the Christian writings - show the same
ignorance of Josephus as to the gospel story. It is as if they are hearing
it for the first time. And in reply they show the same militancy and
rejection demonstrated by Josephus. The tract put out by Josephus
was the opening salvo for the sharp debate that would rage in the
following centuries. Therefore this book merits careful study.
As an example of his readiness to debate even peripheral charges, we
note that in the opening pages of the book Josephus replies to the
derisory charge that the Jewish nation is paltry and insignificant, with
little known history or achievements. Here Josephus launches into a
diatribe against the Greeks " . . . who were late in learning the alphabet
and found the lesson difficult. " 6

"Surely it is absurd that the Greeks should be so conceited as

to think themselves the sole possessors of a knowledge of
antiquity and the only accurate reporters of its history.
Anyone can easily discover from the historians themselves
that their writings have no basis of sure knowledge, but
merely present the facts as conj ectured by individual authors.
More often than not they confute each other in their works,
not hesitating to give the most contradictory account of the
same events. "7

Here Josephus cites a dozen writers to prove his point. The research
is massive. "Each of these writers, in giving his divergent account of
the same incidents, hoped thereby to be thought the most veracious of
all. nB

1 40 CHAPTER t O
 We can well imagine how Josephus would reply to the errors,
contradictions, divergences, impossibilities, hearsays, myths, defama
tions and free imaginings found in the four gospels.
Josephus notes that . . .

" . . . the main responsibility for the errors of the later historians
who aspired to write on antiquity, and for the license granted
to their mendacity, rests with the original neglect of the
Greeks to keep official records of current events . . . It is this
lack of any basis of documentary evidence, which would have
served at once to instruct the eager learner and to confute the
liar, that accounts in the main for inconsistencies between
different historians. "9

We may observe that New Testament scholarship is one long

despairing search for what happened at the Beginning, because no
documentary evidence can be found and all must be guessed at, since
the later accounts are contradictory and suspect. To reconstruct this
lost Beginning the scholars try to replace the missing data with
"documentation" from all the social sciences - comparative religion,
anthropology, sociology, etc. - to wind up with divergent accounts.
And to the present, not a particle of hard conclusive evidence has been
found confirming any part of the gospel story.
Here Josephus boasts that in the matter of keeping records . . .

" . . . our forefathers assigned this to their chief priests and

prophets, and down to our own times these records have
been, and I venture to say, will continue to be, preserved with
scrupulous accuracy. " 1 0

He clearly includes the prophets as among the recorders and keepers

of the Judaic heritage. He understands the prophetical writings to be
part of orthodox Judaism, and he would protest at once if these
writings were captured and used as anti-Judaic propaganda. The
"prophetical writings" especially that of Isaiah, along with the Psalms,
were to be the main polemical documents on the Christian side. Here
too the Jewish disputants would prove to be unyielding.

C H A PT E R 1 0 141
 After this introduction Josephus turns to the "gang of four" -
Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysimachus and Apion, Greek writers from
Alexandria. Their main tactic was to capture the Judaic material and
turn it against the original owners, to turn a prized possession into a
weapon to defeat those who had title and to oust them from posses
sion. It is basically the Sophist tactic of capturing the arguments of the
opponent and then skewering the opponent, ridiculing him with his
own claims. We give the key elements in their writings, noting the
parallels to the Christian polemic.
With the four, it was the Exodus story, which comprised the national
epic of the Jews, and the career of Moses, the noblest figure in Judaism.
All this would be ridiculed and turned upside down. The four put out
lampoon versions of the Exodus story: in essence, a large rabble of
Egyptian lepers and blind and lame, along with their leader, an apostate
Egyptian priest named Moses who was also a leper, were driven out of
the country. These outcasts then journeyed on and founded their city
Jerusalem. The details varied and contradicted, as Josephus angrily
pointed out, but the common theme was capture and hostile restate
ment.

In the Christian version, the Exodus was captured by Epistle to the

Hebrews, where, as noted in an earlier chapter, the " Lord Jesus" was
in command, and the entire story christianized. On the grand scale, the
entire body of Judaic writings was taken over by the Christians, with
the assertion that these texts were now the property of the New Israel.
The Jews, as pariahs and outcasts, had no claim to anything.
The goal of the four writers was to ridicule the opponent with no
pretense at history. The writers could "invent imaginary persons, put
out incredible tales . . . pure legends." 11
Dates, places, individuals are invented out of thin air, while Josephus
complained in vain at all this. At times there is a show of genuineness
by putting out names and dates, which Josephus exposes: "a king
named Amenophis, an imaginary person. " 1 2
The scholars note a similar freedom in composition, with full play to
the imagination, in the gospel narratives. No episode, no words of
Jesus, no time or place, can be labeled "historical" and free of question.
At best, the item is labeled "early tradition. "

1 42 C H A PT E R 1 0
 The Exodus stories are given a veneer of divine sanction by invok
ing Egyptian gods and priests who order the expulsions.

"Isis appeared to Amenophis in his sleep . . . The sacred scribe

Phritobautes told him that if he purged the land of its conta
minated population, he might cease to be alarmed. The king
thereupon collected 250,000 afflicted persons and banished
them from the country . . . " 13

The pagan antisemites had introduced the religious motif in a brief,

peripheral manner, while it is fundamental to the gospel narratives.
There the story is presented as a sacred drama. It is bolstered on all
sides by angels, revelations, proof-texts from Scripture. The divine
intervention is one-sided, conveniently aiding the "good side" while
punishing the Jews, with all this set down by gospel writers using free
imagination.
In these tales the Jews behave in an extremely cruel and wicked
manner. In Manetho's version, Egypt was originally invaded by "an
ignoble people from the East" identified as the Jewish "Hyksos "
who . . .

" . . . savagely burned the cities, razed the temples to the ground,
and treated the whole native population with utmost
cruelty. . . Their ambition was to extirpate the Egyptian
people. " 1 4

At a later time, Moses, leader of the lepers, instructs his followers

"to show goodwill to no man, to offer not the best but the worst
advice, and to overthrow all temples and altars to the gods. " 1 5
In the gospel version, the Jews are relentless in persecuting Jesus,
striking him and spitting on him, then reviling him on the cross. No
clear explanation is given for this behavior. One reason is "envy. "
"He (Pilate) knew that the chief priests had delivered him because of
envy. "1 6

We are also told that "the Darkness comprehended not the Light. " 1 7

C H A PT E R 1 0 1 43
 John's gospel is insistent on the alien and separate nature of his foes,
who live in a different world. "Why do you (the Jews) not understand
me ? It is because you cannot hear my words. You are of your father,
the Devil. " 1 8
The gospel writers are following the Egyptian pattern.
Apion, the most virulent of the four, contributes several additional
items that have parallels in the gospels. One is our old friend, the ritual
murder tale. It seems that every year the Jews kidnapped a Greek, then
fattened him for a grisly feast, presumably at the Passover.

"This practice was repeated annually at a fixed season. They

would kidnap a Greek foreigner, fatten him up for a year, and
then convey him to a wood where they slew him. They sacri
ficed his body with their customary ritual, partook of his
flesh, and while offering up the Greek, swore an oath of
hostility to the Greeks . . . " 1 9

It was "a Jewish plot on his life-blood. "20

John's gospel in turn refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God and is
careful to identify him with the Passover lamb slain by the Jews. In
John's chronology, the farewell on Thursday evening makes no
mention of the Passover and is not even a supper, since John intends to
have Jesus slain prior to the Passover meal that will take place on
Friday evening.

"In John 1 9:36 it is said that the reason why the bones were not
broken (while Jesus was on the cross) was in order that a
scripture might be fulfilled. The scripture in question (Ex.
1 2: 1 6; Number 9:12) has reference to the paschal lamb. Jesus
then is presented as the anti-type to the paschal lamb in such
a manner that this precept finds literal fulfillment in him. But
not this precept only. According to 1 9: 1 4, Jesus is still at
midday before Pilate. His death thus takes place in the after
noon, exactly at the time when the paschal lambs were wont
to be slaughtered. "21

1 44 C H A PT E R 1 0
 John's gospel is therefore giving us a christianized version of Apion's
ritual murder story, with the Jews carrying out a shocking deed.
Josephus replies: "It is a gratuitous lie . . . for the one aim of the inven
tors of these unspeakable horror stories is to make us hated. "22
The reply did little good since the ritual murder tale has come down
the centuries, achieving grim fame during the Middle Ages.
Apion also states that the Jews have suffered great punishments and
misfortunes, and this shows the falsity of Judaism as a religion.

"A clear proof, according to him (Apion), that our laws are
unjust and our religious ceremonies erroneous, is that we are
not masters of an empire but rather are the slaves, first of one
nation then another, and that calamity has more than once
befallen our city. "23

In reply, Josephus notes that . . .

" . . . most races have frequently had to submit to others . . . I pass

over the burning of the Acropolis of Athens, the temple of
Ephesus, that of Delphi, and myriads more. No one ever
reproached the victims, rather than the perpetrators, for these
atrocities. It was left for Apion to bring this novel type of
accusation against us, forgetting the disasters of his own
Egypt. " 24

Josephus writes that this is "a novel type of accusation" and that it
was invented by Apion. Again we have the argument of silence, with
the inference that he never heard of the Christian charge that Jerusalem
and the Temple were destroyed as punishment for the slaying of Jesus.
This charge was played to the hilt in the Christian polemic but
Josephus has no awareness of it.
In general, the response of Josephus to these attacks was to set the
pattern for the Jewish response to attacks by the early Christians: there
is sharp and angry rejection of the charges, there is unswerving defense
of Judaism, and there is no awareness of the gospel events. The posture
of the Jewish disputants nowhere gives support to the premise that the
gospel events had a historical basis.

C H A PTE R 1 0 1 45
 Josephus replied to Apion with no ceremony: Apion was . . .

" . . . an impudent liar. . . a knave, an ignorant fool . . . he has the

mind of an ass and the impudence of a dog . . . the greatest
blockhead as the writer of fiction . . . a low charlatan, whose life
is as dissolute as his language . . . " 25

The Jewish disputants of the later period used similar language and
similar militancy. They were prepared to defend Judaism, just as
Josephus was.
He was there at the beginning, and we can trace developments from
that point. He noted the success of the Jewish missionary effort, but it
was that very success that created the large body of " God-fearers" and
the borderline sects that were later drawn to Christianity. He writes:

"The masses have for a long time shown a keen desire to adopt
our religious observances. There is not one city, Greek or
barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of abstain
ing from work on the seventh day has not spread, and where
the fasts and the lighting of lamps, and many of our prohibi
tions in the matter of food are not observed. "26

Josephus shows no awareness that Jesus was the Incarnate Word, and he
also rejects the Logos-doctrine of Philo, wherein God required a "Son" to
create the universe and administer it. This would contradict monotheism.

"We behold God's works: Light, the heavens, the earth, the
sun . . . These God created, not with hands, not with toil, not
with assistants of whom He had no need. He willed it so and
forthwith they were made in all their beauty. "27

Here the editor notes ad loc that this was aimed at Philo. "His
language is so similar to that of Philo that he may be combatting the
latter. "28
As mentioned, Philo had identified the Logos/Word with the
"Angel of the Way" who led the Israelites, which was close to naming
Joshua/Jesus as that angel. Christianity went all the way, in formally

1 46 C H A PT E R 1 0
naming Jesus as the Incarnate Word, and then providing him with a
human career. However Josephus shows no awareness of any part of
the Christian case.
Josephus showed scorn for the pagan pantheon, while the early
Christians, well aware of the enormous attraction that these myths
held for the masses, proceeded to capture and christianize many of
these. Josephus, in his taunts, indicates at the very least that he had no
awareness of crude resemblances to later Christian beliefs:

"Some gods are beardless striplings . . . The noblest and chief of

them all, the Father, seduces women, rendering them
pregnant . . . He cannot rescue his own offspring. Fine doings
are these . . . Then there are gods in bondage to men, hired now
as builders, now as shepherds, while others are chained like
criminals in prison. What man in his senses would not be
stirred to rebuke the inventors of such fables and to condemn
the utter folly of those that believed them? "29

Josephus is setting the pattern for rejection of the Christian claims,

as we will see in later confrontations.

CH APTER 1 0 1 47
NOTES:
1 . Sueronius, Domitian, 1 2
2 . Robert Graves, ad foe, translation o f Sueronius.
3. Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity. 5:96
4. John Gunther, St. Paul and his Opponents, 1-5
5. Mark 14: 1 , Matt. 20: 1 8 , so throughout the gospels
6. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 : 10
7. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 : 1 5
8 . Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 :26
9. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 :20, 23
10. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 :29
1 1 . Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 :229, 230
12. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 :230
1 3. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 :289, 290
14. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 :76, 80
1 5 . Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 :309
16. Mark 1 5 : 1 0
17. john 1 : 5
1 8. fohn 8:43,44
1 9. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2:95
20. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2:96
2 1 . Paul Schmiedel, Encyclopaedia Biblica, 2:2524
22. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2: 1 1 1
23. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2: 1 25
24. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2: 1 28, 1 3 1
25. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2:32, 37, 84, 88, 1 36
26. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2:282
27. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2: 192
28. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2: 1 92, note a, Loeb edition
29. Josephus, Contra Apion, 2:242 - 247

1 48 CHAPTER 1 0
 1 1

THE PRIMARY CHRISTIAN TRADITION

"The verdict is not suddenly arrived at. The proceedings

only gradually merge into the verdict."
Franz Kafka, The Trial

The Jews did not go gently into the night. With Josephus' material
on Apion as a starting point we can trace the transition to
Christianity.
The Christian writer closest to Apion was the early church father
Justin. His writings show unrelieved hatred and contempt for Judaism,
and he uses Apion's tactic of a capture and radical, hostile restatement
of Judaic history. Almost every theme of the Alexandrian Four appears
in his writings, but in a more complex and sophisticated manner. With
Apion it was merely the Exodus story; with Justin it is the entire
Jewish Scripture, with all personages therein, including God, made
witnesses to Christianity. Also taken over from Apion are the motifs
of Jewish wickedness, Jewish crimes and dire punishment for the Jews.
Justin was the most prominent Christian spokesman, missionary
and apologist during the second century (AD 1 00 - 200). His birth is
placed about 1 00, and he narrates that he was converted in his youth
by a "venerable old man," apparently an elder of the new church, and
who imparted the full content of the faith. If we place the conversion
about 1 20, and posit that the "elder" had himself adopted the faith
some decades back, then we are getting to about AD 90. This clearly
brings us to the first age of the church.
Moreover there is good evidence that the gospels, in their final
edited form, date after Justin and that Justin is giving an earlier form of
the Christian polemic. The glib assertion that the gospels date from the
first century, about AD 70 to 90, derives only from the Unproved: that
there was a Jesus of Nazareth, and there were disciples who preserved
traditions about him that took written form at an early date. But first

C H A PT E R 1 1 1 51
there must be proof that this "Jesus" existed and that he had "disci
ples " otherwise the early date is a Christian attempt to create history
and legitimacy. It remains without proof.
To go by the test of outside confirmation, which is the only test we
can use, it is only late in the second century that the present four
gospels are mentioned by name and quoted by name. They became
canonical only about AD 1 80. This late dating, and evidence that much
had taken place before the gospels appeared, was noted by Renan. He
pointed out that the gospels surfaced towards the close of the second
century, about AD 1 80, or a hundred and fifty years after the assumed
original events. They were the end product of a long process of editing
and revision, by parties unknown. He noted also that the said church
father Justin is placed prior to all this, and he diverges markedly from
the gospels. These texts became canonical and authoritative after his
time therefore it remains possible that Justin is giving us an earlier
version of Christianity.
Renan remarks on . . .

" . . . the little authority which the Gospel texts enjoyed during
one hundred and fifty years [i.e., up to AD 1 80]. There was no
scruple in inserting additions, in variously combining them,
and in completing some by others . . . [They] proceeded from
an obscure and purely popular elaboration . . . Justin, who
often appeals to what he calls 'The Memoirs of the Apostles,'
had under his notice Gospel documents in a state very differ
ent from that in which we possess them. At all events, he never
cares to quote them textually . . . It was when tradition became
weakened, in the second half of the second century [i.e., after
AD 1 50], that the texts bearing the names of the apostles took
a decisive authority and obtained the force of law. " 1

Justin never quotes these gospels by name.

This important statement by Renan has been confirmed by several

scholars who pointed out that other church fathers of the early period
also were unaware of the present gospels. The "apostolic fathers"
Ignatius and Papias are dated prior to AD 1 50.

1 52 CHAPTER 1 1
 " Even where the gospel was highly prized, as by Ignatius or
Papias, it is apparently in an oral rather than a written form . . .
Along with material from the canonical Gospels or parallel to
them, most of the Apostolic Fathers utilize what we anachro
nistically term 'apocryphal' or 'extra-canonical' material. It
was evidently not so to them. We are still in a period when the
New Testament writings are not clearly demarcated from
other edifying material. This situation in fact continues yet
further into the second century and may be seen in Justin
Martyr and Tatian. Justin records that the 'memoirs of the
apostles' called Gospels were read at Christian worship. His
quotations and allusions, however, afford evidence that the
extent of these was not identical with the four, but contained
c apocryphal' material. " 2

Another scholar shares these views:

"In the extant Christian writings of the first half of that century
[i.e., AD 1 00 to AD 1 5 0] . . . the writers do not quote formally,
naming [Gospel] authors, but in a way that suggests loose
quotation from memory, or the survival of oral traditions
alongside the written Gospels . . . At mid-century Justin almost
certainly means our four when he writes of 'Memoirs' . . . With
Irenaeus - about AD 1 80 - begins the period of definite and
extensive quotation; for him there are only four canonical
Gospels, and this is in the nature of things. "3

Definite quotations, naming the gospel, are not found prior to this
date.
The canon listed and thus limited the contents of the New
Testament. The dating for this is not definite, but it came well after
Justin.

"W. Bauer has shown that even towards the end of the second
century only the Gospels of Matthew and Mark had full
acceptance, that the Gospel of Luke on the other hand was
only hesitatingly recognized, and that there was considerable

C HAPTER 1 1 1 53
 opposition to the Gospel of John . . . There was therefore in the
second half of the second century no fixed canon of the
Gospels, and indeed the plurality of the Gospels was felt as a
problem . . . About the turn from the 2nd to the 3rd century
[i.e., AD 200], the canon seems to have obtained its fixed
primitive form. "4

This makes the canon dating even later than AD 1 80.

Raymond Brown, in his major work The Death of the Messiah,
confirms that the gospels were identified by name only late in the
second century. Before this they circulated anonymously, hence
subject to free revision. Brown writes:

"The common designations placed before the Gospels, e.g.,

'The Gospel according to Matthew,' stem from the late 2nd
cent. and represent an educated estimate of authorship by
church scholars of that period, who were putting together
traditions and guesses pertinent to attribution. "5

The evidence shows that the gospels became authoritative and

canonical only after AD 1 80. Only at this late date was there some
agreement as to what had happened a hundred and fifty years back. It
was the setting up of a canon and of a massive church censorship to
enforce that canon that established what was the correct and only
permissible statement of "what actually happened" and thus the
contradictory versions were excluded.
But the gospel writers themselves had been busy for many years,
arranging and editing the materials collected from all sides, to create
their picture of Jesus, inventing history where need be. As to the end
product, Bultmann writes:

"We conclude that the whole framework of the history of Jesus

must be viewed as an editorial construction, and that there
with a whole series of typical scenes which . . . we had looked
upon as scenes in the life of Jesus, must be viewed as creations
of the evangelists. " 6

1 54 CHAPTER 1 1
 Hence the renowned four gospels may turn out to be as flimsy and
fictional as the rival gospels of that period, now lost beyond recovery.
All this changes matters considerably. One of the strongest
arguments for the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth" has been that the
gospels appeared about forty years after the alleged events, and with
no intervening contradictory material. Now these texts appear to be
hearsay at eight generations removed, and with much intervening
material. This opens up the whole area of the turbulent second century,
with its chaos of rival sects, gospels and doctrines - so much so that
the pagan Celsus noted sardonically that one would have to toss dice
before deciding which sect to join.7
If the gospels indeed have this very late date, then the scholars have
carried out a two-fold deception: by asserting the very early date they
have bolstered the case for the " historical Jesus " by fake evidence; and
they have in turn blocked off inquiry into areas that could challenge
the entire case, blocking off the critics and opponents as well as the
writings of early Christians - all this with the argument that these
writings were late and irrelevant.
The scholar-apologists, committed to the " historical Jesus of
Nazareth" as the starting point, have declared the gospel of Mark the
earliest and most historical of the four. But if all four have equally
obscure origins and are being revised at a late date, how can we be sure
of this priority? The scholars have smuggled in the unproved Jesus to
establish priority, but if this is dropped then alternate origins and
alternate gospels are possible.
To return to Justin. E. R. Goodenough, in his book The Theology of
justin Martyr, has no great admiration for his subject. The world of
ideas that Justin grew up in and absorbed was not given to profundi
ties. "The popular philosophical environment of Justin [was] a welter
of crude superstitions expressed in myths and in snatches of philo
sophical terminology. "6
Justin came to Christianity, as he defined it, because it ended all
doubts and questionings and gave him total invincible certainty based
on faith. "According to Justin, the ordinary human mind is unable to
find truth by rational processes, and in Christianity does not try to do
so. "9

CHAPTER 1 1 1 55
 Thus logic, intelligence and historical evidence are rejected. This is a
broad hint that Jesus will not be arrived out through historical
evidence but through absolute faith.
We see this in the conversion story that Justin relates to Trypho, the
Jewish disputant, at the outset of the Dialogue With Trypho. The
picture is that of the forlorn, despairing youth who wanders from one
Greek school to another, and finds they are all given to clever debate
rather than to imparting truth. One day, however, he met a venerable
old man at a deserted place, who revealed the truth to him and brought
him faith and certainty.
First, vain human reason must be discarded. "I care nothing about
Plato or Pythagoras, nor about anyone who holds their opinions. "1 0
So states the old man. Truth can be found in one place only, far
above man-made systems. It is God's word found in the Scriptures and
revealed to the prophets.

"There were a long time ago men of greater antiquity than all
these reputed philosophers, men blessed and righteous and
beloved of God. They foretold those things of the future
which have indeed come to pass. Men call them prophets.
They and they only saw the truth and declared it to
mankind . . . They did not use logical proof when they wrote,
since they are trustworthy witnesses and therefore superior
to all such proof. The things that did take place and are
taking place now compel agreement with what they have
spoken. " 11

The message of these prophets is given in a single line: "They glori

fied the Maker of all things as God and Father, and they proclaimed the
Christ sent from Him as His Son. " 12
Their words are invincible, first because of divine revelation and
because they were fulfilled.
Justin was won over by the venerable old man.

"He said many other things to me, then he went away and I
saw him no more. But at once a fire was kindled in my soul,
and a passionate desire possessed me for the prophets, those

1 56 CHAPTER 1 1
 great men who are the friends of Christ. And as I weighed his
words within me, I found that this alone was philosophy, and
philosophy safe and serviceable." 13

The old man left, and we never find out how he became converted.
The origins are unknown.
This then was the evangel preached by Justin: he proclaimed the
Lord Jesus, Son of God and God Incarnate, as established by the
sacred texts. It is the evangel taught to him by his mentor, the "vener
able old man, " going back perhaps to AD 90.
And when Justin alludes to the "memoirs of the Apostles," we can
assume that he understands them to have the same set of doctrines.
Justin is giving us the primary tradition. The "historical Jesus of
Nazareth" would be created at a much later stage - meaning that the
gospel story is necessarily fictional.
Jus tin is vehement on his insistence that Jesus is God, and makes this
his starting point. Thus at this stage of our inquiry we have two
diametrically opposed concepts: the secular-naturalist view of the
present-day New Testament scholars, that the starting point is the
human Jesus of Nazareth, and against this the doctrinal-religious view,
that the starting point is the incarnation of the Son of God. "Christ is
not mere man of human origin, begotten in the common way of
men. " 1 4
"He came forth as God from above, and became man among men,
and will come here again."15
The writings of Justin are relevant to the question of gospel origins,
since major themes in Justin are found in the gospel of John and in the
gospel of Matthew. With John, it is the divinity of Jesus and with
Matthew it is the prominence of proof-texts from Scripture. These two
elements comprise the primary tradition, and exclude the "historical
Jesus." This indicates that the portrait of Jesus as a purely human
figure is a later development.
The godhood of Jesus is declared forthrightly by Justin in the
Dialogue with Trypho, and he is unyielding on this point. We give a
number of representative statements by Justin:
"This Christ existed and was God before all the ages, and was born
and became man and suffered, and was not man by origin. " 16

C H A PT E R 1 1 1 57
 " God has begotten as a beginning before all His creatures a
kind of reasonable Power from Himself, which is also called
by the Holy Spirit the Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son,
Wisdom, Angel, God, and sometimes Lord and Word . . . This
Word of Wisdom is Himself God begotten by the Father of
the universe. " 1 7

"The power which was from the Father of the universe and
appeared to Moses and to Abraham and to Jacob was called
Angel when He comes forth to men, since by that power are the
messages from the Father carried to men. He was called Glory
since He appears sometimes in an appearance that cannot be
reckoned by space; and was sometimes called a man and a human
being, since He makes His appearance in the fashion of such
forms as the Father wills. And they call Him Word [ 'LogosJ since
He also bears to men the discourses that come from the Father. "18

"The blood of Christ would not be of human generation but of

God's power . . . Christ is not mere man of human origin,
begotten in the common way of men. " 1 9

"Christ is the Almighty God and is to be worshiped. "20

Justin and the gospel of John present a sacred drama. A divine being
is incarnated and appears on earth in human guise. He carries out a
salvationist mission on earth, acting in secrecy and beset by hostile
forces. He seeks out his elect ones and imparts instructions to them,
then returns to the heavens. It is basically the Gnostic mystery, and if
Justin is giving us the primary tradition, then he is rejecting the basic
premise of modern scholarship. To the secular scholars, the starting
point is the human Jesus of Nazareth, who was then mythified and
deified. Justin starts at the top, with "high Christo logy. " The human
Jesus of Nazareth emerges as the end point at a much later stage.
We may note here that Bultmann was in agreement with Justin in
giving priority to John. " In John the original meaning of the gospel
comes out in fullest clarity, in that the evangelist, while making free use
of the tradition, creates the figure of Jesus entirely from faith. "2 1

1 58 CHAPTER 1 1
 Bultmann also agrees with Justin's view of the sacred myth, as is
given in John's gospel: " In John, Jesus descends from heaven, like the
Gnostic Redeemer, to bring men the saving message and he returns to
the Father after completing his work."22
The sequence divine-to-human is unmistakable in Justin:

"Jesus the Christ is the Son and Apostle of God, being

formerly the Word. At one time He appeared in the form of
fire [i.e., to Moses in the burning bush], and another as an
incorporeal image. Now, by the will of God, He has been
made man for the human race. "2 3

In arguing this position Justin had to confront not only the Jews,
who of course denied that God could be incarnated, but rival Christian
sects. These also preached a supernatural Christ, but found the human
condition so vile that they would not grant a full incarnation of the
sinless Christ into human flesh. He had only a human appearance,
such as that assumed by the angels. These controversies can be read
between the lines in Justin and in John, and will illustrate that John's
gospel may be earlier than the other three gospels - thus undermin
ing the "historicity" of those three, and showing their human "Jesus of
Nazareth" to be a later development.
Justin, while berating poor Trypho for his blindness in not accepting
Christ-as-God, takes time to warn him of the rival sects:

"There are those who are Christians in name, but in reality are
godless and impious heretics. They teach in all respects what
is blasphemous and godless and foolish. " 24

"Many have taught what is godless and blasphemous and

wicked, falsely stamping their teachings with His name. They
teach what has been put in their minds by the unclean spirit of
the devil, and teach it until now. "25

Thus there are rival sects and gospels on the scene, each one
violently excommunicating the others. Justin is always free with his
insults.

C H A PT E R 1 1 1 59
 What was involved was just how "real" the incarnation was, and this
was argued with strange vehemence. Justin repeats this "real" incarna
tion a number of times:

"He was incarnated through a virgin's womb, and really

became a child. " 27
"He indeed became a man who shared in sufferings. "28
"He became a man really liable to suffering. "29
"The Father willed that His own Son should in reality suffer
for our sake. "30

The inference is that he is arguing against rival sects that preached an

illusory incarnation.
As an example of how the incarnation story from Justin and the
gospel of John was altered in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark
and Luke) we can note the different interpretations given to the sacra
mental meal. Justin and John are unaware that the sacrament of the
bread and wine - the central ritual of Catholic Christianity - had
anything to do with the Last Supper and the death of Jesus. Instead,
these sacraments were to celebrate the Incarnation, and closely resem
bled the rites used by pagan sects in communing with their cult god.
This angered Jus tin.

Justin writes:

"This food is called among us the Eucharist . . . Not as common

bread and common drink do we receive these, but in like
manner because Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made
flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our
salvation. Therefore we have been taught that this food which
is blessed by the prayer of His word is the flesh and blood of
Jesus who was made flesh."

"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them which

are called gospels, have thus delivered to us what was
commanded to them: that Jesus took bread, and when He had
given thanks, said, 'This do ye in remembrance of Me. This is

1 60 CHAPTER 1 1
 My body.' And in like manner, having taken the cup and given
thanks, he said 'This is My blood,' and gave it to them (the
apostles).

"This the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of

Mithra, commanding that the same thing be done. That is, the
bread and the cup of water are used with certain incantations
in the mystic rites of one who is initiated . . "31
.

Justin conspicuously omits the passion narrative and is concerned

only with the Incarnation.
The plain inference from the above is that in the primary tradition,
as taught by the apostles according to Justin, the sacraments were a
mystic communion with a supernatural being, with no suggestion that
they were to be connected with the impending crucifixion of Jesus.
This is shown conclusively in John's gospel, where the "last supper" is
omitted. There is no mention of bread and wine at this final gathering.
John is unaware that these rites were supposed to take place.
Instead, according to John, Jesus proclaims the flesh and blood
sacraments much earlier in a bizarre scene in a synagogue, where he
tells the Jews:

"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and
I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed
and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and
drinks my blood dwells in me, and I in him. "32

Again there is no hint of impending death. The sacraments in John

are separate and apart from those in the other gospels. And if John is
earlier, then the "last supper" versions must be fictional. The sacra
ments have been transferred from the Incarnation motif to the Passion
motif. This is a major falsification and undermines the entire passion
narrative.
From the foregoing, we have good evidence that the primary tradi
tion and the primary gospel was that given in the gospel of John. The
vaunted priority of Mark derives from the premise that Jesus of
Nazareth existed and that Mark is giving the earliest "traditions"

C H A PT E R 1 1 1 61
concerning this Jesus. Mark is arrived at by ruling out the other three:
John gives a sacred myth, with no pretense at history; Luke removes
himself by stating that many before him have composed gospels (Luke
1 : 1 ) ; Matthew relies mainly on visions and instructions from angels,
also the working out of proof-texts, "that it might be fulfilled that
which was spoken by the prophet," in composing his life of Jesus. This
leaves Mark as the least difficult to work with, and this created his
pnonty.
Bultmann expresses his own reservations regarding Mark:

"Mark is the work of an author who is steeped in the theology

of the early Church, and who ordered and arranged the tradi
tional material that he received in the light of the faith of the
early Church. "33

" It has come to be recognized that the outline of Mark is not

historical. "34

We will continue with the testimony of Justin as giving the primary

tradition.

1 62 CHAPTER 1 1
Notes:
1 . E. Renan, Lift ofjesus, 20
2. New Bible Dictionary, article: 'Canon of NT,' 195
3. A. Barr, Hastings Dictionary ofthe Bible, article: 'Gospels,' 343
4. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, vo/. 1, 33, 34
5. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 4 n.2
6. R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 28
7. Origen, Contra Celsus, 6: 1 1
8. E.R. Goodenough, The Theology ofjustin Martyr, 32
9. E.R. Goodenough, The Theology ofjustin Martyr, 73
1 0. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 6:1
1 1 . Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 7: 1 , 2
1 2. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 7:3
13. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 8 : 1
1 4. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 54:2
1 5. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 64:7
1 6. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 48: 1
1 7. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 6 1 : 1 , 3
1 8. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 28:2
19. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 54:2
20. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 76:7
2 1 . R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 70
22. R. Bultmann, Gospel ofjohn, 8
23. Justin, 1 Apology, 63
24. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 80:3
25. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 82:2, 3
26. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 84:2
27. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 84:2
28. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 93: 1
29. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 92:2
30. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 1 03:7
3 1 . Justin, 1 Apology, 66
32. R. Bultmann, Gospel ofjohn, 6:54 - 59
33. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 1
34. R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 23

C H A PT E R 1 1 1 63
 12

fROM PROOF-TEXT To GOSPEL TRADITION

"The Covenant is ours only, for the Jews have forever lost
that which Moses received."
Epistle of Barnabas, 3:7

In preaching and defending his system, Justin was challenged on all

sides by rival sects and of course by the Jews. The supreme weapon
used by Justin, in proving his theology and refuting all opponents was
that of proof-texts from Scripture. Here Justin shows himself to be a
past master, and a walking library of these texts. His position is now
invincible - as long as one believes in the sacred force of these texts,
and in Justin's own reading and interpretation. Hence the topic of
these texts, so arid and distant to the present-day secular layman, is to
be considered in the sequence of development of the gospels. It is only
when the argument of the texts fell by the wayside that the historical
Jesus had to be constructed to convince the opponents.
Justin's virtuoso use of these texts, called Testimonia, is well illus
trated in his two major works, his Dialogue With Trypho, and his First
Apologia To Caesar. These are little more than quote-collections.
The Dialogue is Justin's account of a disputation he had with one
Trypho, who takes the Jewish position. It takes place in a Greek city,
unnamed, and is dated about 1 3 5 since Trypho is described as fleeing
from "the war" - taken to refer to the Bar-Kochba uprising. Justin's
edited account dates much later, since it is amended with almost
endless quotes from Scripture, some chapter length and recited by
Justin, while Trypho, the "straight man," remains dutifully silent.
Only rarely is he permitted to speak, but when he does it is quite effec
tive.
Justin's use of these texts appears to be a recent development, since
Trypho shows bewilderment at the "proofs" being thrust upon him
and this is about AD 1 3 5 . Justin tells Trypho that the proof-texts . . .

C H A PT E R 1 2 1 65
 " . . . will appear strange to you, although you read them every
day. From this fact we understand that because of your
wickedness God has withheld from you the ability to discern
the wisdom of His scriptures. " 1

But the gospels were quoting these proof-texts, presumably 1 00

years earlier. Trypho's reaction shows his perplexity:

"Never yet have we heard any man investigating or searching

into or proving this matter [the divinity of Christ] , nor would
we have tolerated your conversation, had you not referred
everything to the Scriptures . . . All the words of the prophecy
that you repeat are ambiguous, and have no force in proving
what you wish to prove. " 2

Neither Justin or Trypho show awareness of the doctrinal disputes

in the gospels based on proof-texts. Again we must infer that the
gospels date after Justin.

Note that Trypho, in shrugging off the quotes, is in effect rejecting

the whole story. Nowhere in the Dialogue does he concede the force
of a single quote where this would undermine Judaism. Justin's book,
really a debater's manual for Christian missionaries, is compelled to
give these ripostes by Trypho which are put down to Jewish obstinacy.
Trypho is carrying on the tradition of Josephus. If he and Josephus
were deserters, we can guess what the militants were like.

As to how the texts came into possession of the new church, Justin
simply declares the forfeiture by the Jews and the transfer to the
gentiles. Justin is emphatic that Christianity is the true and only Israel
and the sole possessor of the Scriptures. The Jews have been ejected
from any claim or title. There has been a takeover of the territory, with
no ceremony. We give these representative statements:

"We are the true and spiritual Israelite nation, and the race of
Judah and Jacob and Isaac and Abraham."3

1 66 CHAPTER 1 2
 " [The proof-texts] are laid up in your Scriptures, or rather not
in yours but in ours; for we obey them, but you, when you
read, do not understand their sense. "4

"We are the true race of Israel. "5

"What was then in your nation has been transferred to us. " 6

"For I have shown that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel. "7

"What more does Christ grant Abraham? . . . We shall inherit

the Holy Land together with Abraham . . . But he [Christ] does
not include you [the Jews], in whom there is no faith. " 8

"We who keep the commandments of Christ are, by virtue of

Christ who begat us unto God, both called and in fact are
Jacob and Israel."9

There is no joint heritage of any kind. A theological putsch had taken

place, with the ouster of the old. The capture and restatement of the
texts go back to Paul, who was a past master of the art. His method
was taken over with little change by later Christians and is the
mainstay of present-day Christian missionaries. Paul's usage has been
analyzed by Johannes Weiss, in the chapter 'The Theological Thinker,'
pages 436 to 438, of the book Earliest Christianity. We give the main
points from this critique.

1 . Paul considers the Scriptural text as final and irrefutable. "For

him, 'it stands written' cuts off all discussion and objection. "

2. Paul's method cannot be accepted at the present day. It

"contradicts entirely our idea of scientific exactness."

3. He selects his own version of the text and wording. "He depends
upon the Greek translation of the text, instead of going back to
the original Hebrew. "

C H A PT E R 1 2 1 67
4. "He is accustomed not to bother himself about the context and
original meaning of the words under discussion, but values them
only in the sense that suits him. "
Weiss gives one example of this tactic, then declares that the
original text " means just the opposite of what Paul desires to
prove by it . . . Thus Paul's exposition is entirely surreptitious (i.e.,
deceptive). "

5 . "He approaches the Holy Scriptures with a fundamental convic

tion that God has placed concealed secrets in them which only the
eye enlightened by the Spirit can discover. "
That is, the direct and obvious meaning can be replaced by a
secret meaning, as revealed to one "enlightened by the Spirit" -
which must then be accepted as the true and only meaning. This
cuts off all debate and criticism. (The above points are found on
page 436).

6. The Jews are blocked from understanding the true meaning of the
" Old Covenant" because the Jews have not accepted Christ.
Citing 2 Corinthians 3 : 1 4, Romans 1 1 :8 and 2 Corinthians 3 : 1 6 :
"The veil still lies over the unbelieving Jews . . . They indeed hear
the Word but do not understand it . . . Only when Israel turns to
the Lord will the veil be lifted. "

7 . "All the predictions of God have found their fulfillment in

Christ . . . He is the real content of the Holy Scriptures . . . All must
be related to him. "
That is, Paul's dogmatic and doctrinal beliefs will determine
what the texts are required to mean. There has been a seizure and
occupation. The Hebrew Scripture is now a Christian textbook.

8. As an outstanding example of text capture, the word " Lord"

applies to the God of Israel in the "Old Testament" but now it
applies to the " Lord Jesus. " The Hebrew letters JHVH for
" Lord" occur over 6,800 times in the original and are translated as
" Kurios" in the Greek version, and then applied to Jesus, making
1t a Christian text in one fell swoop - all 6800 times.

1 68 CHAPTER 1 2
 "The Christian refers it frankly and freely to his Lord Christ . . .
Paul can apply the word ['Lord'] with equal conviction to God as
well as to Christ. " (These points are on page 437)

9. Paul takes it upon himself to declare which of God's acts and

pronouncements are to be taken as absolute and which are of
secondary importance. "Paul can distinguish between the eternal
and the temporal, between that which has been fulfilled and that
which has died out in the Old Testament. "
Thus the Mosaic Law is downgraded and does not represent
the highest purpose of God. "It does not come directly from God,
but is given through the mediation of angels."

1 0. Paul captures ancestral figures and makes them witnesses to his

own beliefs. Thus Abraham is no longer the first gentile
converted to Judaism; rather Abraham has been removed from
Judaism and has been returned to the Chaldees. "In Abraham
shall all gentiles be blessed . . . The revelation made to Abraham
[that faith equals righteousness] contains the real meaning of
God, and the later Law 'added unto it' or 'slipped in between' is
farther from God's intention. "
Therefore orthodox Judaism and the observance of the Law
need not have come into existence in the first place.

Moses is also recruited as a witness for the demise of Judaism.

"When Moses 'covers his face with a veil' to shield it against the
glory of the Deity directed upon him from Sinai, Paul does
not hesitate to impute to him the motive that the Israelites
should not be permitted to observe how this glory became
gradually weaker and weaker; he [Moses] wished to hide from
them the fact that the Old Covenant must pass away" 1 0

This was before the Israelites got to the Holy Land, and 1 500 years
before Jesus appeared, yet Moses is required to prefigure the end of
Judaism.

C H APTER 1 2 1 69
1 1 . Another example of text-juggling by Paul is that " he amplifies
the statements of Scripture by adding explanatory additions of his
own, and then, nevertheless, treats these as Scriptural . . . It is just
upon these [added words] that Paul bases his argument, and his
proof rests upon this, that they are words of Scripture, which they
certainly are not . . . For our critical thinking, this interpolation of
one's own thoughts is unbearable arbitrariness."

12. "The more petty and forced the proof-text method appears,
often clashing violently with the original meaning of the Old
Testament passage, the more important it is for us to recognize
that the earliest Christians were not so much concerned with
details as with the underlying idea, that is, that the death of Jesus
was not a miscarriage of the divine plan, but had been from the
very beginning a fixed point in its program. "
And the "divine plan" is discovered by means of the violent
clashing quotes.

1 3. Paul had used the word 'faith' in counter-distinction to "doing of

works," as the means of breaking free of the obligations of the
Law. However Weiss points out that the Jews used "faith"
precisely to affirm the Law.
"The same concept of faith also occurs in Judaism . . . So it is said
of one who utters the daily confession of faith, the Shema. "

Martin Werner notes Paul's resourcefulness:

"Paul found himself in the extremely difficult and disputable

position of having to prove from the Old Testament, which
ascribed eternal validity to the Law, that Christ through his
death had become the end of the Law. "11

From the foregoing we can see that the method of Christian proof
texts, as inaugurated by Paul, is open to major criticism and rejection.
However this was the main weapon used by early Christianity, as was
noted by Harnack who gives the viewpoint of the "occupying power":

1 70 C H A PT E R 1 2
 "If the people of Israel retained a single privilege, if a single special
pro mise still had any meaning whatsoever, if even one letter had still to
remain in force - how could the whole of the Old Testament be spiri
tualized [i.e., christianized] ? How could it all be transferred to another
p eopl e ? The result of this mental attitude was the conviction that the
Jewish people was now rej ected . . . The Jewish people from the first
persisted in adhering to the literal interpretation, practicing circumci
sion, offering bloody sacrifices, and observing regulations concerning
food. Consequently they were always in error, an error which shows
that they were never the chosen people. The chosen people through
out was the Christian people . . . From the outset the Jewish people had
lost the promise; indeed it was a question whether it had ever been
meant for them at all." 12

Here Harnack gives citations from church writings, emphasizing the

reJection.

" . . . In any case the literal interpretation [by the Jews] of God's
revealed will proved that the people had been forsaken by God and
had fallen under the sway of the devil . . . The final sentence had now to
be pronounced: the Old Testament, from cover to cover, had nothing
whatever to do with the Jews. Illegally and insolently the Jews had
seized upon it; they had confiscated it, and tried to claim it as their own
property . . . No, the book belonged from the outset, as it belongs now
and forevermore, to none but Christians, whilst the Jews are the worst,
the most godless of all nations upon earth . . . " 13

We omit further pleasantries of this nature, as given by Harnack on

pages 66 and 67.

"Such an injustice such as that done by the Gentile church is

almost unprecedented in the annals of history. The Gentile
church stripped Judaism of everything; she took away its
sacred book. Herself but a transformation of Judaism, she cut
off all connection with the parent religion. The daughter first
robbed her mother, and then repudiated her! But, one may
ask, is this view really correct? Undoubtedly it is, to some

C H A PT E R 1 2 1 71
 extent . . . But viewed from a higher viewpoint the facts require
a different complexion. By their rejection of Jesus, the Jewish
people disowned their calling and dealt the death-blow to
their own existence. Their place was taken by Christians as the
new People, who appropriated the whole tradition of
Judaism, giving a fresh interpretation to any unserviceable
materials in it, or else allowing these to be dropped. " 1 4

Rev. Harnack, forgetting that he is supposed to be an objective

historian, is giving us the traditional brutal Christianity that prevailed
down the centuries: because the Jews "rejected" Jesus, as alleged, the
Jews deserved whatever fate and punishment that was meted out. But
we can rephrase the question: " Is this view really correct? "
After all, i t was through possession o f the Scriptures that
Christianity was able to create its theology, its legitimacy, its history,
its claims, its large treasure-house of inspirational and doctrinal mater
ial. Without this total possession, the Christian case would be reduced
to zero. And the Jewish disputants sharply denied the Christian usage
of the texts, thereby in effect denying the right of Christianity to exist.
Therefore the Jews had to be stripped of ownership by every means
possible. Did that include invention of the Crucifixion Story ? Surely
the stakes were high enough. Whenever an occupying power takes
over a territory, the "natives" are accused of horrific crimes to justify
the occupation. This is standard procedure.
However the Christians cannot have it both ways: if they are the
true owners of the Scriptures, and the wicked Jews have been ousted
because of the slaying of Christ, then there can be no talk of "j oint
heritage" and "sister-religions."
This was noted by Marcel Simon, in his book Verus Israel. He
wntes:

"The Church claimed as its own property, and interpreted by

means of its own theology . . . the sacred book of Israel. It even
refused the Jews, for having misunderstood their own Bible,
all title to it . . . The battle over an inheritance . . . explains the
sharpness of the conflict, the violence of the hatred. " 1 5

1 72 CHAPTER 1 2
 Inheritance is defined as "ownership by virtue of birthright. "
The birthright is now established by force.

" The Church was already there in the Old Testament . . . lt was
Christ who appeared to Abraham, who revealed himself to
Moses. And each time he appears in the Old Testament, it is
already the Church to whom he is speaking. " 1 6

"The battle that was joined was not simply one between two
different movements within the one religion . . . The evidence
suggests that the conflict should be seen as one between two
distinct religions. " 1 7

"From the Church's beginnings . . . it was in conflict with

Judaism. The struggle from the outset is a struggle between
two distinct religions . . . Each religion contested the other's
right to exist. " 18

But if that is the case, then how can there be any talk of "joint
heritage" or "sister-religions " ? It is clear that there was war to the hilt
from the very outset. While the "j oint-heritage" is politically correct at
the present time, there is no trace of it in the early centuries.
Returning to the proof-texts as used by Justin: these proof-texts
were known as "Testimonia. " Rendel Harris, in his two-volume study,
Testimonia, writes:

"A number of early Christian books are hardly more than

strings of anti-Jewish texts [taken from the Scriptures, where
the prophets rebuke Israel] with editorial connections and
arrangements. " 19

The purpose of these Testimonies was . . .

" . . . to show that the Jews, according to prophecy, have lost the
divine favor and that the Christians have stepped into their
place; and . . . to show that Christ was, and is, what the
Scripture foretold Him to b e "20
.

C H APTER 1 2 1 73
 These proof-texts were used on "the dual basis of anti-Judaism and
Christology. "21
By " Christology" is meant the study of the person and mission of
Christ, particularly in its supernatural aspects. Harris states that . . .

" . . . the collection of proof-texts from the prophets antedates all

our canonical Christian literature. Certainly the first need of
the 'new people' [the Christians] was just such an attestation
as prophesy could afford. "22

This is further evidence that Justin precedes the gospels. First the
" quotes" then the life of Jesus.
One would think that the first Christians would appeal for attesta
tion directly to the words and deeds of Jesus. Surely these were
notorious and known to one and all. Instead they appeal to the
prophecies of Isaiah, eight hundred years back, and the Psalms of
David, also many centuries back. The insistence on the proof-texts,
and the sharp insistence on sole ownership of the Scriptures is plain
evidence that the Christians had no other proof at this time.
The nature of the proof-texts from the "Old Testament" as used by
Christian disputants, is well illustrated by a collection compiled by the
church father Cyprian of Carthage, about AD 250. In this collection
there is no trace of the joint-heritage or of sister-religions existing side
by side, since the Jews were barred from any awareness or under
standing of these texts. There is the sharpest split between Judaism and
Christianity, and the proof-texts are there to confirm the split. The
" old" is totally rejected.

The list is given in John G. Gager's book, The Origins of Anti

Semitism, page 1 56. Cyprian divided his collection into 24 headings
and we give the main ones:

#2. "The Jews did not believe the prophets and murdered them."

#3 . " It was foretold that they would neither know the Lord nor
understand him nor receive him."

1 74 CHAPTER 1 2
#4. "The Jews would not understand the holy Scriptures and these would
become intelligible only in the last times, after Christ had come."

#5 . "The Jews would be able to understand nothing in the Scriptures

unless they first believed in Christ. "

#9. "The former law given through Moses would cease. "

#1 0. "A new law would be given".

# 1 6. "The old sacrifice was abrogated and a new one established. "

#23. "The gentiles rather than the Jews would reach the kingdom of
heaven.

#24. ''The Jews are able to receive pardon for their sins only if they
wash away the blood of the slain Christ through baptism, and if
they come over into the church and obey his teachings. "

Rendel Harris, in his two-volume study of these "Testimonia," has

traced out the process by which the proof-texts ultimately resulted in
the composition of the gospels. First the "quotes" were used to create
episodes, and give the appearance of actual events. The text-collections
were supplemented with "acting out" versions.

"The extant anti-Judaic writings of the early Christian Church [are]

those which are actually made up of Old Testament quotations to
be used against the Jews, and those which have dramatized the
quotations more or less completely into Dialogues. [Here] a repre
sentative Jew and a typical Christian discuss their divergences one
from the other, and the Christian succeeds in disanning his
opponent and sometimes in converting him. "23

In tracing out the transition, Harris notes that Christian books that
expound proof-texts sometimes put questions to the reader of a
challenging nature, in effect establishing a confrontation and dialogue
with the reader. One such lecturer . . .

CHAPTER 1 2 1 75
 " . . . introduces a number of well-known quotations with attached
questions such as 'To whom did he say this ?' or 'To whom do these
words apply?' Harris notes that this is a feature that is used in Epistle
to the Hebrews: 'Did he ever say this to any angel?' "24

It takes but little editorial revision to make the Jews the direct target
of the instruction, and with warnings to repent addressed to the Jewish
disputant.

"We frequently find that a series of Testimonies is interpreted

by a personal challenge to the Jew who is imagined to be
listening . . . It was almost inevitable that when the testimony
becomes a controversy, the collection of controversies should
become a dialogue. . . The manner in which the dialogue
evolves out of the testimonies is clear, and it is equally clear
that that the evolution occurs early. "25

From dialogue we can move to actual episodes, and if enough of

these are strung together we have a biography, "A small collection of
Old Testament extracts was gathered together in such a manner as to
be the biography of the Lord in prophecies. " 26
This was expanded in the gospels, particularly in the gospel of
Matthew, where numerous episodes were created on the basis of
proof-texts, "that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the
prophet."

Describing one . fictional debate, Harris writes:

"The debate is simply one more dramatization of an existing series

of Testimonies . . . Xenos [the Jewish disputant] is an imaginary figure
brought on the stage to make the argument from Testimonies more
vivid and more interesting. " 27

We are on our way to the construction of the gospel disputes. It will

be apparent that if a "Pharisee" can be inserted in place of the target of
the Testimonies, then Jesus himself can be inserted in place of the
lecturer.

1 76 C H A PT E R 1 2
 Bultmann takes the posmon that the controversy scenes in the
gospels are fictional; these are acting-out of proof-texts or other
doctrinal matters which the Church wanted to propagate. Bultmann
wntes:

"Controversy dialogues [in the gospels] are all of them imagi

nary scenes . . . The controversy dialogues as we have them are
not reports of 'original dialogues' but creations of the
Church . . . In the form in which we have them, the contro
versy dialogues are imaginary scenes illustrating in some
concrete occasion a principle which the Church ascribed to
Jesus . . . We have to look for the Sitz im Leben [actual situa
tion] of the controversy dialogues in the discussions the
Church had with its opponents. "28

This is a jolting statement. If the confrontations between Jesus and

his opponents are "all of them imaginary scenes" and "creations of the
Church", then the whole plot framework of the gospels dissolves.
These encounters create the mortal clash between Jesus and the Jewish
leaders that leads to the final tragedy. Now we are told that it is all
imaginary. And if these prologue skirmishes are fictional how much
confidence can we have in the passion play itself? Perchance this too is
a "creation" of the Church.
Bultmann is one inch from taking that position. He declares that the
responsibility of the Jews for the death of Jesus derives from the
Church controversies with the Jews. He writes:

"The Passion Narrative is thickly overgrown with legend. For

the later Christians the real enemies were the Jews. Since they
were found to be their (the Christians') standing enemies and
accusers in the work of the Christian mission - note the
representation in the Book of Acts - they were also made
responsible for the death of Jesus. "29

It is not a very long step from inventing responsibility for an event

to inventing the event itself in order to create that responsibility.

C H A PT E R 1 2 1 77
 From the foregoing we conclude that the "historical Jesus" is not
needed for the starting point in gospel composition. Instead we can
start with doctrinal statements supported by captured proof-texts.
These are developed and expanded and ultimately result in gospels.

The fact that the gospel writers had no historical knowledge to go by

is shown by their gross ignorance as to the territories of Judea and
Galilee. We turn to this topic in the next chapter.

1 78 C H A PT E R 1 2
NOTES:
1 . Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, chapter 55
2. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 48, 51
3. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 1 1 :5
4. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 29:2
5. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 1 35:3
6. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 82: 1
7. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 1 00:1
8. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 1 1 9:5 - 6
9. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 1 23:9
I 0. 2 Corinthians, 3: 13
1 1 . M. Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, 57
1 2. A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 66
1 3. A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 66 - 67
1 4. A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 69 - 70
1 5. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel intro xiii
1 6. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel 79
1 7. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel 64
1 8. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel 1 35
1 9. R. Harris, Testimonia, I :4
20. R. Harris, Testimonia, I :5
21. R. Harris, Testimonia, I :68
22. R. Harris, Testimonia, 2:25
23. R. Harris, Testimonia, 2: 1 3
24. R . Harris, Testimonia, 2:45
25. R. Harris, Testimonia, 2 : 1 9 - 20
26. R. Harris, Testimonia, 2:36
27. R. Harris, Testimonia, 2: 1 1 5
28. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 40 - 41
29. R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 72

C H APTER 1 2 1 79
 13

GOSPEL ERRORS

" . . . so-called histories . . . published by persons who never

visited the sites nor were anywhere near the actions
described, but based on a few hearsay reports put
,
togeth er . . .
Josephus, Contra Apion, 1:46

Whatever the faults of Josephus, all grant that he knows the terrain,
the customs, the history of the region - and he is quick to point out
the ignorance of others in these matters. However a critical reading of
the gospel narratives will show that these were written long after the
assumed events and far from the scene, and that the writers were
densely ignorant at every point. They are turning out a botched and
inept job - meaning that they are fabricating the "life of Jesus" start
ing from point zero. Let us examine the gospel expertise.
First we would like to get our bearings, with some background
detail as to the people, the landscape and the geography of the region.
The stage where the gospel drama was played out was a compact
Semite region comprising Galilee, Samaria and Judea. It is but ninety
miles from Capernaum on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee to
Bethlehem, a few miles south of Jerusalem. There was a common
language, Aramaic, and the customs and usages were known to all.
Here we would expect the Galilean disciples to be at their most
reliable. The absence of book learning would be matched by an
increased peasant shrewdness and concentration on the daily concerns
of occupation, custom and locale. We are told that they walked the
highways and byways of Galilee, and we would like to check their
expertise against that of the outsider from Jerusalem, the priest-histo
rian Josephus.
In a classic paragraph he writes:

CHAPTER 1 3 1 81
 "The two Galilees [Upper and Lower] have always resisted any
hostile invasion, for the inhabitants are from infancy inured to
war, and have at all times been numerous. Never did the men
lack courage nor the country men. For the land is so rich in
soil and pasturage, and produces such variety of trees, that
even the most indolent are tempted by these facilities to
devote themselves to agriculture. In fact, every inch of the soil
has been cultivated by the inhabitants. There is not a parcel of
waste land . . . It is entirely under cultivation and produces
crops from one end to the other . . . The towns too are thickly
distributed, and even the villages, thanks to the fertility of the
soil, are so densely populated that even the smallest of these
contains fifteen thousand inhabitants. " 1

There may be a wee exaggeration in this, but we get the picture.

Josephus is describing the Imperial Valley in California, and the gospel
writers are describing the badlands of South Dakota: "What man of
you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave
the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which was lost
until he find it? " 2

What man indeed ? As is well-known, sheep herding is confined to

barren submarginal lands with minimal population. In what "inch of
land" are we supposed to locate the wilderness and the sheep industry?
"The Good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. "3
But shepherd and sheep had long vanished, and wild beasts did not
leap from the thicket to endanger anyone.
We do not know how the disciples managed their own cultivation,
since they are unacquainted with the plow: "A sower went forth to
sow . . . Some seeds fell upon stony places where there was not much
earth . . . Some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprung up. "4
This parable is told to "great multitudes " who have taken time out
from sheep-herding and stone age agriculture. We wonder in what
country Matthew was seated at toll. Josephus noted that "imperial
grain was stored in the villages of Upper Galilee"5 - that is, there was
surplus enough to be collected by the Romans.

1 82 CH APTER 1 3
 As to the hardy populace, inured to war, we are given the alarming
news that the province of Galilee was a plague area, with scarce one
man sound of mind and limb. Jesus is portrayed as a healer therefore
the inhabitants, without further ado, are required to be outpatients.
Jesus went about. . .

" . . . healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease . . .

and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken
with diverse diseases and torments, and those which were
possessed with devils and those which were lunatic and those
which had the palsy, and he healed them. " 6

So terminal are the cases that when a cure does take place it is hailed
as a miracle. We may ask why the Romans did not send a troop of boy
scouts to fight the war.
Throughout his narrative, Josephus depicts these northerners as a
boisterous and truculent folk. Josephus was sent from Jerusalem to
Galilee to take charge of the defense of the province at the outbreak of
the war, and there was no love lost between him and his troops. On
one occasion he gave them a dressing-down, warning them that he
would note whether they . . .

" . . . abstained from their habitual malpractices, theft, robbery

and rapine, and ceased to defraud their countrymen, and
ceased to regard as personal profit an injury sustained by their
most intimate friends."7

But these same folk become meekly submissive in the gospel, and sit
in one place for three days to hear a sermon: "I have compassion on the
multitude because they continue with me now for three days and have
nothing to eat. I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the
W ay. ,8

Josephus didn't see it that way but our gospel eyewitness knows
better.
For all their quarrelsomeness, the Galileans trooped in their
thousands to the defense of Jerusalem. "Never did the men lack
courage."

C HAPTER 1 3 1 83
 Under the leadership of John of Gischala and Simon Bar-Giora, they
proved the bravest of the defenders of the city. However the gospel
story gives a different picture. Jesus was the hero and miracle worker
of Galilee. He went to Jerusalem accompanied by a multitude of his
fellow Galileans who also made the Passover pilgrimage. He was to be
their champion against the haughty members of the Establishment. Yet
when he is seized treacherously and put to death, not one of the
thousands utters a word of protest; all join in taunting and cursing
their former leader when he is on the cross. They beg the Romans to
crucify one of their own. This is a shabby and unworthy tale, and
cannot be supported for a moment. It illustrates a basic motif in the
Christian polemic: the studied falsification of the Jewish side in the
interest of creating a fake scenario.
Turning to specific locales, we find the same discrepancy between
what Josephus saw and the what the gospels narrate. Josephus states
that there were 204 towns and villages in Galilee, and of this total he
refers to 52 by name. He omits the all-important one, Nazareth, but it
must have cost him an effort. The map reveals that the phantom village
was surrounded by places listed by Josephus, and with frequent
movement among these places. His command post, J aphia, was but
two miles to the southwest, Sepphoris was five miles to the north,
Simonias five miles to the west, and Dabarritta five miles to the east.
What happened to Nazareth in the middle of all this ?
The archaeologists have made digs in every spot of interest in the
Holy Land but no one is in a hurry to dig at Nazareth and check the
date of the lowest level. The carbon- 1 4 might show that the town
became manifest unto mankind just about the time Christianity
became the official religion of the empire, about AD 325.
Another dubious entry is "Sychem" or Shechem, in Samaria. It is
mentioned in the gospel as still standing Qohn 4:5, Acts 7: 1 6), but
Josephus gives the later name: "Vespasian descended by way of
Samaria passing Neapolis, or as the natives call it, Mabartha. "9
The editor states that this town "is in the immediate vicinity of
Shechem."
He means vertically above, and separated by several archaeological
strata. There is no trace of Shechem in the later literature and we
cannot believe that Josephus would have omitted reference to the

1 84 CHAPTER 1 3
famed biblical town if it had still been standing along Caesar's route.
The inference is that Shechem had been replaced by
Mabartha/N eapolis, today N ablus. The gospel eyewitnesses had
confined their observation to the Greek/Hebrew scriptures and are
composing a synthetic account.
The Sea of Galilee is invariably called Lake of Gennesar by Josephus
(today called Kinneret), and this must be regarded as the correct name
during his lifetime. His death is put at some time after 1 00. Mark and
Matthew use the name Sea of Galilee. John gives the name as Sea of
Tiberias. This can't be right. The city of Tiberias was shunned by
religious Jews because the site had been a cemetery when the city was
founded by Herod Antipas. The palace was set on fire early in the war
because it contained pagan imagery. Luke alone uses the correct term,
calling it Lake Genneseret. This does him rather more harm than good.
So closely has Luke-Acts been linked to Josephus as a source that these
books have been dated after AD 1 00. We must wonder why the four
gospel writers could not agree on the most prominent feature of the
provmce.
Haziness as to the Sea of Galilee is revealed in other gospel episodes.
Matthew writes:

"And leaving Nazareth, Jesus came and dwelt in Capernaum,

which is upon the sea coast in the borders of Zabulon and
Nephthalim, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
Isaiah the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land
of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea beyond Jordan, Galilee
of the Gentiles, the people which sat in darkness saw a great
light. " 1 0

This rather scrambled passage refers to tribal boundaries that had

long vanished, if they had been more than folk legend in the first place.
Bible maps show that 'Zabulon' did not come near the Sea of Galilee,
and had nothing to do with Capernaum. Moreover Matthew is using
the Greek LXX as against the Hebrew. In the Hebrew the reference to
Zabulon ends chapter 8, while "the people who sat in darkness" begins
chapter 9 of Isaiah. Our sturdy Galilean is using a Greek text to
construct a passage quite artificially.

C H A PT E R 1 3 1 85
 Mark, labeled the most historical and reliable of the gospel writers,
relates that a "lunatic in the wilderness" was cured by Jesus, who sent
evil spirits from the lunatic into a herd of swine that went over the cliff
into the Sea of Galilee. 1 1 This is placed at Gadara which is several miles
from the Sea, though the manuscripts and earliest editions generally
read Gerasa which is another city about fifty miles away.
As to how one locale was transformed into another, this is explained
by one scholar:

"Gerasa was too far away, and the reading 'Gadarenes' is more
plausible and has replaced 'Gerasenes' in the received text.
The fame of Gerasa in the early centuries may have led to the
seeking of its mention in the New Testament. Its ruins are
among the most impressive in the Near East. " 1 2

In plain E nglish, the gospel writer, from his vantage point

somewhere in the Roman empire, had heard of the fame of Gerasa and
had calmly placed it on a cliff adjacent to the Sea. The correction and
coverup are made by the later editors, with equal aplomb. We are left
with the impressive ruins of gospel credibility.
Bethsaida is described by the scholars as . . .

" . . . a town on the north shores of Galilee near the Jordan . . .

Pliny and Jerome tell us that it was on the east of the Jordan . .
.

But in Mark 6:45 the disciples were sent from east of the
Jordan to Bethsaida towards Capernaum, hence a second
Bethsaida has been postulated west of the Jordan." 1 3

To rescue Mark the scholars invent second Bethsaidas out of thin air.
No wonder the saints quit the fishing business. They got lost every
day.
The ignorance as to Galilee is matched by ignorance as to Judea. All
gospel sites associated with Jerusalem are unconfirmed by Josephus,
without exception. The "palace of the high priest, " the pavement
Gabbatha, the Gate called Beautiful, Golgotha, the Praetorium, the
Garden of Gethsemane - all these are unknown to him, and
unlocated. The Garden is placed to the east of the city, on the bible

1 86 CHAPTER 1 3
maps, and about a mile from the suggested location from the "chamber
of the Last Supper," going by the location of the city walls and gates at
that period.
The Garden was separated from the city by the brook Kedron, and
Josephus tells us that the brook was at the bottom of a "deep ravine."
Further to the north, where the Garden is supposed to be, "the depth
at this point is terrific. " 1 4
We are asked to believe that after the Last Supper, there was a one
mile stroll in the night air, with everyone scrambling down a ravine
and up the other side to reach the Garden - conduct more suitable to
a commando squad than to a group of pious Jews celebrating the
Passover. The arresting party, possibly numbering hundreds, must also
make the night venture. Wherever Josephus is allowed to testify, he
spoils the fable.
The Nativity story is not meant to be analyzed by precise laboratory
techniques, but Matthew's version implies that Bethlehem is remote
from Jerusalem. Herod has to send emissaries to that distant place to
find out what is going on, and only two years later does the news
trickle back. "He slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and in
all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the
time which he had diligently inquired of the Magi. " 1 5
Matthew is unaware that Bethlehem was but six miles south of
Jerusalem at that time, and Herod could have disposed of the matter of
a rival within a few hours. The episode is constructed to fulfill a proof
text: "Rachel weeping for her children," which requires a two year
period to build up a suitable number of victims. All is reckless inven
tiOn.
Luke narrates a sermon preached by Jesus in the synagogue at
Nazareth, wherein the congregation is informed that Elijah had cured
a woman in "Sarepta, a city of Sidon. " 16
And so it was, when the account in 1 Kings was written; but the city
had gone from Sidon to Tyre some seven hundred years previously, as
all in the synagogue know except Luke and Jesus. Other errors in
geography are so far off that we must conclude the authors are using
free imagination, or are writing so long after the events that their
sources have become inaccurate.

C H A PT E R 1 3 1 87
 Matthew writes of "Judea Beyond Jordan . " 1 7 This is pretty
hopeless. The Jordan formed the eastern boundary of Judea.
"The road from Jerusalem to Gaza is desert."1 8
This news comes from "an angel of the Lord" who should know
better. Judea was a populous province and bible maps show eight or
nine cities between Jerusalem and Gaza at that period.
Luke places the village of Emmaus at seven miles from Jerusalem.
"As it is twenty miles from Jerusalem rather than seven as suggested by
Luke, this causes perplexity to those who would press the details of the
story. " 1 9

No comment.

From the above list, we are left with strong doubts as to whether we
are dealing with Galileans or even with Jews acquainted with the Holy
Land. For that matter, how sure are we that we are dealing with Jewish
writers ? We are told innumerable times that Jesus and his followers
were birthright Jews. However a check on the gospels will reveal an
ignorance as to custom and usage in Judaism equal to the ignorance on
matters of geography. We ask for proof in the gospel content itself that
we are dealing with Jewish eyewitnesses at the outset, and again we
have error piled on error.

Josephus is aware of the Semite taboo against coming in contact with

a corpse. He relates that the Samaritans in one case defiled the Temple
area by scattering human bones on the precincts, and also notes there
is a seven day period of ritual defilement after contact with a corpse. 20
However the gospel relates that the women of Galilee came to the
tomb of Jesus to apply ointment to the corpse. John's gospel adds the
detail that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus applied about one
hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes to the shroud, and wound the
body "in linen clothes with the spices, as it is the manner of the Jews
to bury. "21

After which - according to John's timetable - the two doctors of

the Sanhedrin sat down to the Passover table. This account will win
few converts from the rabbinate.

1 88 CHAPTER 1 3
 Another Semite taboo deals with nakedness. This is invariably used
in the sense of reproach however the gospel writers show a Gr.eco
Roman nonchalance about nudity. Luke is persuaded that to stone a
man, the orthodox Jews first remove their clothing, as do the athletes
in the stadium. "The witnesses laid down their clothing. " 22
They also run about in various states of undress in the city of
Jerusalem: "They cried out and cast off their clothes and threw dust in
the air. "23
Peter, another orthodox Jew, goes fishing in the nude, but when it
comes to swimming he gets prudish and puts his clothes on: "Now
when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat
about him, for he was naked, and cast himself into the sea. " 24
Just what is going on here ?
There is a strong Semite taboo against the drinking of blood,25
which the apostle John seems unaware of. Jesus informs the Jews of the
synagogue of Capernaum, in homely everyday language, "He who eats
my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. He who eats me will
live . . . My flesh is flesh indeed, and my blood is blood indeed . . . " 26
This is a synagogue sermon rarely heard in Galilee. Folk taboos have
an age-old force and are known to all in the given group, yet the gospel
writers do not know these.
The gospels record that Jesus "taught daily in the Temple. "
There is no evidence that the Temple precincts were open to private
instruction, any more than a cathedral of the present day is. There was
a fixed order of worship and sacrifice. We read in the Hebrew texts that
prophets "stood in the gate of the Temple" to deliver warnings and
preach sermons to those entering - meaning that the speaker
remained outside. Yet Jesus holds class in the Temple every day.
'v'
we are told th at a woman '' tak en m adu1tery m the very act "27 I S

brought to Jesus inside the Temple, while class is in session. Women

were admitted to an area of the Temple known as "Courtyard of the
Women" and to no other part, and separate from the men's court. We
can be sure the women there were in a proper state of virtue and purifi
cation. Yet here we have a woman in flagrante brought into the main
Temple court by orthodox Jews. We also learn a detail of Temple
furnishings hitherto unknown: the pavement was covered with sand,
since Jesus writes a message on it "let him who is without sin . . . "

CHAPTER 1 3 1 89
 We are dealing with grotesque inventions at every point.
Among the Jews it is considered bad form to kill a man on shabbis but
if the deed must be done, the method is by stoning. Luke, however,
uses the Roman mode of hurling the prisoner from the Tarpeian Rock.

"All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard
this [sermon from Jesus]. They drove him out of the town,
and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was
built, in order to throw him down the cliff. But he walked
right through the crowd and went on his way. " 28

What more will Luke invent?

Another glaring departure from Jewish observance and custom is

the position taken by the first three gospels that a full dress trial and
crucifixion could take place on a sacred holiday. Matthew, Mark and
Luke make the Last Supper as the Passover meal, meaning that Friday,
the next day, was also the Passover, on the Jewish dating.

"The Passover was one of the most sacred days in the Jewish
calendar and hedged about with the strictest regulations. It
seems inconceivable that Jesus would have been arrested,
tried, condemned, crucified and buried on such a day. " 29

Many explanations have been offered by the apologists for this

divergence, but the plain inference is that three gospel writers simply
did not know the significance of the Passover, and made a gross error
because they didn't know. That is the point, and no amount of apolo
getics can conceal this. Were they Jews or not?
Perhaps the most damaging error of all deals with John the Baptist.
As Galileans, the gospel writers should know that John Baptist never
left that province, and since the Baptist attracted large numbers, the
baptisms certainly took place in the "Lake of Gennesar. " Because he
was a dangerous opponent to the ruler of that province, King Herod
Antipas, he was arrested and executed by that ruler - who had sole
jurisdiction over him. Antipas would have been only too glad to get rid
of the troublemaker and have him go elsewhere. However the gospel

1 90 CHAPTER 1 3
accounts place John far to the south, in the Wilderness of Judea. This
was a barren, desolate and waterless area. and separated from Galilee
by two provinces - Decapolis and Samaria. Why would throngs of
Galileans go there for mass baptisms, and why would throngs from
Jerusalem go there in order to be denounced ?
Nevertheless John Baptist is yanked to this impossible locale to act
out a misquote from Isaiah in the Greek version of the Scriptures
(known as the Septuagint, or LXX): "The voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. "30
The correct reading from Isaiah states: "A voice calls out: Prepare in
the wilderness a highway for JHVH [God] . "
Which means that the caller himself i s not i n the wilderness and the
quote has nothing to do with the gospels. All is reckless and impossi
ble invention.
In the gospels, John Baptist is the Forerunner and Proclaimer for the
advent of Jesus. John's presence is necessary to get the story under
way. And if John drops out, the story is blocked at the very outset. We
can see the difficulty the gospel writers have gotten themselves into.
From the evidence submitted above, the blunt conclusion emerges
that the gospel writers did not know the geography and customs of the
Holy Land, and did not know Judaism itself. Meaning that they were
not using "historical traditions" but were working with, and adapting,
source materials having nothing to do with historical data of any kind.
If the writers were ignorant of maj or elements in geography, custom
and religion, how can they give direct verbatim reports of what Jesus
said, and if they are wrong in so much why should we believe any part
of their narrative ?

In addition to the acting out of proof-texts and the use of free imagi
nation, the gospel writers made use of specific sources in fabricating
episodes in the "life of Jesus. " We turn now to these sources.

CH APTER 1 3 1 91
NOTES:
1 . Josephus, mtr, 3:40 44
-

2. Luke, 1 5:4
3. John 1 0: 1 1
4. Matthew 1 3:2 - 7
5. Josephus, Lift, 71
6. Matthew 4:23
7. Josephus, mtr, 2:58 1
8. Matthew 1 5:32
9. Josephus, mtr, 4:449
1 0. Matthew 3 : 1 3 - 1 6
1 1 . Mark 5: 1 - 20
1 2. Hastings Bible Dictionary, article 'Gerasa'
1 3 . New Bible Dictionary. article 'Bethsaida'
14. Josephus, mtr, 5 :70, 6: 1 92
1 5. Matthew 2: 1 7
1 6. Luke 4:26
1 7. Matthew 1 9 : 1
1 8. Acts 8:26
19. Hastings Bible Dictionary, article 'Emmaus'
20. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:30, 38
2 1 . john 1 9 :40
22. Acts 7:58
23. Acts 22:23
24. ]ohn 2 1 : 1 7
25. Leviticus 1 7: 1 0
26. john 6:54
27. ]ohn 8:4
28. Luke 4:28
29. Rev. S. Gilmour, Hastings Dictionary ofthe Bible, 487
30. Matthew 3:3

1 92 CHAPTER 1 3
 14

THE GOSPEL AND JOSHUA

"You shall call his name Jesus . . . "

Matthew 1:21

As far back as the writings of D. F. Strauss in the 1 830's it has been

recognized that material from the Jewish Scripture has been applied to
Jesus of Nazareth by the gospel writers and made part of his biogra
phy. J. Klausner lists several of the examples given by Strauss:

"The raisings from the dead form a parallel to like incidents

recorded of Elijah and Elisha; the face of Jesus shone when he
spoke with Moses and Elijah, just as the Old Testament
describes the face of Moses as shining; Jesus ascends into
heaven because Elijah went up to heaven in a flame of fire. It
is possible to draw many similar parallels. "1

The process is particularly apparent in the gospel of Matthew. He

makes no claim to work with historical data. Instead he relies heavily
on proof-texts from Scripture. The episode is there "that it might be
fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet. "
What is surprising is that Matthew also makes use of a great deal of
Jos hua material, Scriptural and apocryphal. In his gospel it forms the
actual framework for the career of Jesus. If this Joshua material were
removed, the framework would disappear. We thus have the premise,
once again, that the gospel Jesus is a christianized version of Joshua.
Matthew's use of Joshuan material was not arbitrary. The early
Christians were well aware of the close linkage and intermingling of
the persons of Joshua and Jesus. They point out that Jesus was the
Christian replacement for Joshua. Thus Tertullian, a second-century
Christian, writes:

C HAPTER 1 4 1 95
 "When Oshea the son of Nun was marked out as the successor
to Moses, his original name was changed and he began to be
called Jesus [i.e., the Greek form of Joshua] . . . We first observe
that this was a figure of him who was to be. This was because
Jesus the Christ was to bring the second people, which we are,
born in the wilderness of this world, into the land of promise.
It is flowing with milk and honey, meaning the inheritance of
eternal life, then which nothing is sweeter.
"This was to be effected by Jesus, through the grace of the
gospel and not by Moses by the discipline of the law. This
would be after we had been circumcised by the knife of flint,
that is, by the precepts of Christ, for the rock was Christ.
[This is an allusion to the act of Joshua in circumcising the
Israelites with knives of flint on entering Canaan - Josh. 5 :2] .
Therefore that man Uoshua/Jesus] was set aside for the simil
itude to this mystery, and was also first established in the
likeness of our Lord's name, being surnamed Jesus."2

In turn Origen, writing about AD 220, states that Jesus has replaced
Moses - meaning that he had replaced Joshua, the heir to Moses -
since the Law is no longer in effect:

"Unless we have understood in what sense Moses dies, we shall

be unable to perceive in what sense Jesus reigns. If then you
bear in mind the overthrow of Jerusalem, the desertion of its
altars, the absence of sacrifices . . . then you will say that Moses,
the servant of the Lord, has passed away . . . But when you
observe the entering in of the heathen to the faith, the build
ing of churches . . . then say that Jesus has taken over and holds
the leadership of Moses, not Jesus the son of Nun, but Jesus
the son of God . . . When you see the people of God observing
the Sabbath not by abstaining from ordinary affairs but by
abstaining from deeds of sin . . . then say that Moses, the
servant of the Lord, has passed away, and that Jesus the Son of
God, holds the leadership. "3

1 96 CHAPTER 1 4
 "The son of Nun Qoshua) read all the words of the law, which
Moses wrote, before all the assembly of the children of Israel.
But our Lord Jesus does this for his own people . . . Jesus reads
the law to us when he explains to us the hidden things of the
law. For we, who belong to the catholic [universal] church, do
not reject the law of Moses, but we welcome it, provided that
it is Jesus who reads it to us, so that as he reads we may lay
hold of his understanding and interpretation. "4

From the previous we see that Christianity has established its theol
ogy and its legitimacy by the capture and christianization of Judaic
material, with Moses and Joshua as the starting points. Matthew is
engaged in the same process. He has turned to Joshuan material for
much of the content of his gospel, beginning with his use of the ances
try and genealogy material.
With both Jesus and Joshua there is the sequence Jacob-Joseph
Jesus. Matthew's gospel relates that "Jacob fathered Joseph the
husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. "5
The male sequence is Jacob-Joseph-Jesus. In the case of Joshua, the
patriarch Jacob fathered Joseph as one of his twelve sons. Joseph was
the ancestor of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and Joshua was an
Ephraimite. In Semite usage, the revered ancestral figure is considered
a "father" to all the tribal descendants. The Ephraimites are B'nai Yosef
Thus the sequence Jacob-Joseph-Joshua/Jesus would also apply to the
first Jesus figure. Joshua is the son of Joseph, the son of Jacob.

It is difficult to see how Matthew managed to set down three correct

names in the correct sequence unless he had a Joshuan source. With
hundreds of names to choose from, he picks these three. The odds
against coincidence are enormous. The scholars hurriedly pass over
these nativity stories as "legendary," but it is in these legends that the
clues can be found.

The case for a Joshua connection is clearer in the episode where the
name is bestowed on the infant. Matthew writes that an angel has
c hosen the name: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his
p eople from their sins. " 6

C H A PT E R 1 4 1 97
 We can virtually duplicate this line by condensing a passage from an
Apocryphal book of the Scriptures known as Sirach. This shortened
passage reads in the Greek version: "Jesus became, in accordance with
his name, a great savior and restrained the people from sin. "
This gives the name, the mission, and a play on words linking the
name with "salvation" in a way not very clear to the reader. It
obviously duplicates the Matthean text.

The passage in context reads:

"Let us now praise famous men . . Jesus son of Naue was mighty
.

in war and was the successor to Moses in prophesying. He

became in accordance with his name a great savior of his elect . . . In
the days of Moses he did a loyal deed, he and Caleb the son of
Jephunneh. They withstood the congregation, restrained the
people from sin, and stilled their wicked murmuring. "7

The bold-italic type gives us the Matthew passage.

The puzzling linkage "Jesus-save" is cleared up by referring to the

Hebrew original of Sirach. There the reader can see the word-play in
the text: "Hero and warrior Yehoshua Uehovah-is-salvation] son of
Nun, serving Moses with prophecy, was created in his day to be a great
shua [salvation] to his chosen ones . . . "
Jesus-save is there in the original. This play on words is quite
common in the Hebrew Sirach. Thus we read that "Abraham was a
great father [ab-raham]. "6

The translator of Sirach from Hebrew to Greek tells us in the

prologue that he is a recent arrival in Alexandria, and apologizes for his
shortcomings in Greek. His version shows that he is still thinking in
Hebrew and has retained the Hebrew pun in the Greek. But Matthew's
text cannot be explained apart from the premise that he mechanically
copied the Greek text without straightening out the unclear wording.
He is dealing with sources that derive from Joshua, and he has clearly
transferred the material to the gospel account. Joshua was then the
source for the name episode.

1 98 CHAPTER 1 4
 The first and second J esuses are also linked to the name Mary. The
young Joshua was separated from his family and lived outside the
camp as the servant of Moses. In this situation, the woman who would
act as mother or foster-mother to the young lad would then be Miriam,
sister of Moses - a mother but not by natural parentage. Miriam is the
Hebrew name for Mary. Matthew found the name Mary/Miriam in his
Joshuan source and placed it in his gospel. Again we have a duplication
in the genealogies of the first and second Jesus.

The Koran preserves the tradition that Mary is to be placed in the

very early period, that of Moses and Aaron. The father of Moses was
Amram, and in the Koran Mary is described as "the daughter of
Imran" - the Arabic form of the name. The wife of "Imran" gives
birth to a daughter and declares, "Lo! I have named her Mary. "9
"Mary, whose body was chaste, was the daughter of Imran. " 1 0
Thus she is the sister of Moses. She is also named as the sister of
Aaron, brother to Moses. "0 Mary . . 0 sister of Aaron." 11
.

This should be decisive in identifying Mary with Miriam, and

placing her in the early period. Mary belongs to the Joshuan tradition.
The Koran also has the curious listing of Jesus immediately after
"Jacob and the tribes" - which is just where Joshua would fit in. "We
inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes and
Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon and We imparted the
Psalms to David. "1 2
Jesus should come last and should follow David, yet he is placed in
a much earlier period where he merges with Joshua. Again the
evidence fits in.
The possibility is open that Muhammad, during his caravan
journeys, had met with marginal Jewish-Christian sects such as the
Ebionites and had heard traditions from them that placed Jesus and
Mary in the early period. These sects had fled to the farther reaches of
Arabia Deserta to escape their fellow-Christians. Now their traditions
were finding their way into the Koran. To place Jesus and Mary in the
early period is again to note a linkage to Joshua/Jesus.
Another clear duplication is that both Jesuses come out of Egypt.
With Joshua, there is the authority of the Exodus story, but with Jesus
there is no clear explanation as to how an impoverished Galilean

CHAPTER 1 4 1 99
family found itself in Egypt, and why they left. Matthew invents expla
nations out of thin air, using "an angel of the Lord" to order the flight
into Egypt 1 3, and using a proof-text to explain the return: " Out of
Egypt have I called my son. " 1 4
Luke omits the Egypt story, as do the scholar-apologists, but the
clue is there. Matthew found a Joshuan source which he felt he had to
adapt.
The next stage in the career of the young Joshua was to be named
one of the twelve spies sent into Canaan to "spy out the land. " They
are to reconnoiter dangerous enemy territory, much as the gospel Jesus
and his twelve companions found themselves facing hostile authorities.
'1 send you forth as sheep among wolves. "

Here we turn to a Samaritan text. Joshua was the national hero of the
Samaritans. He conquered the land and set up the shrine on their
sacred Mount Gerizim - held by them to this day. The Samaritans
therefore consider themselves earlier and more orthodox than the Jews
of the Jerusalem Temple, and accept only the first six books of the
Bible, that is, the Five Books of Moses plus the Book of Joshua.
Understandably, the Samaritans proceeded to enhance and embellish
the Joshuan material in the Scriptures, freely inventing episodes that
expanded on the triumphs of their hero. One such text, dealing with
the spy mission, was published by Moses Gaster. It appeared in the
July 1 930 issue of the journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, with the title
"The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Arabic Book of Joshua. "
This text - which we will call the ' Gaster document' - is in "the
ancient Hebrew Samaritan language . . . There is not a single Aramaic
word in the whole text. " 1 5
Gaster takes this as proof of the antiquity of the document. Among
the Samaritans, Hebrew had ceased to be the spoken language by
about 200 BC, being replaced by Aramaic, which in turn was replaced
in later centuries by Arabic.
However ancient documents written in Samaritan Hebrew, and held
in great esteem, continued to be copied and preserved in Hebrew
down the centuries till the time when Gaster's copy was found. Hence
the original Gaster document dates perhaps at 200 BC, and of course
appeared centuries before the Christian gospels. Quite possibly, the

200 CHAPTER 1 4
folklore material preserved by the Samaritans was known to the Jews
as well, and this was the conduit by which the material reached the
go spel writers.

The document is based on the story of the spy mission into Canaan,
fo und in Numbers 1 3 , 1 4 . In this version Joshua not only "spies out
the land," but confronts the enemy rulers in brief duels, warning them
of the wrath to come while concealing his own identity. This duplicates
the "second Jesus" who faced the Jewish leaders, as narrated in the
gospel accounts. If apocryphal Sirach material can find its way into the
gospels, then apocryphal early Samaritan materials can also be used.

Each "Jesus" reconnoiters in enemy territory and keeps secret his

true identity - with Joshua that he is head of the invading army, and
with Jesus that he is the Son of Man who will come in power and will
rule over his enemies. There are "two advents" - one in lowliness and
obscurity at the present, and a triumphant appearance in the future.
There is the paradox of apparent powerlessness together with sharp
confrontations with the "archons" - the ruling powers - and with
open challenge and defiance. There is the warning that "the kingdom
of heaven is at hand," then the spy goes on to the next encounter. The
main themes of Matthew's gospel are paralleled in the Gaster
document. We give the following examples:

1 . In Matthew, Jesus conceals his identity, and there is much baffle

ment and speculation as to who he really is. "No one knows the
Son except the Father. " 16
John Baptist sends emissaries to inquire as to his identity: "Are
you he that should come, or do we look for another? " 1 7
Similar inquiries are found at Matt. 1 2:23; 1 3 :55; 1 6: 1 3, 1 4 and
2 1 : 1 0. The "secret" is basic in the gospels.

In the Gaster document, Joshua puts out the story that he is in flight
before the oncoming army of the Israelites and conceals the fact that
he is one of the spies himself. He tells one king . . .

C H APTER 1 4 20 1
 " . . . Twelve princes [i.e., the leaders of the invading armyJ have
come hither and they are beautifully dressed. One of them is
more goodly than the others. His clothes are superior to theirs
and he is their leader." 18

Another Canaanite king is told "And with them [the armyJ is a

goodly youth, for he it was who smote Amalek and his people. "19

This is a naively boastful touch, since here the spy Joshua

speaks of himself.

2. In Matthew there is constant movement from place to place. There

is the impression of flight to elude the authorities.
"Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave
orders to depart to the other side [of the Lake] . "20
"The Son of Man has not where to lay his head. "2 1
"He departed into a desert place privately. " 22
He is in alien territory and he warns his disciples, "I send you
forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. "23

In the J oshuan version, the plot requires secrecy and movement

from place to place so that each king can receive the warning. They are
obviously his enemies, so the danger and menace are built into the
story. Matthew assumes the element of danger and menace from the
outset. The Jewish authorities are labeled as implacable and deadly
enemies. Matthew has replaced the Canaanite rulers with the Jewish
rulers, while retaining the Joshuan source.

3. In Matthew, there is simultaneously a proclamation of the

"Kingdom of Heaven" and promises of wrath from the same
divine source. All who do not accept the new order will be
punished or destroyed. The kingdom of heaven - never defined
precisely - is a constant theme with Matthew and is referred to
36 times in the text.

At the same time Jesus declares "the children of the kingdom shall
be cast into outer darkness. "24

202 CHAPTER 1 4
 "I have not come to send peace but a sword. "25
The cities of Galilee - home of his own countrymen - will be cast
down.
"Woe unto you, Chorazin ! Woe unto you, Bethsaida! And
you, Capernaum, which are exalted to heaven, shall be cast
down to hell. "26

"The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them that
do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire, where
there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. "27

"For as the lightning comes out of the east and shines to the
west, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man. " 28

Joshua in turn announces the advent of the army of God and the
inauguration of the new order, and he warns the kings of the destruc
tion the Israelites will mete out. As in the army of Cromwell, there is
much singing of hymns while they smite the enemy. Here the text
clearly resembles the Qumran War Scroll.

The Samaritan version reads:

"They walk with great triumphant shouts and they speak very
proudly . . . They never cease praising and singing hymns day
and night to their God . . . They blow three times with the two
trumpets of loud sounding, and their enemies all flee from
before them. They know that the angels are surrounding
them, and the Name, blessed be He, dwells in their midst. He
it is who fights for them against their enemies . . . And the pillar
of cloud goes before them, and all their enemies are destroyed
by their hands . . . It is better for you to flee from them, for
they seek to possess your land . . . The day of your destruction
is nigh . . . The Mighty One in War is with them and He fights
for them, and He it is who kills all their enemies. "29

The Qumran version reads:

C H A PT E R 1 4 203
 "And the priests shall sound a blast on the two trumpets used for
calling to arms . . . And the Levites and all the people with rams' horns
are to sound a single blast, a great war-like trump, to melt the heart of
the enemy . . . Thine [God] is the battle and it is not ours . . . The King of
Glory is with us, along with the holy beings. Warrior angels are in our
muster, He that is Mighty in War is in our throng. The army of His
spirits marches beside us . . "31
.

This is clear evidence of the early date of the Samaritan version.

4. Understandably, the rulers in both versions, Samaritan and gospel,

become frightened and realize that they are in great danger. In
Matthew . . .

" . . . they sought to lay hands on him, but they feared the multi
tude . . . They consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety
and kill him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be
an uproar among the people. "31

They are alarmed yet helpless.

In the Joshuan version the mood is one of panic.

"And when the children of Anak [the Canaanites] heard these

words, their hearts melted away . . . their hearts greatly
trembled . . . And when all the nations and kings heard these
things from Joshua, then they quaked and trembling seized
hold on them. They melted away and there fell upon them fear
and terror . . . "32

Theme after theme is duplicated.

5 . In both cases "Jesus" is betrayed; his efforts come to naught. The

betrayal comes from within the "twelve" who accompanied him, and
it is done from evil motives. With Matthew, it is the famed treachery
of Judas. In the earlier version, the twelve spies return from their
mission in Canaan, and Joshua and Caleb give a favorable report:

204 CHAPTER 1 4
 "The land is exceedingly good. But the other ten men were not
like unto them. They thought evil, for evil dwelt within
them . . . They spread an evil report among the people of
Israel. "33

In the foregoing we have pointed to a number of parallels in the two

stories: confrontation with enemy rulers while concealing one's true
identity; proclamation of wrath and salvation simultaneously; a
pattern of encounter then abrupt movement to the next episode; the
two advents one in lowliness, the other in triumph; alarm and panic on
the part of the rulers; and betrayal by a companion for base motives.

With all this on the record then the case for the Joshua source
appears quite arguable. We will continue with the account given in
Matthew, who seems helpless without his Joshuan source.

C H APTER 1 4 205
NOTES:
1 . Joseph Klausner, jesus ofNazareth, 84
2. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 3 : 1 7:4
3. Origen, Homilies on joshua, 2: 1
4. Origen, Homilies on joshua, 9:8
5. Matthew, 1 : 1 6
6 . Matthew, 1 :21
7. Sirach, 44: 1 , 46: 1 ,7
8. Sirach, 44: 1 9
9 . Koran, 3:35 - 36
1 0. Koran, 66: 1 2
1 1 . Koran, 1 9:27 - 28
1 2. Koran, 4 : 1 63
1 3 . Matthew, 2: 1 3
1 4. Matthew, 2 : 1 5
1 5. Moses Gaster, journal ofthe Royal Asiatic Society, July 1 930,
article: The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Arabic Book of Joshua, 577;
henceforth referred to as the Gaster Document.
1 6. Matthew, 1 1 :27
1 7. Matthew, 1 1 :3
1 8. M. Gaster, Gaster Document, 1 0
1 9. M . Gaster, Gaster Document, 66
20. Matthew, 8: 1 8
2 1 . Matthew, 8:20
22. Matthew, 14: 1 3
23. Matthew, 2: 1 8
24. Matthew, 8 : 1 2
2 5 . Matthew, 1 0:34
26. Matthew, 1 1 :2 1 , 23
27. Matthew, 1 2:41 - 42
28. Matthew, 24:27
29. M. Gaster, Gaster Document, 34 - 35, 57, 1 00, 1 05, 1 28 - 1 32
30. r Scrol/ 3 1 0, 3 1 4, 3 1 6; T Gaster Edition
3 1 . Matthew, 21 :46, 26:4 - 5
32. M. Gaster, Gaster Document, 27, 36, 1 33
33. M. Gaster, Gaster Document, 1 35, 1 50

206 C H A PT E R 1 4
 15

FURTHER DUPLICATIONS To JOSHUA

"And Moses called to Joshua and said to him in the sight of

all Israel, Be strong and of good courage."
Deuteronomy 31:7

For later episodes in the career of Joshua - with parallels in the

gospels - we turn to another Samaritan book containing legendary
additions to the Bible. This one is the Samaritan Chronicle, dating
from the Middle Ages and preserved in Arabic. It is relevant to our
inquiry since, as M. Gaster has pointed out, these texts faithfully
transmit very early material. The Samaritans, as a sect of Old Believers,
and anxious to establish their priority against the Judeans, clung
tenaciously to their earliest traditions.
Concerning another late Samaritan text known as the Asatir, Gaster
declares that much of this material was known to Josephus and used
independently by him.

"Josephus, while following the account given in the Sacred

Books, weaves into it a mass of legendary material . . . We find
a surprising number of close parallels between Josephus and
the traditions embodied in [this book.] "1

As a corollary, several legendary episodes found in the Samaritan

Chronicle show clear linkages to the gospel story, meaning that the
gospel writers could have gotten the material from contemporary
Judaic sources.

We list these parallels to the gospel account found in the Samaritan

Chronicle:

C H A PT E R 1 5 209
1 . The "missionary career" lasts but one year and has remarkable
success. There is a "purification in a great river" followed by the
feeding of the multitude in a "messianic feast." All this in one
paragraph of text, which in itself seems remarkable enough.

The text reads:

"And Joshua continued to fall upon one city after another and
took possession of them . . . And it resulted that he, in one year,
took possession of all their territories . . . Then he and all who
were with him removed apart for purification. Now there
descended from the blessed mountain [Gerizim] a great river
that watered the lowlands, and to it the Ruler went down with
all his army. When he had completed his purification, then
Eleazar the priest offered up sacrifices for them. And they
celebrated a grand feast, which was carried out fully and
completely. Never was there witnessed a better feast than this,
for the people were united. "2

It requires but little change to go to the baptism in the Jordan, and

then a feeding of the multitude, so lavish that there were baskets of
food left over. But the first account has a bottom layer of plausibility
in its terse folklore quality, while the second requires belief in miracle.
And there was success on the part of Joshua, while the masses that
listened to "Jesus " are summoned up only on the word of the gospel
wnters

2. There is an imprisonment scene involving Joshua and his 'cousin'

and it is the cousin who rescues Joshua from evil forces. A dove
descends from the heavens and brings about the happy ending. It
is emphasized that the apparent defeat of Joshua/Jesus and the
deadly danger that he was exposed to were all part of the divine
plan of redemption, and were meant to strengthen faith in God.
All these themes appear in the gospel version. As to the Samaritan
tale, here again we have a folktale that may well have a kernel of
historical fact from antiquity, but here treated as legend.

210 CHAPTER 1 5
 In the Scriptural account, the main body of Israelites crossed the
Jordan into Canaan, while the two and a half tribes of Manasseh
elected to stay on the far side of the Jordan - but bound by clan
covenant to aid their brethren if called upon.3 This forms the basis for
the episode.
The conquest was more difficult than the Bible records reveal, or
that the one-year triumph in the Samaritan Chronicle had related. One
scholar writes:

"Several passages in the Bible confirm that the Israelites were

not able to overcome the strongly fortified Canaanite cities in
the plains 'for they have chariots of iron and are strong.'4
. . . the Israelite areas of settlement were thus limited in the
main to the hill regions and to Transjordan. "5

In the present episode the chariots of iron are transformed into

"walls of iron. " It appears that Joshua indeed found himself sorely
beset by the Canaanites and was forced to appeal to his "cousin. " The
late Samaritan legend hints at what might have happened at one time
but has been omitted from the official texts.
The Chronicler gives us his story. In essence, the kings of Canaan
challenge Joshua to do battle, pointing to their vast and invincible
armies. Joshua sends a defiant reply "to the company of reprobates,
rebels, libertines, infidels," asserting that God will give him the victory.
Upon reading this the kings are overcome with grief and shock.
"Woe unto us and our children, we have destroyed ourselves."
However they are told by "the chief of the magicians " that they can
take Joshua secretly, and "a crowd of magicians and wizards and
conjurers" carry out the scheme. In the gospel version the arrest is also
by trickery, and with many soldiers on the scene. "This is your hour
and the hour of darkness. " 6

The account in the Samaritan version reads:

"When the children of Israel came to Aijalon, before they were

aware of it, Joshua and those with him were placed inside
seven walls of iron. The plan of the magicians against them

C H A PTE R 1 5 21 1
 was consummated, but this was in order that the decree of
God - may He be exalted - might be accomplished. This
was with regard to exalting the renown of Nobah, the king of
the two and a half tribes that were beyond the Jordan.
"When Joshua beheld what had come to pass, he remained in
great perplexity and exceeding fear. He began to desire of his
Lord that a dove might alight upon him from the doves of
Nobah his cousin. And he had not finished expressing his
desire before the dove alighted in the room, and he praised
God, Mighty and Powerful . . .And he wrote a letter to
Nobah . . 'I and my people are imprisoned and perplexed
.

inside seven walls of iron . . . Truly you know what covenants

and compacts exist between us so rise up immediately"'

The dove delivered the letter, and on receiving it Nobah "cried out
at the top of his voice 'My brothers and cousins and comrades ! Follow
me and reach your brethren! Haste! Haste ! "'
The army of N obah then went to the rescue and wreaked havoc with
the besiegers. All then joined in the victory celebration "and they ceased
not to commemorate God with hymns of praise and hallelujahs. "7
The theme of the episode is obviously aid to the kinsman, and this is
conspicuously absent in the gospel version. There John Baptist, cousin
of Jesus according to Luke's gospel, is unjustly put to death. When
Jesus gets the news, his only reaction is to "depart by boat privately to
a desert place. " 8
This looks like desertion under fire, behavior that the Galileans
would deem unforgivable.

Josephus relates that . . .

" . . . at a village called Gema, in the great plain of Samaria, a

Galilean was murdered, who was one of a large company of
Jews on their way up to the festival [in Jerusalem]. Thereupon
a considerable crowd assembled in haste from Galilee with the
intention of making war on the Samaritans . . . "9

This incident reveals the character of the Galileans.

21 2 CHAPTER 1 5
 The gospel writers show ignorance of the Galileans; however the
" dove" appears in Matthew's gospel at the baptism of Jesus.
"The spirit of God descended like a dove and alighted upon him, and
there was a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved son in whom
I am well pleased. " 1 0
The dove is the symbol of divine favor and rescue and here the
"cousin" is on the scene, namely John Baptist.
The gospel of Luke narrates that John Baptist was the cousin of
Jesus, in Luke 1 :36, 5 7, 60.
If we can have a fictional arrest and imprisonment of Joshua by his
enemies, then the door is open to a fictional slaying of Joshua by his
enemies. Which in turn will bring us to a fictional slaying of "Jesus."
In the gospel version this is the Passion Narrative, dealing with the
arrest, trial and execution of Jesus. This is an elaborate, separate story
which we will cover in later chapters. Here we will go to the burial
story. In the Scriptural account Joshua died in the fullness of old age,
and with the greatest of honor and renown for having fulfilled his
mission. Here we find a divergent account in the gospels, but with
J oshuan elements present in the story.
An examination of the gospel version reveals the bizarre develop
ment that the death and burial of Jesus in Matthew's gospel is a
mirror-image of the death and burial of the five kings of Canaan in the
Book ofjoshua. One story is the counterpoint and the reverse of the
other. It is as if the enemies of Joshua were determined to inflict upon
him the same punishment that he had inflicted on the five kings. The
parallels are too numerous to be accidental.
We point to these parallels: the victim is humiliated and mocked before
his death; death is by 'hanging on a tree' as the equivalent of crucifixion;
the hanging lasts till evening; the burial is in a rock, that is, a cave or a
tomb hewn out of rock; "great stones" are rolled to seal off the cave; a
watch is set over the tomb; and the event is known "until this very day. "
All this may be mere literary coincidence, yet we have seven paral
lels between Jesus and Joshua. We leave it to the scholar-apologists to
explain all this.
In both cases there is the degradation and mockery of a king prior
or to execution. Joshua commands the people, "Come near, put your
feet upon the necks of these kings. " 11

C H A PT E R 1 5 213
 In Matthew's version, the soldiers "bowed the knee before him and
mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews."1 2
With Joshua we have a slaying and a hanging as two separate acts,
one following the other. The prisoners are executed, and after that the
corpses are displayed on the trees. "And Joshua smote them and slew
them, and hanged them on five trees. "13
This detail is omitted in Matthew but is found in Acts, where Peter
denounces the Jews because of Jesus "whom you slew and hanged on
a tree." 1 4
This retains the original sequence. Luke, in his own gospel, gives the
detail that one of the malefactors was "hanged. " 1 5
The burial is at evening. "At the time of the going down of the sun,
Joshua commanded that they be taken down from the trees. " 16
There is no need to inquire if they are dead, since they had been slain
prior to the hanging. The gospel accounts must establish the fact of the
death of Jesus after but a few hours on the cross, when all knew that
crucifixion was designed to prolong the suffering of the victim, and
often endured for days. That is, the gospel editors must tailor the story
to fit the original data - which points to Joshua - and arrange for the
death to take place after a brief period, and towards nightfall. All these
gospel details are suspect.
Joshua then orders that the bodies "be cast into the cave where they
had been hiding. " 1 7
Again the script-doctors have to rewrite the story: a cave must be
converted to a tomb, and a body that had been rudely cast into a cave must
now be given proper burial rites. The gospel editors are in wide disagree
ment on handling these details, meaning that they have no history. There
is only the original tale derived from Joshua that they have to cope with.
Matthew's ingenious solution is to prepare "a new tomb hewn out
of the rock. " 1 8
It is big enough to walk around in since the women of Galilee
"entered in and found not the Lord Jesus." 1 9
Can it be that the original was a cave ?
In the Joshua episode, the "watch" occurs earlier. Joshua is told that
" . . . the five kings have been found hidden in a cave at Makkedah. And
Joshua said, Roll great stones upon the mouth of the cave, and set men
by it to guard them. "20

214 CHAPTER 1 5
 That is, the kings are alive and inside the cave, hence a watch is
logical under the circumstances. In the gospel version, the "watch" is
over a cave, sealed with a rock so large that only a convenient earth
quake can move it, and with a corpse inside. Why a watch? The logic
eludes the average person.
In the Joshua version, the sequence is plausible: the kings were taken
out of the cave, executed, and then their bodies were "cast into the cave
where they had hidden, and great stones [were] laid in the cave's
mouth, which remain until this very day. " 2 1
It is legendary, yet the events follow in line. And of course there was
no need for a "watch" after the corpses were inside.
In Matthew's version, the ingredients are distributed among differ
ent episodes: on Friday the "large stone" is rolled into place; on the
next day (the sabbath) the "chief priests and Pharisees" are required to
seal the tomb and set the "watch," along with negotiations with Pilate,
also on the sabbath. The contrived and clumsy nature of the various
episodes derives from the fact that the source-material, coherent in its
own context, is being transferred to a different story.
From the foregoing, we conclude that throughout the gospel of
Matthew there is this curious intermingling of the persons of Joshua
and Jesus, resulting in a series of contrived and implausible episodes in
Matthew's version. What is significant is Matthew's readiness to invent
episodes that attack and defame the Jews. The J oshuan material
provides the framework, then episodes are invented out of thin air to
show the Jews as malignant and hypocritical.
Thus on the day after the crucifixion the Jews "made the tomb sure,
sealing the stone and setting a watch. " 22
Sealing the stone presumably involved plastering the stone to the
tomb. This extensive masonry work takes place on the sabbath, hence
the Jews must become sabbath-breakers, while accusing Jesus of this
offense.
On Easter morn "there was a great earthquake for an angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, and rolled back the stone from the door
and sat upon it. "2 3
However the Jews are insult-proof and ignore these miracles.
Instead "they gave much money to the soldiers" to hush up the earth
quake, and to say instead that . . .

C H A PT E R 1 5 215
 " . . . his disciples came by night and stole him away while we
slept . . . So they took the money and did as they were taught;
and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until
this day. "24

Money conquers all, even miracles.

We must ask why Matthew went out of his way to use Joshuan
material when he had the highly historical Jesus of Nazareth as a
model, and why he distorted and falsified this material to serve his own
agenda. The plain inference is that there was no original. All had to be
taken from sources and duly christianized. We have shown this in the
"life of Jesus " constructed by Matthew from Joshuan materials.

But if the life (of Jesus) is a fabrication, constructed out of source

materials, how much confidence can we have in the crucifixion story
- and what sources were used by the gospel novelists for that one ? We
turn to this topic.

216 C H A PT E R 1 5
NOTES:
1 . Asatir, 62, 64
2. Samaritan Chronicle, 21
3. joshua, 1 : 1 2 - 1 4
4. joshua, 1 7: 1 8
5 . Y. Aharoni, MacMillan Bible Atlas, 68 - 69
6. Luke 22:53
7. Samaritan Chronicle, 34 - 36
8. Matthew, 1 4 : 1 3
9. Josephus, Ular, 2:232 - 233
1 0. Matthew, 3: 1 6 - 1 7
1 1 . joshua, 20:24
1 2. Matthew, 27:29
1 3. joshua, 1 0:26
14. Acts 5:30, 1 0:39
1 5. Luke, 23:39
1 6. joshua, 1 0:27
1 7. Joshua, 1 0:27
18. Matthew, 27:60
19. Luke, 24:3
20. joshua, 1 0: 17, 1 8
2 l . joshua, 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 8, 27
22. Matthew, 27:66
23. Matthew, 28:2
24. Matthew, 28: 1 2 - 1 5

C H A PT E R 1 5 217
 16

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PASSION NARRATIVE

"You slew the Just One and his prophets before him."
Justin, Dialogue, 16:4

The passion narrative, comprising the arrest, trial and crucifixion of

Jesus, is the central drama of the gospels. In addition to the gospel
accounts, many other versions of the Passion were composed during
the turbulent second century. These narratives are now labeled
"apocryphal" and "non-canonical" because they lost out. We would
like to see where Justin fits into this welter of rival crucifixion stories.
He preceded the gospels and he diverges from the gospels in the
matter of the divinity of Christ, and it turned out that he was giving
the primary tradition. Here we have evidence that the same situation
exists as to the passion narrative: Justin diverges and appears to be
giving the primary tradition.
In hindsight, we can say that the four gospels emerged as the
winners because they appeared to be the most plausible and historical.
Especially in the passion narrative the gospel accounts gave a much
better version of the events than the "apocryphal" accounts. A partic
ular error of these rejected accounts, which disqualified them, was
their emphatic statements that the Jews alone carried out the execution
of Jesus. For a crucifixion to take place in a Roman-occupied province,
under the iron control of Roman troops, the execution would have to
be carried out by Roman troops. Indeed, crucifixions were the very
symbol of Roman authority. Therefore any account that had the Jews
carrying out the crucifixion of Jesus would have to rejected as fictional.
Here we find, almost without exception, that the apocryphal texts
name the Jews as the executioners, and the canonical accounts name
Pilate and the Romans. What, perchance, if the apocryphal texts came
first, and the gospels then tacked on the Roman presence to meet the
objections of the critics ? The gospel version therefore would not be

C H A PT E R 1 6 219
historical, but merely a revised editorial version of the prior texts. It
would be one more "creation of the evangelists." The story would
have to be fictional since it was based on the false Jewish premise of the
prior texts, and dating after the apocryphal texts. A false passion narra
tive brands the Christian case as fraudulent in its entirety. And it will
come as no surprise that Justin, with his total hatred for the Jews,
comes in this primary group. The Jews alone were responsible.
We can trace out a line of development, starting with versions that
narrate an all-Jewish control of the event as the first group. In a second
group, Pilate is present but he turns Jesus over to the Jews. In the final
version, Pilate carries out the deed under protest, leaving the Jews with
the full moral responsibility. "His blood be upon our heads." The
Hennecke edition of the New Testament Apocrypha contains a number
of these relevant texts.
Texts with the Jews alone responsible:

Papyrus Egerton 2. "The Uewish] rulers laid hands on him that

they might arrest him and deliver him to the multitude. " 1
Acts of Peter. "And Peter uttered this reproach (to the devil): You
did give Caiaphas the boldness to hand over our Lord Jesus
Christ to the cruel throng . . . "2
Christian Sibyllines (in the form of a prophecy). "They shall give
to God blows with their unclean hands, and with their polluted
mouths polluted spittings . . . They shall pierce his sides with a
reed because of their law. "3

Texts with Pilate present, but the Jews responsible:

Acts of Pilate.

"Pontius Pilate to his emperor Claudius [sic] greeting . . . The Jews

through envy have punished themselves and their posterity with
a fearful punishment . . . All the people of the Jews acknowledged
him Uesus] to be the Son of God, but the chief priests were
moved by envy against him: They seized him and delivered him
to me . . I ordered him to be scourged, and handed him over to
.

their will. And they crucified him and set guards at his tomb. "4

220 C H A PT E R 1 6
 Gospel of Peter.

"But of the Jews none washed their hands, neither Herod

(Antipas) nor any of his judges. And as they would not wash,
Pilate arose . . . And he (Antipas) delivered him to the people
on the day before the unleavened bread, their feast. So they
took the Lord and pushed him in great haste . . . And they
brought two malefactors and they crucified the Lord between
them . . . ,5

Tertullian, a leading Christian, wrote:

"The Jews brought Jesus to Pontius Pilate, at that time procu

rator of Syria, and by the fierceness of their demands, extorted
it from Pilate that Jesus should be handed over to them to be
crucified. Jesus himself had foretold that they would do this. "6

This is dated about AD 200. At this late date Tertullian did not
consider the gospel version as binding and canonical, and he makes the
Jews alone guilty.
The four New Testament gospels state that Pilate ordered the cruci
fixion and the Roman soldiers carried it out, but even here there is an
element of uncertainty. Three of the gospels - Matthew, Luke and John
- show traces of the earlier tradition. Mark alone is "correct. "
J. Blinzler writes:

" . . . in the Codex Syrus Sinaiticus . . . in the Gospel of St.

Matthew, there is a description of the trial proceedings which,
in contrast to our Greek text, makes it appear that it was the
Jews alone who ill-treated, mocked and crucified Jesus."7

The present text of Matthew has a suggestive line: "Pilate took water
and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of
the blood of this righteous person. See ye to it. " 8

How is the "multitude" supposed to understand the "see ye to it" ?

It seems to be permission to go ahead.

C H APTER 1 6 221
 The gospel of Luke also has Pilate surrendering Jesus "to their will,"
after which the crucifixion takes place, and only ten lines later do the
Roman soldiers show up, as an afterthought and after the event.

"Pilate delivered him to their will and they led him away . . .
And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there
they crucified him . . . And the soldiers also mocked him,
coming to him. "9

Just who are the "they" who did the crucifying ? In the plain context
of the episode, it is the same " multitude" to whom Jesus was delivered.

The gospel of John has a similar gap between the "delivery of Jesus,"
the journey to the crucifixion, and the belated appearance of the
soldiers.

"They cried out, Away with him, crucify him! Pilate said to
them, shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered,
We have no king but Caesar. Then he delivered him to them to
be crucified and they led him away. And he, bearing his cross,
went forth to the place called Golgotha. There they crucified
him and two others with him . . . Then the soldiers, when they
had crucified Jesus, took his garments. "1 0

There is a clumsy insertion of "soldiers" who were invisible in the

prior eight verses. Only the Jews had Jesus in custody, as a candid reading
of the text will show. The "soldiers" come in as an editorial amendment.
As the above evidence indicates, three of the gospels have the
historically impossible version of having the Jews alone in charge.
This is strong evidence that they are to be linked to the earlier
versions, and that late editorial touches have been applied to make
them appear historical. These late touches cannot rescue narratives
whose origins are fictional. And if the gospel Passion narratives turn
out to be fabricated, then of course the Christian case cannot be
historical.

222 C H A PT E R 1 6
 Turning again to the writings of Justin, we find that they belong to
the earlier tradition. Justin charges again and again that the Jews killed
Jesus and were the only ones involved in the affair. The Romans are left
out altogether and it is Justin's clear intent that they be left out. There
can be no doubt as to Justin's intent; he belongs in 'group 1 .'

Thus he tells the Jewish disputant Trypho:

"You alone are suffering the things that you are now rightly
suffering, that your lands should be desolate and your cities
burnt with fire . . . For you slew the Just One and his prophets
.
b e fore h1m . . . 1 1
"Not only did you not repent, but when you learned that he
had risen from the dead, you appointed chosen men and sent
them into all the civilized world, proclaiming that 'a certain
godless and lawless sect had been raised by one Jesus of
Galilee, a deceiver whom we crucified.' " 1 2

Another pleasantry:

"You are found to be always idolators and murderers of the

righteous, so that you even laid hands on Christ himself, and
still stay on in your wickedness, cursing them who prove that
He who was crucified by you is the Christ. " 1 3

These charges are thrown at Trypho, who is dutifully silent while all
this is going on. At the very least Trypho should have mentioned
Josephus, and replied to Justin:

"Haven't you read your own gospels? All four narrate that
Pilate was in charge and that Roman soldiers carried out the
crucifixion. I call your attention to the account in Josephus:
'Pilate, upon hearing him Uesus] accused by the leading men
amongst us, condemned him to the cross.' " 1 4

The silence of Justin and Trypho as to Josephus stands out as a maj or

reason for dating the Josephus-passage well after Justin.

C H A PT E R 1 6 223
 Similar accusations against the Jews abound in the Dialogue and in
the First Apologia. The latter work is supposed to instruct the emperor
(Marcus Aurelius) and here Justin cites proof texts again establishing
"the guilt of the Jews . "
Quoting Isaiah, h e writes: "I have spread out m y hands to a disobe
dient and gainsaying people, who walk in a way that is not good."15
Then Justin adds: "Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being
crucified by the Jews. "1 6
In lecturing the emperor on Jewish guilt, Justin is of course exempt
ing the Romans from any part in the affair. It is obvious that Justin
could not have written as he did had he known of the gospel version.
It is also obvious that if Justin is giving the primary tradition that the
Jews alone executed Jesus, then the gospel writers are correcting Justin
and are inventing history out of thin air by bringing in the Roman
presence. This exposes the whole passion narrative as a fabrication.
As to how the gospel writers constructed the passion narrative, we
have mentioned that John Crossan called Mark's version "magnificent
theological fiction," but Crossan goes on to explain how the magnifi
cent fiction was put together. Crossan names the sources, and curious
to relate, one of the sources intersects with Justin, who gives a variant
version of the episode in question.
As an example of how Mark created, Crossan traces out the devel
opment of one episode known as the Mockery Scene. The source is
named by him as a book by Philo of Alexandria, called Concerning
Flaccus. There the target of the mockery was King Herod Agrippa
himself, then visiting Alexandria. The Greeks seized a harmless street
vagrant named Carabas, and then . . .

" . . . the rioters drove the poor fellow into the gymnasium and
set him on high. They put on his head a sheet of byblos bark
for a diadem, clothed the rest of his body with a rug for a royal
robe, while someone else handed him a piece of papyrus for a
sceptre . . . Then from the mob standing around him there rang
out a tremendous shout hailing him as Marin, said to be the
name for 'lord' in Syria. For they knew that Agrippa was a
Syrian by birth and was king over a large domain in Syria. "17

224 C H A PT E R 1 6
 The episode, suitably christianized, appears next m an early
Christian work known as the Gospel of Peter:

"But of the Jews none washed their hands, neither Herod

[Agrippa] nor any of his judges . . . And he [Agrippa] delivered
him U esus] to the people on the day before the unleavened
bread, their feast. So they took the Lord and pushed him in
great haste and said, 'Let us hale the Son of God, now that we
have gotten power over him.' And they put upon him a purple
robe and set him on the judgment-seat and said, 'Judge right
eously, 0 King of Israel ! ' And one of them brought a crown
of thorns and put it on the Lord's head. And others who stood
by spat on his face and others buffeted him on the cheeks . . . " 1 8

Here we come to Justin. The same episode appears in his First

Apologia.

"Jesus Christ stretched forth his hands, being crucified by the

Jews who were speaking against him and denying that he was
the Christ. And as the prophet said, they tormented him, then
set him on the judgment-seat and said, Judge us."19

The details of judgment-seat and "judge us" do not appear in the

gospels. The plain inference is that Justin is also using the Alexandrian
source.
Crossan then cites the mockery scene in the Gospel of Mark as the
end product.

"So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas to

them. And after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be
crucified. Then the soldiers led him into the courtyard of the
palace, and they called together the whole cohort. They
clothed him in a purple cloak, and after twisting some thorns
in a crown, they put it on him. And they began saluting him,
'Hail, King of the Jews ! ' . . . Then they led him out to crucify
.
htm. ,20

C HAPTER 1 6 225
 The sequence then is Philo, Gospel of Peter, then Gospel of Mark. 2 1
In the original, as reported by Philo, there is no sign of Jesus, no
villainy by the Jews, nor is there even any harm done to Carabas. In
Gospel of Peter we have a violent passion narrative, with the mockery
included, but still not historical enough, since the Roman soldiers are
absent. Finally Mark gets it right: there is a mockery scene and the
Romans do the crucifying. The outrage of spittle and buffeting is still
carried out by the Jews, this time by the judges of the Sanhedrin:
"And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face and to buffet
. . . . > 22
h lm

Crossan has named Philo as the source for a major scene. He also
alludes to Philo for two other episodes in connection with Mark's
narrative: the amnesty on a festival day,23 and scourging a prisoner
prior to execution.24 He does not directly name these as Mark's source
but leaves open the possibility. All this indicates that Philo's book
should be studied in detail, to see what else is relevant. When this is
done the result is rather startling: a large number of episodes in the
gospel passion narrative appear to derive from Philo. No fewer that
twenty-four can be found. We must ask why Crossan stopped short at
three and did not go much further into the content of Philo's book,
since he rejected Mark's version outright. We can guess that Crossan
prudently refrained from venturing further into this dangerous terri
tory, since it would question the very existence of the passion
narrative. His colleagues have also stayed clear.

Bultmann quotes approvingly a statement that the gospels are little

more than the crucifixion story:

" Since the main emphasis lay upon the conclusion, the
Passion and the Easter story, it has quite correctly been said,
'With some exaggeration one might describe the gospels as
Passion Narratives with extended introductions . ' ( M .
Kahler). " 25

If the story drops out, then the gospels are dismantled.

226 C H A PT E R 1 6
 Raymond E. Brown, in his enormously researched book The Death
of the Messiah, virtually equates the story with Christianity itself. He
gives an extensive list of reasons for its prominence, then states: "In
sum, from every point of view, the passion is the central narrative in
the Christian story. " 26

Of the reasons he gives, we are most concerned with the historical

one:

" Historically, Jesus' death was the most public moment of his
life, as figures known from Jewish or secular history -
Caiaphas, Annas, Pilate - crossed his path . . . [thereby]
anchoring Christian belief about the Son of God to a Jesus
who was a human figure of actual history. "27

That is, Jesus becomes historical only through his contact with
named historical figures - otherwise he remains a figure of myth and
theology. These figures are described for us by gospel writers given to
magnificent fiction, and remarkably ignorant of the actual scene.

We turn now to our source for the passion narrative, namely the
writings of Philo of Alexandria.

C H APTE R 1 6 227
NOTES:
1 . Henneke, New Testament Apocrypha, 1 :96
2. Henneke, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:290
3. Henneke, New Testament Apocrypha, 2:734 - 735
4. Henneke, New Testament Apocrypha, 1 :477 - 478
5. Henneke, New Testament Apocrypha, 1 : 1 83 - 1 84
6. Tertullian, Apologeticus, 2 1 : 1 8
7 . J . Blinzler, Trial ofjesus, 1 0
8. Matthew, 27:24
9. Luke, 23:25, 33, 36
lO. john, 1 9: 1 5, 23
1 1 . Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 1 6:2, 4
1 2. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 1 1 8:2
13. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 93:4
1 4. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:64
1 5 . Isaiah, 65:2
16. Justin, First Apologia, 35
17. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 36 - 39
1 8. Gospel ofPeter, 1 - 3
1 9. Justin, First Apologia, 34
20. Mark, 1 5: 1 5 - 20
2 1 . J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? Exposing the Roots ofAnti-Semitism
in the Gospel Story ofthe Death ofjesus, 1 26 - 1 28
22. Mark, 14:65
23. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? Exposing the Roots ofAnti-Semitism
in the Gospel Story ofthe Death ofjesus, 1 1 1
24. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? Exposing the Roots ofAnti-Semitism
in the Gospel Story ofthe Death ofjesus, 1 1 8
25. R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 65
26. R. E. Brown, The Death ofthe Messiah, vii
27. R. E. Brown, The Death ofthe Messiah, vii

228 C H A PT E R 1 6
 17

THE ALEXANDRIAN BACKGROUND

"My innocence doesn't make the matter any simpler In . .

the end, out of nothing at all, an enormous fabric of guilt

will be conjured up."
Franz Kafka, The Trial

For a sketch of the life of Philo, we give this extract from the Loeb
edition of his works:

"It has probably seldom happened that the characteristics of a

man's home and birthplace have been so faithfully reflected in
his writings as they are in the writings of Philo of Alexandria.
A citizen of the place which was at once the chief home of the
Jewish Dispersion and the chief centre of Hellenistic culture,
he owes his position in the history of religious thought to that
remarkable fusion of Hellenism and Judaism which we find in
his voluminous writings . . . It is not necessary to discuss the
little that is known of Philo's life. It will be enough to say that
he came of a rich and influential Jewish family and was trained
in Greek as well as Jewish learning.
"The one public event in his life was his taking part in an
embassy sent by the Jews of Alexandria to Caligula to
complain of the persecutions which they had been suffering.
This is dated AD 39 - 40, and as Philo in writing his account
of the mission at some time later speaks of himself as an old
man, it has been generally held that he was born about 20 BC.
The date of his death is uncertain, but it will be seen that his
lifetime covers the lifetimes of Jesus Christ and John Baptist,
and much of that of St. Paul. There is no intimation that he
knew anything of their life or work. "1

C H A PT E R 1 7 23 1
 From the foregoing we can divide his career into two parts: the first,
covering most of his life, was that of the ardent Hellenist who
attempted a vast synthesis combining Judaism with Greek philosophy
and outlook. The brief second part, of two or three desperate years,
was in the political arena and concerned with the fate of the
Alexandrian Jews. By remarkable and fatal coincidence, in each part
his writings were of profound influence. His religious writings paved
the way and were the transition to much of early Christian theology,
especially the doctrine of the Divine Word (or Logos). And his
political-historical tract contains much of the material for the passion
narrative, as we will show.
If born about 20 BC, then he passed the first thirty-five years of his
life under the reign of Augustus Caesar, whom he is tireless in prais
ing. It was the high noon of the Jewish-Hellenic Diaspora, centered in
Alexandria. The Jews had been in the city since its founding in 325 BC
by Alexander, at which time the Jews were allotted one of the five
districts into which the city was divided, and which the Jews had long
smce outgrown.
All this came to an end with violent events amounting to civil war,
that broke out between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria in the
spring and summer of 38. Because of the heavy loss of life and
property on the Jewish side (and with losses on the Greek side as well,
though Philo does not mention these), both sides were ordered to send
embassies to Rome in the inquiry that inevitably followed.
Philo headed the Jewish delegation, and he gives his account of
events in two books. Here he is no longer the devotee to Greek culture
nor does he praise Roman rule; instead he is the embittered enemy and
accuser. The first book, Concerning Flaccus, is an invective against the
Roman governor, Flaccus Avillius, who is accused of openly siding
with the Greeks and aiding them. The Greeks are described as the
deadliest of enemies. The second book, Legation to Gaius, is an invec
tive against the emperor Gaius (Caligula), described as deranged in the
belief in his own godhood, and the sworn enemy of the Jews for
denying this godhood. Flaccus and Caligula were safely dead by the
time the books were written - slain by assassins - but the books
show unswerving courage in denouncing the highest officials in the
Roman empire.

232 C H A PT E R 1 7
 What is of particular importance to our inquiry is the content of the
first book. It is an account by an eyewitness, intensely partisan, and for
that reason it emerges as a unitary dramatic work. All the parts fit in
place, and it is a "passion narrative" in itself. The ordeal of the Jewish
community is set forth as a martyrdom, and as a studied confrontation
between good and evil, innocence and injustice. It is a morality tale,
and in the end God intervenes to rescue and vindicate. There was
indeed a remarkable rescue of the community at its darkest hour by the
wholly unexpected overthrow of Flaccus, and Philo understandably
calls it a miraculous event. This means that the story could be taken
over en bloc and christianized.
Because the ordeal befell the community, this could be summed up
and represented by an individual, labeled "the Servant. " This is a basic
motif in Judaic martyrologies, as mentioned in a prior chapter.

"It is characteristic of Israelite thought to pass from the collec

tive to the individual, and to represent the group by a single
individual . . . This probably happened with the concept of the
Suffering Servant. What was first a collective figure, repre
senting the community, became the figure of an individual
who in himself embodied its mission. "2

For example, Isaiah interchanges the singular and plural in the same
sentence: "You are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and My servant,
whom I have chosen . . . Yet hear now, 0 Jacob My servant, and Israel,
whom I have chosen . . . "3
Again we have an explanation for the transfer of Philo's account to
the gospel version. The community became the single martyr figure.
In our treatment of Philo's narrative we have taken the literary
license of describing collective injuries to the Jewish community as
befalling the "Servant. " This gives us the linkage between Philo and the
gospel passion, and explains the transfer of material. A further point:
there is a second "martyrology" in Philo's account, this one dealing
with the downfall of Flaccus. Several episodes from this part of the
story have been transferred to the gospel Jesus. Here again we take
literary license and describe these as befalling the "Victim, " to indicate
Flaccus as the one named by Philo.

CHAPTER 1 7 233
 Philo was a devotee to the Greek theatre, with numerous allusions
to Greek plays in his writings. A lifetime of Hellenic culture makes
him recast the career of the central figure, Flaccus, in the classic pattern
of Greek tragedy, with clear parallels to Oedipus Rex. A noble aristo
cratic figure at the outset will be mutilated and destroyed at the end,
and all proceeds with step-by-step inevitability. Philo is telling a good
story. Anyone looking for a martyrology would readily take this one.
As to the steps by which Philo's account reached the gospel editors,
we have the fait accompli that several episodes did reach them, as
Crossan admits. We know also that the Greeks put out their own
version of the Alexandrian events in a text known as Acts of the Pagan
Martyrs, possibly as a counterstatement to Philo. This version may
have been the conduit to the gospel narrative. Other sources will be
treated in a later chapter.

A comparison between Philo and the gospel will show that Philo's
original stands up better:

a: A given detail or incident in Philo's account will be granted the

highest authenticity as that of an eyewitness, even where it is
openly partisan, while the same incident, when transferred to the
gospel setting, will show errors and implausibilities. This demon
strates the artificial nature of the gospel version. It is derivative.
b: A standard criterion used by New Testament scholars for the
genuineness of a given gospel episode is the "criterion of embar
rassment. " The argument is that the writer of an artificial account
would leave out material that shows human shortcomings if he
could, but he had to put these in as part of the authentic tradition.
As examples, the scholars offer as proofs of genuineness that the
gospels reveal human flaws and weaknesses on the part of Jesus
and the disciples: the despair of Jesus in the Garden, the panic and
flight of the disciples to avoid arrest, the disbelief of the disciples
at the news of the Resurrection at Easter morning. But now we
find that these very details are there in the source. They are in
Philo's account. The gospel writers simply transferred them from
Philo to the gospel. Hence this line of argument cannot be used
by the apologists.

234 CHAPTER 1 7
 With this in mind we give our list of parallels, following the
sequence of events in the gospel passion, although Philo - as will be
explained - follows his own sequence dictated by the Alexandrian
events:

1 . We have a Judas-figure, fully created. He behaves honorably at

first and arouses no suspicion. He is "in charge of the purse" and
only later is he led into betrayal.

2. Judas is led to the betrayal by the malice and dishonesty of the

enemies of the Servant. They are moved by "envy. "

3. There is a "temple act" involving the deliberate disruption and

violation of the religious precincts of the Jews.

4. There is a Last Supper, attended by a small group of friends. The

motif of finality and farewell is spelled out.

5. The Garden Scene presents the fear and despair of the Victim at
his approaching and inevitable death. It takes place at night and he
is alone.

6. The Arrest is made by a detachment of soldiers, fully armed.

7. Throughout Philo portrays the Servant-community as innocent

and the opponents as cruel and merciless - duplicating the gospel
motif.

8. The companions show cowardice and fear lest they be arrested as

well. They desert their leader.

9. A Herodian king visits the city and meets with the Roman gover
nor to discuss the fate of the Servant.

1 0 . There is a Mockery Scene, wherein the target is attired in royal

garb and receives mock homage from his enemies.

C H A PT E R 1 7 235
1 1 . In the trial of the Servant false charges are placed against him
through malice and calumny.

1 2 . There is a spy mission, by an observer who conceals himself

among the servants and does not reveal his identity.

13. The Servant is scourged and beaten prior to crucifixion.

14. The tragic events take place on a national holiday, when it would
be appropriate to show clemency and offer release.

1 5. Mob instigators bully and threaten the Roman official, and force
him to carry out the sentence instead of clemency or amnesty.

1 6. Judas repents and makes full confession of his sins.

1 7. Judas meets his death by being torn to pieces in an open field.

1 8. For the crucifixion, there is a via dolorosa on the way to death

that the doomed Victim must travel.

1 9. The crucifixion takes place on "the third hour" which is nine in

the morning on the Roman reckoning, as in Gospel of Mark.

20. There is jeering and abuse by the onlookers.

2 1 . The garments of the Servant are divided by his enemies.

22. The death of the Servant leaves his followers hopeless and
despairing, however there is miraculous news of the revival of
hope at early dawn.

23. This is doubted at first, but later confirmed and the doubts are
removed.

24. All gather in joyous celebration, with praise to God for the
rescue.

236 C H A PT E R 1 7
 With these 24 points available, why did Crossan stop at 3 ? And if 24
points of duplication can be found in a single document, covering
every major element of the passion narrative, are we not entitled to
name this as the source of that narrative? Philo has provided enough
material to label the gospel account of the passion as fictional in its
entirety. And as Bultmann and Raymond Brown have pointed out, the
passion amounts to the gospel itself, hence the whole structure must
go.

The above catalogue is sobering enough, but two additional points

should be mentioned:

Josephus had certainly read Philo's account. All the Jews in the
empire felt the ground shake under their feet after the
Alexandrian events, and were well aware of the sequence of
events. Hence Josephus would know of the many duplications to
the gospel account. Again we have the argument of silence,
indicating the ignorance of Josephus.

Josephus fills in and supplements Philo's account in several places.

Again this indicates that he knew nothing of "Jesus." We will
cover this Josephus material in later chapters.

We now give Philo's account in detail, using his sequence, with

comparisons to the gospel version at each point. The curtain rises . . .

C H A PT E R 1 7 23 7
NOTES:
i . Philo, Loeb Classical Library Edition, volume I, ix - x
2. H. H. Rowley, Relevance ofthe Apocalyptic, 34
3. Isaiah, 43: 1 0, 44: 1

238 C H A PT E R 1 7
 18

THE ALEXANDRIAN PASSION BEGINS

Oedipus: I have wealth, power, craft of statesmanship,

kingly position - I am admired by all!
Teiresias: I tell you, no man that walks upon the earth shall
be rooted out more horribly than you.
Sophocles, Oedipus Rex, scene 1

Prologue: The Servant-community welcomes an outsider who is

placed in charge of the funds. He is of noble appearance and inspires
confidence. No one thinks to suspect him. This man, Aulus Avillianus
Flaccus, was appointed governor of Egypt in AD 32 by the emperor
Tiberius. Philo presents him in his best light at the outset: "He gave to
all appearances a multitude of proofs of high excellence . . . He revealed
a brilliant and kingly nature, and bore himself with dignity . . . "
He took office and . . .

" . . . was sagacious and assiduous, quick to think out and execute
his plans . . . In quite a short time he became thoroughly famil
iar with Egyptian affairs, intricate and diversified as they are . . .
All matters connected with accountancy and administration
of the revenue he managed successfully . . . He judged impor
tant cases and humbled the arrogant . . . He held this office for
six years, and for the first five of these, while Tiberius Caesar
was still alive, maintained peace and held command with such
activity and vigor that he excelled all his predecessors. " 1

This is the highest praise. Men less qualified and less noble would
advance to rule the empire, but another fate was reserved for him.
Gospel: It is clear that Egypt required someone to supervise
'accountancy and administration of the revenue' and that this man
must be an outsider, sent in from Rome. It is less easy to understand

C H A PT E R 1 8 24 1
why a mendicant Galilean sect required a treasurer to hold the bag.
They were under orders to carry no scrip and to give no thought to the
morrow, taking only the food and lodging offered them each day. And
if they needed a man for fiscal matters, they did not need to recruit one
from the other end of the country, where "Judas" was supposed to
come from. Philo, reporting history, gives us a clear, identifiable
person. The gospel writers, dealing with myth and legend, must invent
and improvise to come up with a Judas figure. The parallels always
work out against the gospel version.

ACT 1

SCE N E 1

In which the trustedfriend is tempted into evil and the betrayal begins.

Flaccus administered his office in this kingly manner for the five
years that Tiberius remained alive. The emperor died AD 37 and was
succeeded by Gaius Caligula, a collateral "grand-nephew. " Some say
that Caligula hastened the demise. The young emperor soon gave signs
of mental derangement and began a manhunt against the associates of
Tiberius, whom he blamed for the death of his parents. Flaccus had
been a close friend to Tiberius and was high on the list. His execution
seemed inevitable. Again the Oedipus motif: a forgotten crime of the
past returns to destroy the hero.
As news of the executions by Caligula came to the city, Flaccus lost
control of himself, in what seems to us as an unroman manner. "He
lost all hope and could no longer keep any grip on affairs, so utterly
enfeebled was he and incapable of solid judgment. " 2
Affairs came to a standstill, and the Greeks saw at once what was
involved. One writer surmises that the Greeks were in the picture at
the very outset. One of the leading Romans executed, one Macro, had
been accused by an Alexandrian Greek, Isidorus, whom Flaccus
himself had ordered exiled to Rome.

242 C H A PT E R 1 8
 "The fall of Macro may well have given Flaccus special cause
for alarm, since it seems likely that Isidorus had a hand in it.
Flaccus had to face the possibility that Isidorus would seek
vengeance for his exile by employing the same tactic against
himself. "3

With the governor in this desperate situation, the Greeks made their
offer, which Philo sums up:

"We must find you a really powerful intercessor to propitiate

Gaius. Such an intercessor is the city of Alexandria, which has
been honored from the first by all the Augustan house and
especially by your present master. And intercede it will if it
receives some boon. You can give it no greater satisfaction
than by surrendering and sacrificing the Jews. "4

The city was indeed a powerful intercessor. The cheap, limitless

grain from Egypt was essential to the Italian economy. Nor was the
offer too shocking; no one thought of violence at that time. All the
Greeks wanted was to "keep the Jews in line."
The Jews were advancing irresistibly from the status of resident
aliens to the claim of equal citizenship with the Greeks. Flaccus was
now asked to roll the Jews back to the status quo ante, that of four
hundred years back. He agreed; he would have been bent on suicide if
he had not. He showed his partisanship in court cases . . .

" . . . by refusing to give a fair and impartial hearing to the parties

in disputes, and leaning to one side only. In all matters he gave
the Jews no right of free speech, for whenever any Jew
approached he turned away while to all others he made
himself readily accessible. "5

Gospel: The betrayal by Flaccus proceeds logically, step by step. At

this point there is not even any illegality. We are not required to
put in any villain thesis. However, in the case of Judas, the
betrayal is sudden, catastrophic, and without known motive. The
mystery of why Judas betrayed is matched by the mystery of why

C H A PT E R 1 8 243
 he joined the disciples, why Jesus tolerated him in the ranks, why
he took such a paltry sum for the deed, what he hoped would be
a better outcome, why he was not seized by the disciples upon
open exposure at the Last Supper, why he was needed to identify
a well-known man, why he was not used as a witness at the trial,
why he repented, and why the repentance took the useless form
of suicide rather than a last-minute attempt to rescue the prisoner.
None of these crude objections have been allowed to intrude on
the gospel drama. The story requires shock-value and emotional
ism, not rational cause and effect.

SC E N E 2

In which the King ofthe jews is taunted and mocked by the gentiles.
His royal robes are burlesqued.

We are following Philo's sequence and he places the Mockery Scene

at this point. The background of the episode is omitted by Philo - it
has some embarrassing details (we get these separately from Josephus).
As Philo tells it, the cold war continued for several months in
Alexandria. The Jews then learned, with consternation, that Flaccus
through neglect or design had failed to forward to Caligula the
message of loyalty and congratulations drawn up by the Jewish
community upon the emperor's accession. All cities and national
groups in the empire were expected to send messages of this sort, and
failure to do so would be deemed a grave affront.
In this confused and anxious situation the conflict was suddenly
sharpened by the unexpected arrival in Alexandria of Herod Agrippa,
a grandson of Herod the Great. He was a nephew of Herod Antipas of
Galilee, and a close friend of Caligula's. Like all of his house, Agrippa
was a carrier of disaster.
Josephus fills us in that several years before, the Roman governor of
Syria, who had overall authority over the provinces of Judea and
Samaria, had run Agrippa out of the region for bribery, influence
peddling and general meddling in the affairs of the city of Damascus.
Agrippa was without title or office at that time. He proceeded to

244 CHAPTER 1 8
Alexandria, where he mulcted the leading Jewish families out of a
sizeable amount of money, then went on to Rome since he had been
brought up in the household of Augustus. In Rome he became very
friendly with the young Caligula, which says much for both of them,
and one day expressed the hope that Tiberius would depart this life so
that one more worthy could inherit the empire. The remark was
overheard and reported. He got out of jail a year and a half later, on the
death of Tiberius.
One of Caligula's first acts on becoming emperor was to release his
friend. As a reward for his loyalty Agrippa was given the tetrarchy of
his late uncle Philip, a realm to the east of Galilee and the only terri
tory available at the time. It seemed paltry to Agrippa and he stayed in
Rome a year afterwards in the hope that something better would turn
up. If anything unfortunate happened to Antipas in Galilee, or if Judea
were to be restored to Jewish rule, then he wanted to be around. He
was not to leave before the worst possible hour in Alexandria.
When his departure could no longer be decently postponed he went
to make his farewells to Caligula. Then out of the blue the emperor
offered the suggestion that the best way to travel would be by way of
Alexandria because the wind was blowing in that direction. The city
was hundreds of miles away from the logical Palestine ports such as
Caesarea or Joppa and it was the last place Agrippa wanted to see, but
there was no help for it. One did not argue with the whims of Gaius
Caligula. It all seems designed to confirm Tolstoy, that history is made
up of absurd random accident.
Here Philo takes up the narrative. The ship arrived within sight of
the Alexandria lighthouse in the afternoon but Agrippa showed no
desire to enter the harbor until dark, if at all. "His reason for making
his visit in such an unassuming way was that he wished if possible to
slip out of the city quietly and unobserved by the whole population. "6
This is Philo's discreet but accurate explanation.
Probably Agrippa had no intention of going ashore and would have
gone on to a Palestine port, but the Jewish leaders got to him and gave
him to understand that he owed them a favor, all things considered. He
was the one man able to face up to Flaccus and he had to take care of
the all-important loyalty message to Caligula.
 Agrippa met several times with Flaccus but got nowhere since the
governor was himself in a position from which he could not retreat.
Meanwhile Agrippa's ornate bodyguard "of spearman decked in armor
overlaid with silver and gold" was becoming very noticeable in the
city, and one scholar guesses that an "ostentatious parade" was made
by this bodyguard through the city.7
This, with the pomp which Agrippa bestowed on himself at all
times, led the Alexandrians to react with their favorite weapons - gibe
and ridicule.

"The lazy and unoccupied mob of the city, a multitude well

practiced in idle talk, who devote their leisure to slander and
evil-speaking . . . spent their days at the gymnasium jeering at
the king and bringing out a succession of gibes against him. " 8

The Greeks also played on the fears of Flaccus, the motif of 'envy
and jealousy' now entering into the story:

"But jealousy is part of the Egyptian nature, and the citizens

were bursting with envy. They considered any good luck to
others as misfortune to themselves. In their ancient, and we
might say innate hostility to the Jews, they resented a Jew
having been made a king just as much as if each of them had
thereby been deprived of a throne. And the unhappy Flaccus
was again stirred up by his companions with incitements and
appeals calculated to make him as envious as themselves. 'His
stay here,' they said, 'is your dismissal. The dignity of the
honor and prestige which invest him surpasses yours. He is
attracting all men to him by the sight of his bodyguard of
spear-men.' " 9

The situation built up and waited for a spark.

"If the unruly mob gets a starting point for this misconduct in
any direction they do not halt there, but pass on from one
thing to another, always engaging in some fresh form of
violence. " 1 0

246 CHAPTER 1 8
 The disaster was ignited by the most inoffensive of individuals, but
who would become a sinister character upon his transformation and
entry into Script B:

"There was a certain lunatic named Carabas, whose madness

was not of the fierce and savage kind which is dangerous both
to the madman himself and those who approach him, but of
the easy-going, gentler kind. He spent day and night in the
streets naked, made game of by the children and the lads who
were idling about. " 1 1

This is our introduction to the renowned brigand and insurrection

ist "Barabbas." The ringleaders of the crowd carne for him, and took
him to the gymnasium for the revels.

"The rioters drove the poor fellow into the arena and set him
on high to be seen of all. They put on his head a sheet of
papyrus bark spread out wide for a diadem, clothed the rest of
his body with a rug for a royal robe, while someone who had
noticed a strip of papyrus thrown away on the road, gave it to
him for a sceptre." 1 2

Now doughty men-at-arms stand at attention on either side of their

lord, with sticks on their shoulders. Courtiers approach to do him
reverence. They bow the knee, salute the madman whom they mock
and set at naught. "Hail, King ! "
The cry is repeated in Aramaic: "Maran ! Maran ! "
A great king from the east is enthroned before them.

"As in some theatrical farce, he was given the insignia of

kingship, and then young men, in imitation of a bodyguard,
stood on either side of him, carrying rods on their shoulders
as spears-men. Then others approached him, some pretending
to salute him, others to sue for justice or to consult him on
state affairs. Then from the multitude standing around him
there rang out a tremendous shout, hailing him as 'Marin'
which is said to be the name for 'Lord' in Syria. " 1 3

C H A PT E R 1 8 247
Gospel: We come here to a major duplication to the gospel account.
This has been acknowledged by a number of scholars, among
them Crossan, as noted. The parallels are clear: a man in the city
who is a real or pretended king and who is hated, namely
Agrippa; a man in abject and wretched condition, namely
Carabas; the victim is stripped naked: " . . . he spent day and night
in the streets naked"; he is costumed with crown of reed, robe,
and sceptre; he is saluted with mock-ceremony; he is hailed with
the title of king in a semitic language 'Maran' to indicate that he
is 'King of the Jews'; and we have the presence of 'soldiers', i.e.,
the mock-spearmen. Philo has not left out one point.

As Matthew puts it:

"And they stripped him and put on him a scarlet robe. And
when they had plaited a crown of thorns they put it on his
head, and a reed in his right hand. And they bowed the knee
before him and mocked him, saying Hail, King of the Jews. " 1 4

Luke, as if to emphasize the source, adds the details of a Jewish king,

also named Herod, visiting a city outside his realm, with a bodyguard
of soldiers, and on bad terms with the Roman official:

"And Herod with his men of war set him at naught and
mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent him
to Pilate. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made
friends again, for before they were at enmity between
themselves. " 1 6

Where did that little item of "enmity" come from? The only possi
ble source is Philo.
Then too the name Carabas is over-close. "The name is Aramaic.
Cohn conjectures Barabas or Barabbas. Professor S.H. Hooke in a
private letter observes 'It is a Hellenized form of the Aramaic word,
just as Barabbas is.' " 1 6

248 CHAPTER 1 8
 "It is possible that a reminiscence of a certain fool at the time
of Agrippa I, whose name is given as Carabas by Josephus but
which may have been Barabbas - C and B are easily confused
in the writing of Semitic languages - may have colored the
story. " 1 7

The article is in error in naming Josephus rather than Philo, but

makes the point that the letters are quite similar. In the Hebrew C and
B differ only by a small stroke of the pen. As to how poor Carabas
became a brigand, a careless reading of the passage would fasten upon
the words "fierce, savage, dangerous" in Philo's text which define the
later role.

The Mockery Scene appropriately ends Act One.

C H APTER 1 8 249
NOTES:
1 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 2 - 8
2. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 6
3. E. Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 1 5
4 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 23
5. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 24
6. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 28
7. E. Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 1 8
8 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 33
9. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 29
1 0. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 35
1 1 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 36
1 2. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 37
1 3 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 39
1 4. Matt, 27:28 - 29
1 5. Luke, 23: 1 1 - 1 2
1 6. H. Box, Flaccus, 36
1 7. Jewish Encyclopedia, article: "Barabbas"

250 CHAPTER 1 8
 19

THE ALEXANDRIAN PASSION IN FULL PLAY

"Our enemies laugh among themselves."

Psalm 80:7

ACT 2

SCE N E 1

In which an act ofviolence and outrage takes

place against the temples ofthe Servant-community.

Agrippa left Alexandria to continue his journey homeward, filled

with rage, but having done all the damage he could. The Greeks were
now in as bad a spot vis-a-vis the emperor Caligula as Flaccus was. All
knew that Agrippa would make a furious complaint to his boon
companion, and that Rome was of course bound to support its client
kings. The Greeks " . . . had dared, both in word and deed, openly and
indirectly, to insult a king, a friend of Caesar's, a person who had
received Praetorian honors from the Roman Senate. " 1
Given the homicidal rages of Caligula and his unlimited power,
anything was possible.

With events closing in on them, and forced to take some action, the
Greeks made their next move and it was a stroke of genius. It had
become notorious that Caligula was deranged on the subject of his
own divinity, dressing each day in the garb of whatever god that suited
his fancy.

CHAPTER 1 9 253
 "When the moon shone bright and full he always invited the
Moon-goddess to his bed, and during the day would indulge
in whispered conversations with a statue of Capitoline Jupiter,
pressing his ear to the god's mouth, and sometimes raising his
voice in anger. " 2

The Greeks were now aware that all depended on winning over the
emperor. They did this perfectly by breaking into the synagogues all
over the city, setting up images of Caligula, and then holding prayer
services to the god. Violent fighting broke out, with the Jews forced to
throw out the images and to treat the synagogues as desecrated. The
Jews were neatly turned into enemies of Caligula and the Greeks were
now his worshippers - the Greeks who never tired of showing their
contempt for Rome were now devotees to the Caesar-cult. The point
of no return had been reached.

Gospel: The "Temple act," explosive and dramatic in the extreme,

has caused much doubt and perplexity among the scholars. Jesus
bursts into the Temple precincts, knocks over the tables of the
money-changers, drives them out with whips, and in Mark's
version, brings the Temple services to a halt. "He would not
permit any man to carry any vessel through the Temple. "3
It took the Roman army four years to do that. The questions
come to mind at once. How could Josephus remain silent if the
event had actually taken place ? Why did the Temple guard not
intervene ? They were there precisely to prevent disorder, and
with authority to cut down anyone who disrupted the services.
And presumably Jesus with his family had made pilgrimages to
the Temple over the years. Surely he knew the Temple arrange
ments. Why the violent outburst at this time and not before ?

The strangeness of the gospel episode suggests that it was taken from
the Alexandrian source and novelized by the gospel writers.

254 C H A PT E R 1 9
 SC E N E 2

In which the Servant is beaten and scourged prior to crucifixion.

The events soon escalated to violent clashes throughout the city.

Philo does not mention casualties among the Greeks, but writes
tersely, "Now the Jews though naturally well-disposed for peace could
not be expected to remain quiet whatever happened. "5
The mob was now ready for anything, and the. Greek leaders were
aware that the tide had turned in their favor. The bloodshed had
inflamed passions and made compromise impossible, and the governor
Flaccus remained demoralized and incapable of any decision.
At this point the Greeks decided to play for very high stakes and
they won. They decided to put forward the extreme program which
they had scarcely dreamed of a few months earlier. This was to get the
governor to issue a formal decree wiping out all Jewish rights and
privileges in the city and turning the clock back four hundred years.
"A few days later he issued a proclamation in which he denounced
us as foreigners and aliens and gave us no right of pleading our case,
but condemned us unjudged. "5
We have a brutally unjust sentence. It was an open invitation to the
Greeks to go ahead with "enforcing" the proclamation, now clothed in
legality and immunity.
A massive assault and Kristallnacht took place. There was pillaging
on a large scale, the Jews being driven out of the four gentile districts
of the city and crowded in a starvation siege in the original Jewish fifth
district. Philo describes the martyrdom of the Servant-community in
detail: every Jew who ventured outside the district in search of food
was butchered after the appropriate tortures, including breaking the
limbs, setting the victims on fire, and literally tearing them to pieces.
And for the Jews inside the area there was pestilence, stifling summer
heat, and lack of food and water, added to the dense overcrowding. It
was an all-out pogrom and "deportation."
On his side of the offensive, Flaccus ordered the arrest of all
members of the Jewish council of elders, corresponding to the
Sanhedrin and numbering seventy-two members. Thirty-eight of the

C H A PTER t 9 255
seventy-two were found and were publicly flogged in the theatre (in
Greek cities this was an outdoor stadium-like structure). Philo does
not give the reason for this punishment or for the crucifixions that
took place later. We can guess that there were casualties on the Greek
side and the Jews were branded as the aggressors.

"Of this council of elders, thirty-eight in number were found

in their houses and were arrested by Flaccus. He ordered them
straight-away put in bonds, and marshalled a fine procession
through the middle of the market for these elderly men,
trussed and pinioned, some with thongs and some with iron
chains. They were then taken into the theatre. It was a specta
cle most pitiable and unfitting for that place. As they stood
with their enemies seated in front to signalize their disgrace,
he ordered them all to be stripped, and then lacerated with
scourges commonly used for the degradation of the vilest
malefactors. " 6

Here a touch of gallows-humor comes in. The lower orders, when

punished, had been flogged with the lash whereas the Alexandrian
citizens, if corporal punishment were ordered, had been struck with a
flat blade. Among the "privileges" of the Jews had been the latter
penalty. Philo must now point out that the punishment was not only
outrageous but the wrong kind. The nobler penalty . . .

" . . . was observed in the case of our people by the predecessors

of Flaccus and by Flaccus himself in his first years of office . . .
The Alexandrian Jews, if they appeared to have done things
worthy of stripes, were beaten with whips more suggestive of
freemen and citizens. "7

Philo wants the decent penalty.

Gospel: It would seem that flogging a prisoner would be the most

direct and simple of procedures, yet the four gospel writers are
not at all clear on what was going on. In Matthew and Mark, the
scourging is made preliminary to the crucifixion, with the event

256 C H A PT E R 1 9
 decided upon. Luke and John make the scourging a substitute for
crucifixion, with every indication that the prisoner was to be
released after that. Only the intervention of the Jews brings about
the crucifixion at that point. Luke and John manage to disagree
further: in Luke the scourging is a threat that is not carried out; in
John it is carried out, but Pilate is blocked in his plan to release
the prisoner. Philo's account is clear and direct, but the usual
chaos and contradiction appear in the gospel accounts. The
writers work independently from the common source.

SCE N E 3

In which the Roman offical is required

by custom to release a prisoner for the feast.

However Flaccus yielded to the mob and ordered the Servant sent to
the cross. Here we have a duplication as striking as any we have come
upon, and a corresponding weakness of the gospel account as obvious
as any, with the question of copying again impossible to evade. The
crucifixions took place on August 3 1 st, which had been set aside as the
official birthday of Gaius Caligula. The Roman month had been
renamed August in honor of Augustus Caesar. Gaius, who was of the
Augustan house, had selected the 3 1 st day for his birthday. Philo
correctly points out that this was to be a day of rejoicing and festival,
and should not have been desecrated with crucifixions. He then makes
the key point that the decision was forced on the Roman official by
mob pressure: he did it "to conciliate the mob," as the account explic
itly states. Philo, who had carefully studied Jerusalem events, shows no
awareness that the same drama had been played out but eight years
earlier in the other city. We give his testimony:

"I leave out of account that if the Uewish] elders had commit
ted a host of crimes, Flaccus ought to have postponed the
punishments out of respect for the season. Officials who
conduct their administration as they should, do not pretend to
honor but really do honor their benefactors [i.e., Caesar].

C H A PT E R 1 9 257
 "They should make a practise of not punishing any
condemned person until the notable celebrations in honor of
the birthdays of the illustrious Augustan house are over.
Instead he made the celebrations an occasion for illegality, and
for punishing those who did no wrong, whom he could have
punished at a later time if he wished. But he hurried and
pressed on the matter to conciliate the mob, who were
opposed to the Jews, thinking this would help to bring them
around to make his policyt their own.
"I have known cases when on the eve of a holiday of this kind,
people who have been crucified have been taken down and their
bodies delivered to their kinfolk, because it was thought proper to
give them burial and allow the customary rites. For it was fitting
that the dead also should have the advantage of some kind treat
ment upon the birthday of an emperor, and also that the sanctity
of the festival should be maintained. But Flaccus gave no order to
take down those who had died on the cross. Instead he ordered
the execution of the living, to whom the season should have
offered a short-lived but not permanent reprieve. This would
postpone the punishment, though not remit it altogether. "8

t - The line is not clear and the editor does not explain what
"policy" is meant.

Gospel: If we are dealing with two separate incidents, Philo and the
gospel, then it must be granted that Philo is logical throughout,
while the gospel account has numerous improbabilities. The
condition for clemency is clearly present in Alexandria, where it
is put forward as the proper thing to do - not as a rigid rule by
any means. However no one has found a custom of "releasing a
prisoner for the feast" in Jerusalem, though the scholars have
looked high and low for this famous custom. An amnesty, by
definition, is a prerogative of authority, which can be bestowed or
withheld on discretion. It cannot be extorted or demanded by
those in the inferior position, as then it is no longer a privilege of
authority. Philo says merely that Flaccus "ought to have" granted
it, but it is not compulsory in Jerusalem or anywhere else.

258 C H A PT E R 1 9
 In Alexandria, the mob has the official very much on the defensive
since he needs them more than they need him. However Philo
elsewhere describes Pontius Pilate as "a man of inflexible, stubborn
and cruel disposition" and notes his "frequent executions of untried
prisoners and his endless savage ferocity. "9
Not exactly the man to show tender solicitude for Jewish customs,
especially since the custom cannot be located. We may add that to
support the amnesty scene the scholars are compelled to adopt the
timetable of John's gospel. This places the Passover as beginning on
Friday evening, with the earlier part of the day as secular. There would
be little point in "releasing a prisoner for the feast," if this feast had
taken place the previous evening, but that is what the first three gospels
assert. In what is a jarring discrepancy, these gospels place the Passover
as commencing on Thursday evening, with the Last Supper as the
Passover meal. Thus to support the amnesty scene, the scholars should
logically reject three gospels to support the fourth - or at least explain
a trial on the Passover.
For the foregoing reasons we can well conclude that Philo is giving
us the authentic form of the episode, and the gospel versions are deriv
ative.

SCE N E 4

In which the Servant is mocked, and is then crucified on the third hour.

The crucifixions follow immediately after the scourging of the

elders, with the inference that less prominent members of the Jewish
community were sent to the cross. We continue the account:

" He [Flaccus] gave orders for the execution of the living . . . and
he did this after maltreating them with the lash in the middle
of the theatre and torturing them with fire and the sword. The
show had been arranged in parts. The first spectacle lasted
from dawn till the third or fourth hour and consisted of Jews
being scourged, hung up, bound to the wheel, brutally mauled

C H A PT E R 1 9 259
 and then hauled forth for their death march through the
middle of the orchestra. After this splendid exhibition came
dancers and mimes and flute players, and all the other amuse
ments of theatrical compositions. " 1 0

The Greeks were in fine form.

Gospel: Mark's gospel sets the crucifixion at the " third hour, " i.e.,
nine in the morning. The gospels adopt the Grxco-Roman system
of starting the day at daybreak and counting the hours from that
point. The present convention, in reading the gospel, is to set this
at six a.m. thus putting 'the third hour' at nine. None of the
"Galileans" seem aware that the Jews start the "day" at the prior
evening - one of the many errors regarding Judaism found in the
gospels.

To return to Mark: he writes, "And it was the third hour and they
crucified him. " 1 1
Mark's third hour may well be an echo of the Alexandrian events.
Given the crowded events set down in his gospel - a morning trial
before the Sanhedrin, a first hearing before Pilate, a transfer of the case
to Herod Antipas, a second hearing before Pilate, the costume and
mockery scene and the processional to Golgotha, placed outside the
city walls - then a crucifixion at nine in the morning becomes so
improbable that a gospel writer would not think to put it down on his
own initiative. The likelihood is that Mark found it in his source,
namely Philo.
The other gospels reject Mark's third hour and venture guesses of
their own. As Josephus puts it, "their writings have no basis in sure
knowledge, but present the facts as conj ectured by individual
authors. " 1 2
Luke and Matthew place the crucifixion at noon, since they aver
there was darkness over the earth from noon till three (from the
"sixth" to the "ninth" hours). In John's gospel the trial is still going on
at noon: "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the
sixth hour, and Pilate said to the Jews, Behold your king. "13

260 C H A PT E R 1 9
 Presumably the actual crucifixion takes place some time after that.
Thus we have three different accounts from the eye witnesses. Again
we have the strange fact that a clear direct statement in the source will
have chaotic and divergent treatments in the gospels.

SCE N E 5

In which the Victim attends a last supper with his companions,

then is seized treacherously. His companions desert him,
and he is led away to his doom.

Flaccus was to have several carefree weeks after he had solved the
judenfrage on August 3 1 st. He had all the Greeks with him, but he
forgot that the j ovial emperor had him on the death list after all. It may
be that Agrippa was able to forward a complaint from the Holy Land
to Rome, but this is shaving the timetable rather close. The downfall of
Flaccus occurred in early October, as Philo dates it, during the Feast of
Tabernacles (Sukkot), which occurs at that time. We are left with the
possibility that again Caligula acted on impulse, out of the blue, and
ordered the action from Rome.
There is something close to miracle in the way events worked out.
At any rate Philo brings in the religious lesson: "Justice, the champion
and defender of the wronged, the avenger upon unholy men and deeds,
began to enter the lists against him . . . God, it is clear, takes care for
human affairs . . . " 1 4
The events that befell Flaccus are carefully set forth by Philo as
punishment and recompense. However, we come to a sequence of
events which in Philo's version apply to "Judas" - that is, to the
traitor Flaccus, while in the gospel the events turn up as applied to
Jesus. As we shall see, there is a Last Supper, a Via Crucis, and a
Garden Scene, all of them befalling the traitor, but transposed to
"Jesus" in the gospel. Flaccus now takes center stage.
There has always been an ambiguity, a covert linkage, between Judas
and Christ. These two alone wager their lives on the outcome while the
others have a lesser role. In some variant gospels put out by heretical

C H APTER 1 9 26 1
sects, it is Judas who goes to the cross instead of Christ. This theme
was used in Ignazio Silane's novel, Bread and Wine, and the identifi
cation is made explicit. The traitor, Murica, informs on his comrades to
the fascist police, then repents of his deed. What follows is a studied
duplication of the Passion.
The Prisoner is mocked by the police, just as the Roman soldiers did
the mocking:

"Then they crowded round him and put a chamber pot on his
head . . . they put a broom in his right hand . . . and they took a
red carpet off the floor and wrapped it round him in mimicry
of royal purple."

After the death of the traitor his parents reenact the Eucharist: "This
is his bread, you know, the bread he can no longer eat. This is his wine,
the wine he can no longer drink."
Step by step, Flaccus goes his own way, but it parallels the other
version. Philo, caught up in his hatred for this man, is unaware that he
has created a dramatic and, at the end, a pitiable figure. A writer
looking about for material would be quite correct in taking several
passages from the ordeal of "Judas" and ascribing them to "Jesus." To
indicate the ambiguity of source we will use the word "Victim" rather
than "Servant" and continue with our summary of Philo's book.
For the arrest scene Philo is directly on target eight times in a row.
Either he has a rare first edition of the gospel, or Jesus is under a
strange compulsion to duplicate events that will occur eight years after
his death. The parallels all relate to the Last Supper or the Arrest Scene:

a) There is a small gathering involving close companions.

b) It is described as a 'feast.'
c) It is held in the home of a third party.
d) There is a spy mission; an outsider comes in secretly to observe
the proceedings, and he mingles with the servants. (Will he be
challenged and will he deny it thrice ?)
e) The arrest takes place just as the Victim raises a glass of wine; at
that moment he foresees his own death, and a mood of doom and
prophecy is established, with the wine linked to impending death.

262 C H A PT E R 1 9
f) The arrest is made by soldiers armed with swords.
g) His companions are terrified and all desert him.
h) He is led away under arrest, and it is stated with finality that this
will be his last supper on earth where he will be at peace.

All these are found in a tense passage of little more than one page of
text, with scarcely a word wasted. It would take something like desper
ation to argue that all this is mere coincidence to the gospel version and
that it did not influence the gospel writers.

We give Philo's account:

"A centurion named Bassus was sent from Italy under orders
from the emperor, along with a company of soldiers whom he
commanded . . . When it was evening the ship was brought to
land. Bassus disembarked with his men and went forward
without recognizing or being recognized by anyone . . .
Learning that the garrison commander as well as Flaccus were
feasting with someone, he hurried with unabated speed to the
house of the giver of the feast, by name Stephanio, one of the
freedmen of Tiberius Caesar.
"It was in Stephanio's house that the two were being enter
tained, and Bassus, keeping in the background a little way off,
sent in one of his men attired as a servant to reconnoiter,
hoping by this artifice to maintain secrecy. The soldier made
his way into the dining hall in the guise of a servant of one or
other of the visitors. Having taken a careful look around he
returned with his information to Bassus.
"Bassus, learning of the unguarded condition of the
entrances and the scantiness of Flaccus' retinue - for barely
ten or fifteen of his household slaves had accompanied him -
gave the signal to his companions and rushed in suddenly.
Some of the soldiers took their stand along the dining hall,
with swords in their girdles, and they surrounded Flaccus
before he saw them, since he was drinking the health of some
particular person and toasting the company.

C H A PT E R 1 9 263
 "But when Bassus came forward into the middle of the room
Flaccus saw him and was at once struck speechless with consterna
tion. He wished to rise but when he looked at the guard around
him, he knew even before he heard it what Gaius wanted to do with
him. He knew what orders had been given to the newcomers and
what would be his fate in the immediate future. For the mind has a
remarkable power of seeing all at once, and hearing altogether, the
successive events which will cover a long space of time.
"As for his fellow-guests, each of them rose shuddering and
petrified with fear, lest his presence in Flaccus' company at the
feast was a crime destined for punishment. For it was unsafe
to flee and moreover impossible, since the entrance had been
occupied in advance. Flaccus himself was led away by the
soldiers, upon orders from Bassus. Thus it was from a
convivial gathering that he made his final departure."15

So Philo reports the Last Supper and the Arrest Scene. It lacks only
a farewell discourse by Flaccus to his companions. Philo then appends
the moral:

"Such was the unprecedented blow which fell upon Flaccus,

carried off like a prisoner of war in the country in which he
was governing. It was caused, I am convinced, by his treat
ment of the Jews, whom in his craving for aggrandisement he
had resolved to exterminate utterly. " 1 6

The very force of the declaration convinces us, as if we needed it,

that he could have had no knowledge of any gospel parallels. He is
reporting the original event.

Gospel: Of the parallels noted, we will confine ourself to two of

these since they are among the most interesting and dramatically
effective in the narrative. One is the spy mission of Peter, and the
other is the flight of the disciples. It is in episodes of this nature
that the gospel story gains its highest credibility. There is the
abruptly human, vivid and immediate scene, with the feeling that
"it could not have been invented therefore it has to be true."
------- ----- ---- -----

264 CHAPTER 1 9
 The flight of the disciples carries conviction not only because it is so
understandable, but because it is "an admission against interest,"
which always impresses a jury. If it damages the case and shows the
saints in a very human role then the argument arises that an editor
would have omitted the scene. Since it is there it must have happened.

Similarly the spy mission appears as a rash and desperate act on the
part of Peter, which rather improves on the original since he shows fear
when exposed and proceeds to deny his own participation. Again it
becomes a good argument in favor of the historicity of the passage.

The human weakness argument holds up very well until we note the
parallels in Philo. We now have the alternate explanation that the
gospel writers had the good sense to incorporate this material into
their accounts. We have the source narrated by Philo rather than the
gospel history. The duplications are too numerous to suggest other
WISe.

With the arrest ofFlaccus, the curtain falls on Act Two.

C H A PT E R 1 9 265
NOTES:
1 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 40
2. Suetonius, Gaius Caligula, 22
3. Mark, 1 1 : 1 6
4 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 48
5. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 54
6. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 74
7. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 79
8. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 81 - 84
9. Philo, Legation to Gaius, 301
1 0. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 85
1 1 . Mark, 1 5:25
12. Josephus, Contra Apion, 1 : 1 5
1 3. John, 19: 1 6
1 4. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 04
1 5 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 09 - 1 1 5
1 6. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 1 6

266 CHAPTER 1 9
 20

THE ALEXANDRIAN PASSION CONCLUDES

"Justice, the champion and defender of the wronged, the

avenger against ungodly men and deeds . . . "
Philo of Alexandria, Concerning Flaccus, 104

ACT 3

SCE N E 1

In which the Servant-community is miraculously resurrected at dawn,

and all who had been in deepest despair now rejoice at their salvation.

Flaccus had an untroubled month after celebrating the emperor's

birthday, culminating with an excellent dinner at Stephanio's. The Jews
were trapped in the ghetto at the other end of the city. Philo now gives
us the "evangel. " There will be a resurrection scene, here applied to the
community, but transferred to the person of Jesus in the gospel account.

"At the time of the arrest of Flaccus the Jews were holding the
national feast of the autumn equinox [i.e., Tabernacles] in which
it is the custom of the Jews to live in tents. But nothing of the
festal proceedings was being carried out. The [community]
rulers, after suffering deadly and intolerable injuries and
outrages, were still in prison. Their misfortunes were regarded by
the common folk as shared by the whole nation, and the special
sufferings which each of them experienced individually left them
extremely depressed . . . Sorrow laid them prostrate through their
powerlessness to find any remedy for their great miseries.

C H A PTE R 20 269
 "They were in this very painful condition, oppressed by an
overwhelming burden. But while they were crowded in their
houses because night had fallen, there came some messengers
who announced that the arrest of Flaccus had been made.
They supposed that it was no true story but was something
fabricated in order to try them, and they were still more
pained at what seemed a mockery and a snare. But when a
tumult arose in the city, then the night-watchmen were
running up and down and horsemen were constantly riding
back and forth to and from the camp at full speed.
"Some of the people, stirred by so unusual an event, came
out of their houses to get information as to what had
occurred. For it was clear that there was some upheaval. And
when they learned of the arrest and that Flaccus was now in
custody, then with hands outstretched to heaven they sang
hymns and led songs of triumph to God who watches over
human affairs . . . All night long they continued to sing hymns
and songs of praise, and at dawn they poured out through the
gates and made their way to the beaches close at hand.
"Standing in the most open space they cried aloud with one
accord, 'Most mighty King of mortals and immortals, we have
come here to call on earth and sea, and air and heaven - to
give Thee thanks . . . For the common enemy of the nation -
Thou hast brought low. " 1

There is a long hymn of pra1se at this pomt, which we have

condensed.

Gospel: It is plain that Philo has given us the dominant themes: the
despair of the disciples; the motif of being 'locked in their rooms'
because of fear: understandable fear in Philo's version, but 'fear of
the Jews' in the gospel version; and the disbelief at the news at
first. In the gospel version, the women who went to the tomb and
then announced the Resurrection are not believed: "their words
seemed as idle tales. "2

As usual, Luke is closest to the source.

270 C H A PT E R 20
 Luke has also copied several lines of the dawn psalm of Philo almost
verbatim, and transferred them to the "disciples" in Jerusalem: "They
lifted up their voice to God with one accord and said, Lord, you are
God, and have made heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them,"3
followed by a quote from the Psalms wherein the mighty are laid low.
Luke has the interesting gall to copy a Judaic author and Psalmist in
order to compose a scene clearly aimed at the Jewish authorities.
With the rescue of the Servant-community, the rest of the book is
concerned with the fate of Flaccus, now the Victim. The linkage to the
gospel account continues.

SCE N E 2

In which the Victim is accused by his enemies,

is condemned, andjourneys towards his death.

We are following the sequence in Philo, where, as we suggested, the

career of Flaccus "after the fall" takes on tragic dimensions. This part
of the story finds Luke's gospel and Acts coming more and more to the
fore.
Flaccus was brought as a prisoner to Rome to face Caesar, (as was
Paul), and there Flaccus got a full dose of false testimony. The two
ringleaders of the Greeks, Lampo and Isidorus, had gotten there with
uncanny speed, apparently before he did, and were ready to express
the deep indignation of the Alexandrians against this evil man. This
seemed the best way for the Greeks to extricate themselves from ties
to someone on the losing side. To double-cross their ally was quite in
order.

Gospel: In describing these two accusers Philo provides useful leads

on how to portray "scribes and Pharisees." Lampo, the scribe,
had been employed as court clerk where he specialized in falsify
ing evidence:

C H A P T E R 20 271
 "He remodelled and rearranged the documents and turned
them upside down, while he picked up money at every sylla
ble . . . a pen-murderer whose writings had done multitudes to
death . . . in return for the accursed fee, better described as hire,
which he received."4

Allied with him was Isidorus, the demagogue, who was . . .

"nothing behind him in villainy, pandering to the mob,

practised in producing disturbance and confusion, a foe to
peace and tranquility . . . ever at pains to keep in contact with
him an irregular and unstable horde of promiscuous, ill
assorted p eople . . . who launched accusations with no
foundation, spinning long lying screeds of ribald doggerel. "5

In Luke's version, the Jews "stirred up lewd fellows of the baser sort,
and gathered a company and set all the city in an uproar. " 6
"The Jews which had come down from Jerusalem stood round about
and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could
not prove."7
This is all part of Luke's "creativity. "
Lampo had in his time run afoul of the Romans and had gotten a
two-year ordeal of drawn-out court appearances, which has been
compared to the two years Paul spent in prison in Caesarea, as Luke
would have us believe. Philo writes:

"Lampo had been put on trial for impiety to Tiberius Caesar

and as the trial had dragged on for two years, he had broken
down under it. For the ill-will of his judge had concocted
postponements and delays, since he wished to keep hanging
over Lampo the fear of the uncertain future for as long as
possible, and to render his life more painful than death, even
if there should be an acquittal on the charge. "8

Here one scholar notes: "The parallel to Paul's case is obvious . . . It may
be merely accidental coincidence, though I think this very improbable. "9
Again Luke copies.

272 C H A P T E R 20
 SCE N E 3

In which the Victim must travel his via dolorosa on the way to execution.

As to Flaccus, after the hearing in Rome with objective testimony

from the two Greek experts, the prisoner was banished to a remote
barren isle in the Aegean, to which Caligula would send the killers in
due course. Flaccus realized this. One did not reach the highest
echelons without knowing the rules of the game. The doomed journey
is described in language which the gospel of Luke echoes:

"He again travelled the road from Rome to B rundisium which

he had travelled a few years before, at the time when he had
been appointed governor of Egypt and its neighbor Libya, so
that the cities which then beheld him puffed with pride,
parading the grandeur of his good fortune, might once more
behold him covered with dishonor instead. Fingers pointed at
him and reproaches poured upon him." 1 0

However some expressed compassion: "Whenever he disembarked

the people flocked thither, the baser natures out of malice and the rest,
whose way it is to find lessons of wisdom in the fate of others, to
sympathize. " 1 1

Luke: "And there followed after him a great company o f people and
of women, who also bewailed and lamented him. " 1 2

In all this we are never told what Flaccus was charged with and why
he must die. It could not be for acts against the Jews, since Philo's own
delegation in Rome, once he got there, was treated with great hostility
by Caligula. It seems that in a passion play there is no room for logic.
Something violent has to happen and that explains everything. The
medium is the massacre.
The sea voyage to the place of exile has Luke busily taking notes.
There is a storm, and a tabulation of stops along the way.

C H A P T E R 20 273
 "Crossing the Isthmus of Lechaeum to the opposite coast and
coming down to Cenchreae, the port of Corinth, he was
forced by his guards, who refused him any kind of halt, to
embark at once on a small merchant ship [not a grain ship
bound for Rome ?] . They put to sea, where the violence of a
contrary wind caused him to suffer a thousand discomforts,
and only with difficulty did they arrive at the Piraeus. When
the tempest ceased he coasted along Attica to Cape Sunium,
and then continued his journey along the series of islands,
namely Helene, Cia, Cythnus and the rest. " 1 3

Luke: "And we sailed thence, and came the next day to Chios, and
the next day to Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium, and the next day we
came to Miletus . . . " 1 4
The wretched prisoner arrived finally at the tiny isle of Andros, and
makes the familiar prophecy: "As I journey in my misery it is as
though I were bearing the corpse that is myself to a tomb . . . I die a
long, drawn-out death in which consciousness still lives. " 1 5

Luke: "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem . . . to be delivered unto the

gentiles . . . and they shall scourge and put to death . . " 1 6
.

Upon arrival at the island he at times acted out the role of the
Gadarene lunatic:

"His wild gestures were just like those of a madman. He would

often jump about and run up and down and fling himself on
the ground. Then he would cry out, 'I am Flaccus who had
among his subjects great forces of infantry and cavalry.' " 17

The gospel version reads:

"He had broken the chains to pieces and no man could control
him. Always, day and night, he was in the mountains and the
tombs, crying and cutting himself . . . And he said, My name is
Legion. " 1 8

274 C H A PT E R 20
 SCE N E 4

In which the Victim, alone at night, abandoned by all

gives way to despair at his approachingfate.
He admits his role as a traitor and makes full confession and repentence.

Here we have the Garden Scene, which provides a remarkable

blending of the roles of Jesus and Judas. We have the despair and
abandonment and loneliness of Jesus, together with the confession of
Judas. Towards the close of the drama Philo provides his protagonist
with a long soliloquy. At last we find out why Judas repented. It
appears that in the Greek theatre the villain was required to go center
stage in the final scene and announce his guilt to the audience. This was
known as the "palinode" or recantation, therefore Philo puts it in. The
scene has an intuitive dramatic rightness: the loneliness, the despair, the
night, the knowledge of impending death and the dramatic imperative
that demands the confession. No one has explained why Judas acted as
he did. Philo gives us the answer.

"A few months later Flaccus bought a small piece of ground

and spent much of his time there in solitude. He bewailed
with tears and groans that this should be his fate. It is said that
once upon a midnight he became possessed as in a mystical
frenzy, and coming out of the shelter he had built there, he
turned his eyes upward to heaven and the stars.
"Beholding that vast spectacle, he raised his voice. 'King of
gods and men,' he cried out, 'indeed You do not disregard the
Jewish nation, nor do they report Your providence incor
rectly. All who say they do not find You a champion and
defender go astray from true belief. I am clear proof of this,
because all the acts which I madly committed against the Jews
have befallen me. I allowed them to be robbed of their posses
sions - for that I had my heritage from my father and mother
taken from me, besides all I received by gifts and benefactions.
I cast on them the slur that they were foreigners without civic
rights - therefore I lost my rights and have been driven into
exile from all the habitable world. Some I marched into the

C H A PT E R 20 275
 theatre and ordered them to be maltreated before the eyes of
their bitterest enemies - I was not marched into one theatre
or one city but paraded through all Italy to Brundisium, and
through all the Peloponneses to Corinth, and past Attica and
the islands to Andros my prison.
"I killed some and when others killed I took no steps to
punish the murderers. That the avenging furies await me I
know full well. The forces of punishment are already standing
at the barriers and press forward eagerly for my blood. Every
day or rather every hour I die in anticipation, and suffer many
deaths instead of the final one.' " 1 9

Philo adds:

"He often became frightened and terrified, and his limbs

shivered and shuddered. For the one thing which by nature is
capable of consoling human life, hope the comforter, he had
lost. "20

Luke, as usual, comes closest and is the only gospel to supply physi
cal details: "And being in agony he prayed more earnestly, and his
sweat was as great drops of blood falling on the ground. "21

Gospel: The Garden Scene in the gospel is also cast in the form of a
soliloquy, since there is no one present or awake to hear the
prayer uttered by Jesus. It is the only example of the soliloquy
form to be found in the New Testament. Granting all poetic
license to the gospel writers, we must ask why they departed from
their standard narrative form to give us a scene exactly duplicat
ing Philo in presentation, stage setting, hour of night, and mood
of prayer, resignation and terror. The evidence detonates on the
page that the scene was copied from Philo.

276 C H A PT E R 20
 SCE N E 5

"Now this man judas bought afield with the rewards ofhis iniquity, and
falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed
out. "
Acts 1 : 1 8

The ordained hour came for Flaccus. He saw the killing party in the
distance, and this man who had revealed a brilliant and kingly nature, who
had commanded the legions, now ran for his life like a frightened animal.

"He struck out from the road and raced away from them
through the rough ground, forgetting perhaps that Andros is
not the mainland but an island, in which speed is no use . . . The
assassins never lost a moment in pursuing him. When they had
caught him, some of them at once dug a pit while others
violently dragged him along, though he was resisting and
screaming and struggling hard. The result of this is that he ran
upon the blows as does a wild beast, and his whole body was
pierced with wounds . . . The whole place was flooded with the
blood which poured like a fountain from the many veins
which were sundered . . . As his corpse was dragged to the pit,
most of the parts fell asunder. "22

Gospel: Luke faithfully copies the detail that 'the whole place was
flooded with blood'; "All his bowels gushed out, and it became
known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was
called in their language 'Akeldama' that is, 'field of blood.' "23
This was known to all the inhabitants except Matthew, who
supplies a variant ending: "And Judas cast down the pieces of
silver in the Temple and departed, and went away and hanged
himself. "24
As usual, he prefers to work with the Hebrew script, copying the
death of Ahitophel, who sought to betray David: "Ahitophel
went away to his city, put his household in order, and hanged
himself. "25

C H A P T E R 20 27 7
 Luke works with one source and Matthew with another, indicating
that we are dealing with a fictional event. The passion narrative is being
constructed out of source materials - of which the main one was
Philo, but other sources were used.
As for the Alexandrian events and the story he has told, Philo sums
up the moral: "Such was the fate of Flaccus, who thereby became an
undeniable proof that the help that God can give was not withdrawn
from the Jewish nation. "26
It is clear that Philo has composed a unified, well-planned drama
that moves in a straight line from the opening scene of high promise to
the unmarked grave on the lonely isle. And each episode in the story
finds a parallel in the gospel Passion. Crossan, as noted, had limited
himself to three episodes in the account to find gospel parallels. We can
now state that the entire book was used by the gospel writers to
construct their passion narratives.

ADDE N D U M

In which the events in Alexandria,

amounting to civil war, called for a hearing in Rome.

The events in Alexandria, amounting to civil war, called for a hearing

in Rome. Philo headed the Jewish delegation, and he gives his account
of what transpired in a work with the title Legation to Gaius (i.e., the
emperor Caligula). The rival Greek delegation included Isidorus and
Lampon, ringleaders of the Greek faction, also Apion, whom we have
met through Josephus.
Philo reveals that the hearing before Caligula was a grim farce. For
the affairs of the most important city in the empire Caligula had
deigned to grant a few moments while he was preoccupied with
furnishing and decorating two of his villas outside Rome, these in the
gardens of Maecenas and Lamia. As he darted from room to room
giving instructions on the decor, he would call out questions over his
shoulder. The Jewish and Greek envoys would have to scramble after
the deranged emperor, trying to get a word in.

278 C H A PT E R 20
 Philo gives the opening scene:

"We were brought into Gaius' presence, and as soon as we saw

him we bowed low to the ground with the greatest reverence
and punctiliousness, and we greeted him with the title
'Augustus Imperator.' His reply was so polite and kind that
we despaired not only for our case but also for our lives. For
with a sneering grin he said, 'So you are the god-haters, the
people who do not believe that I am a god. I am acknowledged
as a god by all other nations but am denied that title by you.'
Then raising his hands to heaven he uttered a Name which it
is a sin even to hear, let alone to pronounce.
"The envoys from the other party were overjoyed, believing
from these first remarks from Gaius that their case was
already won. They waved their arms about, danced up and
down, and called him by the title of all the gods." 27

As a brutal insult to the Jews, he had shouted the Hebrew name

Jehovah (pronounced by the Jews "Adonai" - "our Lord"). A further
and more deadly blow came soon after, when it was learned that he
planned to have a gigantic statue of himself placed in the Temple in
Jerusalem. The project was halted by his assassination, but Philo's
book ends on a note of despair while Gaius' verdict was yet awaited:

"How hard it was that the future of the Jews everywhere

should be at stake in our persons - we, the five envoys. If
Gaius were to give in to our enemies what other city would be
quiet? What synagogue would be left unmolested ? Which of
our political rights would not be overthrown?"28

The war with Rome would start twenty-five years later.

Without fail, in every instance where independent Jewish testi

mony is allowed into the record, there is challenge and contradiction
to the Christian case. Philo's account contains a memorandum
submitted to the emperor, listing examples where the Romans
respected Jewish customs and traditions. This memorandum reveals

C H A PT E R 20 279
a contradictory version to the Superscription Scene in the gospel,
wherein Pilate posts an inscription offensive to the Jews and refuses
to remove It.

We give Philo's version:

"Pilate was an official who had been appointed procurator of

Judea. With the idea of offending the Jews rather than honor
ing Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod's palace in the
holy city. These bore no figure but only the inscription which
stated the name of the dedicator and the name of the person
being honored. "2 9

The inscription then was to "Tiberius Caesar," but by placing this

demonstratively in Herod's palace, the plain intent was a taunt at lost
Jewish sovereignty, which now was taken over by a Roman ruler. The
shields meant "Tiberius, King of the Jews."

The Jews protested,

" . . . choosing as their spokesmen Herod's four sons and other

officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation. . . . But
Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel dispo
sition, obstinately refused [What I have written - I have written}.
The Jews then shouted, 'Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause
a war! Do not break the peace ! ' "30

In the gospel version Pilate posts the inscription "Jesus King of the
Jews" and the Jewish leaders accept this then slink off. The Philo
version shows that the leaders would not budge till the inscription was
removed, even at the cost of a war. Pilate still refused to remove the
shields, and a letter of protest was sent to the emperor, Tiberius.
Tiberius ordered the shields removed and sent to the Roman base at
Caesarea. The Jews had forced Pilate to back down.31

280 C H A P T E R 20
 Tiberius himself was of a "cruel and inflexible disposition," ready to
punish any disobedience. We can be sure that Pilate would not dare
post another offensive inscription after that. Hence the gospel version
- "Jesus King of the Jews " - must be labelled fictional, and a distor
tion of the original. In every case, the apparent authority of the gospel
version of events derives from the suppression of the contradictory
source.

C H A PT E R 20 28 1
NOTES:
1 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 1 6 - 1 24
2. Luke 24: 1 1
3. Acts 4:24 - 25
4. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 3 1
5. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 3 5
6. Acts, 1 7:5
7. Acts 25:7
8. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 128
9. F. Jackson and K. Lake, editors, Beginnings of Christianity, 5:330
10. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 52
1 1 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 54
1 2. Luke, 23:27
1 3. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 5 5
1 4 . Acts, 20: 1 5
1 5 . Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 59
16. Luke, 1 8:3 1
1 7. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 63
1 8. Mark, 5:5, 9, 1 1
1 9. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 68 - 1 75, abbreviated.
20. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 76
2 1 . Luke, 22:44
22. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 86 - 1 90
23. Acts 1 : 1 9
24. Matthew, 27:5
25. 2 Samuel, 1 7:23
26. Philo, Concerning Flaccus, 1 9 1
27. Philo, Legation to Gaius, 352 - 3 54
28. Philo, Legation to Gaius, 371
29. Philo, Legation to Gaius, 299
30. Philo, Legation to Gaius, 300 - 301
3 1 . Philo, Legation to Gaius, 304 - 305

282 C H A PT E R 2 0
 21

JOSEPHUS AND THE jAMES PASSAGE

"Those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered

the most fair-minded, and who were strict in observance of
the Law, were offended . . . "
Josephus, Antiquities, 20:201

Supplementing Philo's account, we present material from Josephus

bearing on the passion narrative. This will serve further to demonstrate
the fictional nature of the gospel account, and will also establish that
Josephus, in having his own writings used as a source by the gospel
writers, could not have been aware of the events.

The most important of these is the "Annas episode" found in

Antiquities, volume 20, paragraphs 1 97 - 203, which contains these
major elements of evidence:

The passage, in the present text, contains a reference to the slaying

of James "brother to Jesus called the Christ" hence is always cited
by those supporting the disputed reference to Jesus found in
Antiquities, volume 1 8, paragraphs 63, 64, and proving that
Josephus was aware of the existence of Jesus. The reference to
James appears as a single line imbedded in a rather lengthy
episode dealing with the high priest Ananus. The line appears
irrelevant to the content of the Ananus episode, and could be
deleted with no effect on that story. This at the outset is a good
hint that the James passage is a Christian interpolation. Line 200,
in our present text, refers to "James, brother to Jesus called the
Christ."
In context, as will be shown, a large question mark can be placed
against the genuineness of this phrase.

C H A PT E R 2 1 285
 There is good evidence that the passage served as a source for
John's gospel and explains why his gospel diverges from the other
three, known as the Synoptics. Raymond Brown states: "There is
not one iota of evidence in John to show that he or his readers
knew about the Synoptic Sanhedrin session on the night before
Jesus died. " 1
In John, Jesus is brought before "the high priest Annas " (identi
fied with Ananus in Josephus), and Brown states that some
scholars "think that only Annas was mentioned in John's source
with Caiaphas added in later Johannine editing. " 2
Only Josephus reports a lynch trial by Annas, making that the
obvious source.

The account in Josephus brings in details at wide variance with

gospel episodes, again undermining the credibility of these
episodes.

While the alleged James passage has been overshadowed by the

Testimonium (as the passage in Antiquities, volume 1 8, paragraphs 63,
64 is often referred to), it has received a surprisingly large degree of
support. Scholars who cannot bring themselves to accept the
Testimonium as genuine turn to the James passage as a fallback
position. It shows that Josephus did refer to Jesus, no matter how
obliquely, hence the existence of Jesus is proved after all. We must
therefore examine this in detail.
Before quoting the entire Ananus episode in context, we call atten
tion to the following points, to be noted by the reader:

1 . The charge that is always brought against Josephus is that he of

course knows the full story of what the Jews did to Jesus, and if
he fails to make a full detailed confession then he is accused of
cover-up. But here he narrates that a vengeful high priest carried
out a lynch trial and execution that was illegal. A brutal episode is
narrated candidly and without suppression. The plain inference is
that if Josephus knew of "Jesus" he would have reported it just as
candidly.

286 CHAPTER 2 1
2. Josephus states that the elder Ananus was "extremely fortunate. "
This worthy appears in the gospel account as "Annas," the father
in-law of Caiaphas. It is to this Annas that Jesus is first brought
upon his arrest, and who then sends Jesus to Caiaphas.3 It seems
unnecessary praise to call this man extremely fortunate for
helping slay the Messiah of the Jews. How could Josephus praise
such a man if he knew of the gospel story ? Josephus, a born story
teller and the authority par excellence on the high priesthood, is
also unaware that the family of Ananus is carrying on a blood
feud with the family of Jesus: the father helps kill Jesus, and the
son kills James. How could Josephus be silent ?

3. In dealing with the enormous mass of narrative material in his

books, Josephus constantly uses reminder phrases - "as I have
mentioned previously . . . as I have already explained."
These phrases occur twice in the present episode but are conspic
uously omitted in referring to James. Here Josephus should
certainly have written "James, the brother of Jesus called the
Christ, who, as I have already stated, was put to death by Pilate."
And what would the scholars not give for that phrase. The text
certainly calls for it. How could Josephus omit it ? We leave it to
the apologists to explain that one.

4. The text states that Ananus " . . . convened the judges of the San
hedrin and brought before them . . . " those who were accused.
The inference is that he is haling men before a court of which he
himself was not a part. Josephus nowhere states that the high
priest was himself a judge in the Sanhedrin. Nor does it appear
elsewhere in the literature that the high priest himself was a judge
in the ordinary sessions of the Sanhedrin. It was precisely the
convening of a kangaroo court by a high priest, with subservient
judges doing his bidding, that offended the "fair-minded" element
in the city. We must ask whether Josephus had any awareness of
gospel accounts where the high priests "Annas" and Caiaphas
were judges in the court and force through the lynch verdict.

C H A PTE R 2 1 287
5 . The trumped-up charge against the accused was that they " . . . had
transgressed the Law. "
This is an obvious impossibility if the James of the Jerusalem
church is meant, since all the accounts emphasize his extreme
orthodoxy. Surely Josephus would know of this, if he knew
anything of the Jerusalem Christians. At every point the story
unravels. And it is quite strange that the scholar-apologists remain
silent at this open error. This shows the reference to "James " to be
a Christian addition to Josephus.

6. The passage goes on to state that after the legal lynchings,

" . . . those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the
most fair- minded, and who were strict in observance of the Law,
were offended at this."
This points to the Pharisees, who emerge with complete honor. It
cannot refer to the Sadducees, " . . . who indeed are much harsher
than any of the other Jews when they sit in judgment. "
Here the editor, in a footnote, (Loeb edit. 493, note g), pointedly
quotes another passage from Josephus: "The Pharisees are
naturally lenient in the matter of punishment. "4

Again we have questions. If the Pharisees were the sworn enemies of

Jesus, as the gospels affirm, then we cannot understand why they were
concerned in the slightest with James, brother of Jesus and the leading
Christian in Jerusalem. And if the Pharisees were fair-minded after all,
then this places in question every episode of plotting and villainy in the
gospels where they were supposed to take part. In Christian parlance
the word "Pharisee" has been made a taunt and a curse, and here,
finally, they emerge with honor.

7. Josephus then narrates that the "fair-minded" element then met

with Albinus, the Roman official about to take office in Judea,
and informed him that the high priest " . . . had no authority to
convene the Sanhedrin without his [the Roman's] consent."
Josephus broadly implies that this was the first time that the
Sanhedrin had convened to judge a case without first getting
permission from the Roman authorities. The high priest Ananus

288 C H A PT E R 2 1
 had done something that no one had presumed to do before,
which was why the Roman official was enraged. Certainly
Josephus is silent as to previous illegal sessions of that court.

This means that Josephus was unaware that the Sanhedrin had
conducted a full dress trial of Jesus, with arrest, witnesses, cross
examination and formal death sentence, before breaking the news to
Pilate that a trial had taken place. And there were further court
proceedings without Roman knowledge or consent: the lynch trial and
slaying of Stephen, the mass arrests carried out by Paul in Jerusalem
and further orders to Paul to make arrests in Damascus. Josephus is
unaware of these lurid and imaginary events. Major blocks of the
gospels and Acts then fall apart.

8. The passage is vintage Josephus - clear, detailed, and with all the
maj or figures named. We are given time and place, in a careful
account, in his usual reportorial style. How could he have failed
to give us the Jesus story with equal coverage and with equal
detail ? If we compare the "brush strokes" of this passage with the
style of the Testimonium we would conclude at once that
Josephus never wrote the latter.

9. In context, the James-passage is a single line in an episode dealing

primarily with the illegal behavior of a high priest, "the younger
Ananus." This episode, counting prologue and epilogue, covers
seven numbered text-passages - Antiquities 2 0 : 1 97-203 -
comprising thirty-nine lines of text, with important material
coming before and after the reference to James, found in passage
200. In the New Testament literature this episode is never quoted
in full, with all thirty-nine lines of text set down. Only passage
200 is quoted, dealing with James. Just what is there in the other
passages that makes the scholars so reluctant to put these down in
print? Perchance it means giving Josephus a day in court and the
chance to give his own testimony - and with the danger that he
will turn out to be a witness against instead of a witness for the
gospel story.

C H A PTE R 2 1 289
1 0. The possibility of Christian interpolation has been admitted by
some writers. Henneke argues that while the text as a whole is
genuine, the original referred only to "certain persons" and James
was not mentioned. "It is possible that there is a Christian inter
polation in the text . . . In that case Josephus wrote only of the
judicial murder of certain persons accused of violation of the
L aw. n5

We now give the complete episode, with several phrases in italics for
emphasis, and with the disputed reference to James in brackets.
Josephus writes:

"Upon learning of the death of Festus, Caesar [Nero] sent

Albinus to Judea as procurator [AD 62]. The king [Herod
Agrippa II] removed Joseph from the high priesthood and
bestowed this office on the son of Ananus, who was also called
Ananus. It is said that the elder Ananus was extremely fortunate.
For he had five sons, all of whom became high priests of God,
after he himself had enjoyed the office for a very long time - a
thing that had never happened to any other of our high priests. "6

"The younger Ananus who, as we have said, had been

appointed to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and
unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who
are indeed much harsher than any ofthe other jews when they sit in
judgment, as I have already explained. Possessed of such a charac
ter, Ananus thought he had a favorable opportunity, because
Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the way. So he
convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them
certain men {and a man named james, the brother ofjesus who was
called the Christ}. He accused them of having transgressed the law
and delivered them up to be stoned."7

"Those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the

most fair-minded, and who were strict in observance of the law, were
offended at this. They secretly sent to King Agrippa, urging
him to order Ananus to desist from any further actions of this

290 CHAPTER 2 1
 sort, since he had not even been correct in his first step.
Certain of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his
way from Alexandria. They informed him that Ananus had no
authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent. Convinced
by these words, Albinus wrote to Ananus, threatening to take
vengeance upon him. King Agrippa, because of Ananus' actions,
deposed him from the high priesthood, which he had held for
three months. He replaced him with Jesus son of Damnaeus." 8

Concerning the above, the "fair-minded" reader may well conclude

that the reference to "James, brother of Jesus called the Christ" has no
relevance to the story, and is a forgery. As to the main body of the
passage, it clearly shows wide divergences to the gospel content.
As it is, the gospel writers make free use of Josephus. He appears
thinly disguised as "Joseph of Arimathea" where he figures in the
episode of the Descent from the Cross. The four gospels relate that a
"Joseph of Arimathea" requested permission of the Roman consul to
remove the body from the cross, and the permission was granted.
Mark adds the detail that the victim may not yet be dead:

"Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable counselor, who also

awaited the kingdom of God, came and went in boldly to
Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if
he were already dead, and calling for a centurion he asked if he
were indeed dead. And when he knew it of the centurion, he
gave the body to Joseph." 9

Here the gospel writers are coming to grips with history. Indeed
there was a "Joseph" who was exceedingly learned in the Law, and
who arranged for the descent from the cross:

"I saw many prisoners who had been crucified and recognized
three of my acquaintances among them. I was cut to the heart
and came and told Titus with tears what I had seen. He gave
orders immediately that they should be taken down and
receive the most careful treatment. Two of them died in the
physician's hands; the third survived. " 1 0

C H A PT E R 2 1 291
 In the gospel parallel three men are crucified on Calvary; the two
thieves die, and the central figure is resurrected in the sequel. Josephus
was of a wealthy family and a landowner: "Vespasian presented me
with a considerable tract of land in Judea. " 11
'Arimathea' is probably the word "Ramathaim" (twin hills) and has
been placed in Judea. Josephus often described the rebels against Rome
as "brigands" which brings us to the two thieves on Calvary. With
these numerous parallels on the record we have every likelihood that
Josephus was the source. Josephus should bring suit for plagiarism.
Several other passages in the gospels show the influence of Josephus.
He often adds his own literary flourish to Scriptural material and it is
his version that is adopted by the gospel writers. We give these
examples:

1 . The dirge over Jerusalem, recited from the Mount Of Olives,

follows the pattern of using Josephus rather than the original:
"And David went up by the ascent of Mount Olivet, and wept as
he went up and he had his head covered. " 1 2
Josephus adds the detail "When David reached the crest of the
mountain he gazed upon the city, and with many tears, as if
already fallen from power, he prayed to God. "13
Luke's version reads:

"And when Jesus had come near, even now at the descent of the
Mount of Olives . . . he beheld the city and wept over it,
saying . . . For the days shall come upon thee that thine enemies
shall compass thee about. "14

2. The advice of Caiaphas that " . . . it is expedient for us that one man
die for the people, that the whole nation perish not . . . " parallels the
advice offered by a wise woman in a besieged city, who counselled the
defenders to surrender one man to have the siege called off.
"The woman went to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off
the head of Sheba the son of Bichri and cast it out to Joab." 1 5

Josephus is kind enough to compose a speech for the woman:

292 C H A PT E R 2 1
 "Do you wish to perish most miserably with your children and
wives for the sake of a worthless fellow whom no one even
knows, or have him for a king in place of David ? . . . Will you
set yourself up as a single city against so great and mighty a
power? " 1 6

Here Caiaphas chimes in loyally: "All men will follow him and the
Romans will take away our place and nation. " 1 7

Josephus has expanded the Scriptural text, and has been copied.

3. The Judas kiss is narrated rather tersely in the original.

"And J oab said to Amasa, Are you in good health, my brother ?

And J oab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss
him. But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's
[left] hand, so he smote him in the fifth rib, and shed his
bowels out in the ground, and struck him not again. " 18

The version of Josephus adds the condemnation, and supplies the

timeless motive of "envy":

"Joab seized Amasa, who was near him, by the beard as if to

kiss him, then with an unforeseen thrust in the belly killed
him. This impious and most unholy deed he committed
against a brave youth who was moreover his relative and had
done him no wrong. He did this because he envied him his
office of commander. " 1 9

Somehow Josephus is always on hand to supply the script.

Another passage in Josephus almost, but not quite, got into the
gospels. There it is related that Jesus cured the leper, raised a child from
the dead, and fed the multitude with bread left over. The prophet
Elisha performed the same miracles, and we would like to know how
J osephus reports these. Our historian had a special fondness for stories
of this type, and he appears eager to give us his version.

CH APTER 2 1 293
 He writes:

"And when the king of the Israelites came from Moab to

Samaria, he had with him the prophet Elisha, whose acts I
wish to relate for they are glorious and worthy of record, as
we discover them in the sacred books. "20

Josephus gets as far as the first miracle - the widow and the j ar of
oil - which is a harmless one, since there is no gospel parallel. But
when we get to the other miracles, which are duplicated in the gospels
and which are glorious and worthy of record - behold, the miracles
themselves miraculously vanish. For the first and last time in all the
thirty volumes of Josephus, there is a major lacuna or gap in the text.
And it occurs just at the point where we want to read the passage and
where Josephus wants to tell it to us . . .

"There is a lacuna in Josephus' text corresponding to the bibli

cal narrative extending from 2 Kings 4:8 to 6:8, which tells of
the Shunamite woman [and her dead child], the poisoned
pottage, the miracle of the loaves, the leprosy of Naaman the
Syrian, the rescue of the iron axe-head from the water, and the
beginning of the Syrian war. "21

This lengthy gap does not occur elsewhere in Josephus and is not
filled in by any of the Greek or Latin manuscripts. The uncharitable
thought comes to mind that the material was removed deliberately and
that something required the removal - namely the duplication with
the gospel versions. Josephus himself can be made to appear or disap
pear at the whim of the gospel writer.

Since the James passage has been placed in question, we turn now to
the Testimonium itself, that is, the passage in Antiquities, volume 1 8,
paragraphs 63 and 64.

294 CHAPTER 2 1
 NOTES:
1 . R.E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 460
2. R.E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 460
3. John, 28: 1 3 , 24
4. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 3:294
5. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, vol l, 420
6. Josephus, Antiquities, 20: 1 97, 1 98
7. Josephus, Antiquities, 20: 1 99, 200
8. Josephus, Antiquities, 20:201 - 203
9. Mark, 1 6:43 - 45
1 0. Josephus, Life, 420
1 1 . Josephus, Life, 425
1 2. 2 Samuel, 1 5 :30
1 3 . Josephus, Antiquities, 7:203
1 4. Luke, 1 9:37, 4 1 , 43
1 5. 2 Samuel, 20:22
1 6. Josephus, Antiquities, 7:291
1 7. John, 1 1 :50
1 8. 2 Samuel, 20:9, 1 0
1 9. Josephus, Antiquities, 7:284
20. Josephus, Antiquities, 9:46
2 1 . Editor, Antiquities, ad loc

C H APTER 2 1 295
 22

JOSEPHUS AND THE TESTIMONIUM

"The passage concerning Jesus Christ which was inserted

into the text of Josephus between the time of Origen and
that of Eusebius may furnish an example of no vulgar
forgery."
Gibbon, Decline and Fall

What Gibbon meant by the above statement is that we are dealing

with a forgery that was carefully and astutely drawn, and that it made
Josephus a witness to the basic elements of the Christian case, all in a
brief text. Gibbon explains:

"The accomplishment of the prophecies, the virtues, miracles,

and resurrection of Jesus are distinctly related. Josephus
acknowledges that he was the Messiah [Greek: Christos], and
hesitates whether he should call him a man. " 1

In addition there is full confirmation of the crucifixion story. If

Josephus could be made to set all this down then the passage could
indeed be labeled a masterly composition. Josephus has been captured
and fully confirms the story.
We give the text, with the openly Christian phrases put in italics:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man if indeed one
should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a
teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he
gained a following both among many Jews and among many
of Greek origin. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, because of
an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned
him to the cross, those who had loved him previously, did not
cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living

C H A PT E R 22 29 7
 again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless
other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the
tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out. "2

John P. Meier offers a truncated version of the above, which deletes

the three openly Christian phrases. Meier states these three were later
Christian additions. This makes the passage more credible to the
modern secular reader, thus making Josephus a more plausible and
effective witness, and rescuing the passage from all-out rejection. This
is put forward as revealing what Josephus really wrote, thus replying
to Gibbon. Only parts were faked; the basic stratum is genuine.
Meier's improved, up-to-date version reads:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a
doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the
truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among
many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when
Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men
among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved
him previously, did not cease to do so. And up until this very
day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died
out. "3

Having created this revised version, Meier then announces that it is

"of monumental importance."
He and his fellow-apologists are compelled to take this position
because this text, brief and disputed as it is, and the companion text
dealing with James, remain the only documents of antiquity put forward
to prove the existence of Jesus conclusively. Meier admits that Josephus
is the sole witness who carries any weight as to the existence of Jesus,
and if he drops out, then there is no proof at all. The Rev. Meier writes:

"It is a passage of monumental importance. In my conversations

with newspaper writers and book editors who have asked me
at various times to write about the historical Jesus, almost
invariably the first question that arises is: But can you prove
that he existed ? . . .Thanks to Josephus the answer is yes. "4

298 CHAPTER 22
 The passage is monumental because if it didn't exist then no proof
could be shown that Jesus existed. Josephus is the sole prop for the
Christian case, and this in two brief, endlessly disputed passages. It is
passing strange that thousands of books by Christian scholars have
failed to confirm one line of the gospel story, but ten alleged lines by a
Pharisee, a Temple priest and an unswerving defender of Judaism can
accomplish what all the thousands of Christian scholars could not.
Be it noted, at no time do the scholars show the slightest embarrass
ment or apology in converting an orthodox Jew, a Pharisee and a
Temple priest, into a spokesman for Christianity. The act of forging
testimony is never condemned. Instead Josephus is lectured for
"covering up. " Von Dobschi.itz writes:

"In personal character Josephus was not free from decidedly

sinister traits. A thorough Jew, he was always able to make the
most of his opportunities, and was not over-scrupulous as to the
means he employed . . . We need only mention his having done
his best to suppress the Messianic expectations of his people . . . "5

John Meier calls him 'an old fox' who is out to deceive his readers:

"Josephus may be engaging in a studied ambiguity . . . It is quite

possible that the old fox Josephus purposely wrote a neutral
or ambiguous statement about Jesus that could be read in
more than one way. "6

It is also quite possible that Josephus wrote nothing about Jesus, but
he is being grabbed by the scruff of the neck and being made a witness.
We turn to the weighty question: did our Pharisee-priest-Judaist
historian really write that passage ? There are two standard tests used
in determining the genuineness of disputed literary works. The first
test is to search out the earliest authentic editions of the author's works
to see if it has been included, also to note the earliest references to the
disputed text, to note the date when it was attributed to the author.
The second test is to compare the disputed text to the total oeuvre of
the author, to see how it matches the unique style, mood and wording
of the author.

C H A P T E R 22 299
 As to the first test one might suggest that a simple way to determine
what Josephus wrote or did not write would be to compare the present
text with authentic copies of Josephus in the possession of Jewish
authorities. Surely the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has early
manuscripts of Josephus. Here we get the sobering news that all Jewish
writings dating from the assumed time of Jesus, and from centuries
before and after, have disappeared from Jewish possession, and are
found only in Christian collections.

This state of affairs is revealed in a Forward for Jews, by the late

Rabbi Samuel Sandmel, to a large two-volume edition, published
under Christian auspices and editorship, of some of these lost or
abandoned Judaic texts, namely The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 7

How all this vanished from Jewish custody appears baffling to

Sandmel who writes:

"By the strangest quirk of fate respecting literature that I know

of, large numbers of writings by Jews were completely lost
from the transmitted Jewish heritage. These documents stem
roughly from 200 BC to AD 200. Not only the so-called
Pseudepigrapha, but even such important and extensive
writings as those by Philo and Josephus have not been part of
the Jewish inheritance from the past; these were preserved and
transmitted by Christians. "8

The "strange quirk" befell the wntmgs of all other sects and
religions that were unwise enough to challenge or even to differ from
that faction that ultimately triumphed as "catholic" Christianity. The
very memory of these rival sects and their writings has vanished into
the void except for fugitive references preserved in church writings, or
recovered in rare archaeological finds. Many of these sects were also
wiped out by the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, forced through by
the triumphant "catholic" faction.

We are told by Sandmel that after the strange quirk, the Judaic texts
were " . . . preserved and transmitted by Christians."
----------

300 C H A PT E R 22
 To "preserve," as defined in the dictionary, is "to keep from harm . . .
to maintain and protect" - which presumably means to keep intact in
its original condition. However the texts, in Christian custody, often
underwent a mystical transformation, and changed from Orthodox
Judaic to Orthodox Christian. As we can see from the admittedly
Christian passages, Josephus was transformed from a Pharisee and
Temple priest to a devout Christian. And we have no Jewish originals
for comparison.
It is first quoted by Eusebius, about AD 325, and the earliest Greek
manuscript of Josephus extant dates from the eleventh century - one
thousand years after his death - and in church possession. The Loeb
edition names this as the Codex Vindobonensis II A . 1 9. And even with
.

Eusebius there has been some scrambling. He first quotes Josephus'

account of John Baptist, which is given in Antiquities, volume 1 8,
paragraphs 1 1 6 - 1 1 9, then adds: "After relating these things concern
ing John, Josephus in the same work also makes mention of our Savior
in the following manner. . . [here Eusebius quotes the Testimonium] . "9
The plain import is that in Eusebius' text the passage followed the
reference to John, to make Josephus a witness to John as the forerun
ner to Jesus. However in our present text of Josephus the passage
appears some fifty paragraphs earlier, in Antiquities, volume 1 8,
paragraphs 63 & 64, after a reference to Pilate - and with no indica
tion that Josephus ever connected John to Jesus. The passage was shifted
from John to Pilate by a later editor. This makes it suspect at once.
The one line in the Testimonium that purports to be directly histor
ical deals with the crucifixion. However this line is found in three
contradictory versions. There is the Greek version, as above. The
Slavonic version reads,

"The teachers of the Law were overcome with envy, and gave
thirty talents to Pilate in order that he should put him to
death. And he took it and gave them liberty to exercise their
will themselves. And they laid hands on him and crucified
him, contrary to the law of their fathers. " 1 0

The Arabic (Agapius) version reads, "Pilate condemned him to be

crucified and t o die. "

C H A P T E R 22 30 1
 The Jews are not mentioned at all.

Thus we have the Jews and Pilate acting together to slay Jesus (in the
Greek version); the Jews alone slay Jesus (Slavonic); and Pilate alone
slays Jesus (Arabic). We leave it to the experts to decide which of the
three fakes reads best. All are found in Josephus.
Our conclusion is that the passage, while in Christian custody, has
been compromised, corrupted and contaminated. Also, we do not have
copies in Jewish possession for purposes of comparison. Therefore on
the first test we must reject the Testimonium as of unproved genuine
ness. We also note the courtroom rule that if testimony is shown to be
false in maj or parts, then all of it can be rejected. Since Meier has
conceded that three Christian passages were added to the text, then
none of it may be taken as genuine.
On the second test, namely that of literary style, we have presented
numerous and extensive extracts from the writings of Josephus. He is
never terse, minimal, unclear. He is always detailed, reportorial, giving
names, time and place - and the reader always knows what is going
on. We are concerned here with the key line in the Testimonium:
"Pilate, upon hearing him accused by the leading men amongst us,
delivered him up to the cross."
That is the sum total of the passion narrative. Would Josephus really
confine himself to a single line ?
There are two episodes in Josephus where Jewish authorities turn
over fellow Jews to the Romans for punishment. Let us see how our
historian handles these episodes. The first of these is "Jesus, son of
Ananias" who appeared as number 2 1 on the Loeb list. The episode
contains numerous direct parallels to the gospel content, which rules
out accident and coincidence. We also note the large space given to the
account indicating its importance to our historian. Why didn't he give
an equal amount of space to the Jesus ?
We note these parallel elements in the two accounts: a martyr tale
involving an individual named Jesus; he is of a humble station in life;
there is a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for a religious festival; there is
fearless preaching in the Temple; the message means an overthrow of
the established order in Jerusalem; the preaching outrages the Jewish
authorities, who arrest him; there is a preliminary trial before the Jews,

302 C H A P T E R 22
where Jesus is "severely chastised" - in the gospel version Jesus is
struck by a servant of the high priest 11 and is struck by others; 12 Jesus
is then brought by the Jews before the Roman governor, where he is
"flayed to the bone"; there is a mysterious silence by the prisoner, who
refuses to answer accusations or beg for mercy - in the gospel version
"he gave no answer. . . Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge,
to the great amazement of the governor. "13
The Roman governor releases the prisoner, believing him to be
deranged - in the gospels Pilate is willing to release Jesus as a harmless
person; and in the epilogue Jesus is slain by the Romans.
In the foregoing we have almost a dozen linkages between the gospel
and the Josephus narrative, and the plot outline and sequence are the
same. Just what is Josephus suppressing?

We quote from his account:

"Four years before the war, when the city was enjoying
profound peace and prosperity, there came to the feast called
Tabernacles a humble peasant, one Jesus son of Ananias [ Yeshu
bar Hananiah, in the Aramaic]. Standing in the Temple, he
suddenly began to cry out, 'A voice from the east, a voice
from the west, a voice from the four winds; a voice against
Jerusalem and the Sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom
and the bride, a voice against all the people' [a variant of
Jeremiah 7: 1 4].
"Day and night he went about all the alleys with this cry on
his lips. Some of the leading citizens, angered at these ominous
words, arrested the fellow and severely chastised him. But
without a word on his own behalf or for the private hearing of
those who smote him, he only continued his cries as before.
"Thereupon the magistrates, supposing that the man was
under a supernatural impulse, as was indeed the case, brought
him before the Roman governor. There he was flayed to the
bone with scourges, but he neither begged for mercy nor wept
a tear. Instead he changed his cries to a sadder one, respond
ing to each stroke with 'Woe to Jerusalem! '

C H A PT E R 2 2 303
 "When Albinus the governor asked him who he was and
whence he came and why he uttered these cries, he answered
him never a word but repeated without cease his dirge upon
the city. Finally Albinus pronounced him a madman and let
him go."

Josephus narrates that this man continued his cries "for seven years
and five months" - for four years till the outbreak of the war and then
for three and a half years afterwards, when he met his death during the
s1ege.

"He was going his rounds and shouting in piercing tones from
the wall, 'Woe once more to the city and to the people and to
the Temple.' Then he added a last word, 'and woe to me also.'
At that a stone hurled from the catapult struck him and killed
him on the spot. And with these ominous words on his lips,
he passed away. "

Consummatum est.

The episode appears in War, volume 6. paragraphs 288 309, and

-

covers about one hundred lines of text. We can compare the elaborate
and detailed narrative with the single line of factual matter found in the
disputed Jesus-passage: "Pilate, upon hearing him Uesus] accused by
men of the highest standing amongst us, condemned him to be cruci
fied. "14
And that is all we find by way of concrete description. We may well
ask how Josephus, with his fondness for violent and dramatic stories,
could have contented himself with a single line of reportage.
As to the parallels in the two stories, we note that the most effective
and vivid touches in the passion narrative are the very ones brought in
by Josephus: the contrast between the humble and defenseless prisoner
and the brutal authorities, also the mysterious silence of the prisoner
under the repeated questioning by the governor.
We may add that Josephus has put fictional details in the story to
bolster his own special pleading. It is incredible that the Zealots would
have permitted doomsaying and defeatism during the siege. Why then

304 CH A P T E R 22
did Josephus invent details for a minor Jesus, when he had factual
knowledge of the all-important Jesus ? We leave it to the experts to
answer that one.
The second episode of betrayal of Jews to the Romans took place in
Alexandria and is one of shocking drama, as only Josephus can
describe. In the closing days of the war with Rome, a diehard band of
Zealots escaped to Alexandria, where they attempted to incite the Jews
there to rise up against the Roman authority. We let Josephus tell the
outcome:

"Meeting with opposltlon from certain Jews of rank, they

murdered these and continued to urge the others to revolt.
Observing this madness, the leaders of the Uewish] council of
elders, thinking it no longer safe to overlook these proceedings,
convened a general assembly of the Jews. They exposed the
madness of the Sicarii [dagger-men] and proved them responsi
ble for all their troubles. They said that these men would
instantly be put to death if the Romans recognized them, and
now they wanted to involve innocent people in the calamity
which they had brought upon themselves. The leaders therefore
advised the assembly to beware of the ruin being brought by
these men, and by delivering them up, thereby make peace with
the Romans.
"Realizing the gravity of the danger, the people followed this
advice. They rushed furiously at the Sicarii and seized them. Six
hundred were caught at the spot. All who escaped into Egypt
and the Theban district were soon caught and brought back. All
were then amazed at the endurance or desperation or strength
of will of these prisoners. For under every form of torture or
laceration of body, devised to make them acknowledge Caesar
as lord, not one submitted or came even near saying this. All
kept true to their beliefs, in triumph over their bonds. They met
tortures and fire with their bodies that seemed insensible to
pain, and their souls seemingly rejoiced in this. But most of all
the onlookers were struck by the young children, not one of
whom could be made to call Caesar lord. So far did the strength
of their courage rise superior to the weakness of their bodies. "15

C H A PT E R 2 2 305
 Josephus himself was swept along by these martyrdoms and he gives
them the full force of his literary style. How then could he write a
pallid, insipid one-line account of the martyrdom of Jesus ? "Pilate,
upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us,
condemned him to the cross."
Not a word more. The test of literary style rules out the genuineness
of that line. If that line goes there is little point in trying to defend the
rest of the passage. If the passage goes, the existence of Jesus becomes
ever more wraithlike.

And again we must ask: where is the moral authority of a religion

that must resort to forgery to establish its case?

306 C H A P T E R 22
NOTES:
1 . Gibbon, The Decline and Fall ofthe Roman Empire, Chapter 1 6, n. 36
2. Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:63, 64
3. J. Meier, A Marginal Jew, volume 1 , 61
4. J. Meier, A Marginal Jew, volume 1 , 68
5. Von Dobschiitz, Dictionary ofthe Apostilic Church, article: "Josephus", 650 - 65 1
6. J . Meier, A Marginal Jew, volume 1 , 76, 84
7. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth,
published by Doubleday & Co., New York, 1 983
8. Rabbi S. Sandmel, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, intro, xi - xiii
9. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 1 1
1 0. Josephus, Loeb edition, volume 3, 650
1 1 . John, 1 8:22
1 2. Matthew, 26:67 and Luke 22:63
1 3. Matthew, 27: 1 2 - 1 4
1 4 . Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:64
1 5 . Josephus, War, 7:4 1 1 - 4 1 9

C H A P T E R 22 307
 23

CELSUS AND 0RIGEN

"What credible witness beheld this appearance? Who heard

a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God?
What proof is there save your own assertion?"
Origen, Contra Celsus, 1 :41

Due to the importance of the Josephus Testimonium1 as the sole

evidence for the existence of Jesus, it will be of interest to trace out the
events that brought this illustrious fake into existence. These events
will illustrate the situation of early Christianity vis-a-vis its opponents,
and will demonstrate the absence of historical evidence surrounding
every part of the Christian case.
Towards the close of the second century, at a time when the
Christian sects were gaining prominence in the Roman empire and
giving concern to the authorities, a pagan writer named Celsus, a
skilled and well-educated polemicist, and a firm upholder of the
Roman order, composed an extensive and sharply hostile attack on
that religion. So effective was his book, which he called A True
Discourse, that some thirty years later, about AD 220, the renowned
Christian writer Origen wrote a detailed, almost line-by-line rebuttal.
The original Celsus material, copiously quoted, plus Origen's replies,
formed a tract in eight books and of awesome length - about 600
pages in the present format. It is known as Contra Celsus.
The fact that a respected Christian writer had put out the book
preserved the original Celsus portion intact. This large section remains
the only work of antiquity giving an open all-out attack on
Christianity that has survived. All other hostile works have been lost
to the censorship. Even a work as prestigious as that composed by the
apostate Emperor Julian, Against the Christians, has disappeared.

C H A PT E R 23 309
 In the Roman manner Celsus employed foreign auxiliaries to help in
the fighting. In this case he recruited a Jewish spokesman to score
many of the points. This "Jew of Celsus" is not named, but carries on
so much of the polemic that we can assume that Celsus took over a
Jewish tract of that period. Celsus, himself a pagan Epicurean and
agnostic, thoroughly part of classic Hellenism, shows equal dislike for
Judaism and Christianity, except that Judaism was a legitimate religion.
Almost by definition the Romans were required to support the orderly
accepted citizenry against a suspect group. A further fact was that he
found the arguments of the Jewish disputant quite useful. So we have
the odd couple, Celsus and his Jewish orthodox spokesman, both
attacking Christianity. Origen, in turn, quotes the Jewish aide verba
tim many times and does battle with him also. To add to the confusion
Celsus takes time out to show elegant pagan scorn for the barbaric
Jews, and Origen must hasten to prop up Judaism since that is where
his Scriptural authority came from.
What is remarkable in this three-sided debate is that nowhere in the
course of the six hundred pages of controversy is there a particle of
confirmation for any event in the gospel story - and this from
disputants particularly qualified to get this information. Origen, in the
manner of Justin, relies only on proof-texts from Scripture, and berates
the blindness of the Jews. "We charge the Jews with not acknowledg
ing Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages
by the prophets. "2
The Jewish aide, in the manner of Trypho, rejects the theology, the
proof-texts and the miracle stories, and then, in the manner of Apion,
creates an imaginary life of Jesus based on a lampoon version of the
gospels. He offers no other source. Origen reveals that in his conver
sations and disputes with Jewish leaders in his own period that there is
the same all-out rejection of the Christian case.
Celsus, with detached disdain, treats the Christians as a naive and
deluded rabble, and charges that they have fabricated the whole story
by copying Greek sources. He finds nothing original in the story,
certainly nothing historical. We can guess that all three disputants had
researched the sources and had found nothing. It is from this vacuum
of knowledge that the Josephus Testimonium emerged as an attempt by
the Christians to create concrete evidence where none existed before.

310 C H A P T E R 23
 It is in the Contra Celsus that, at long last, the name Josephus enters
into the literature - and this about AD 220. Origen, in replying to a
statement by the Jewish aide, cites Josephus, thus showing that he is
holding the books of Josephus in his hands, but he foils to quote the
Testimonium itself when he had every reason to. The Testimonium contains
material that would fully answer the barrage of challenges made by the
two opponents. The silence of Origen is taken as proof positive by
rejectionists such as Gibbon that Origen did not see this passage in his
copy, and that it was added at a date after Origen.

The reference to Josephus is found in Book 1 , chapter 47, and makes

several points:

It is evident that Christian editors had already been at work

forging Josephus, since he is made to say that the Jews killed
James and that Jerusalem was destroyed as punishment for this
crime. Now Origen complains that Josephus should have said
that it was for the death of Jesus that Jerusalem was destroyed.
The forgery of the James reference is obvious. Therefore the
present version in Josephus, where the high priest Ananias is
made to cause the death of James becomes that much the more
suspect.
Origen states throughout that Jesus was a supernatural being,
God Incarnate, hence he must explain that when Paul called
James "a brother of the Lord " this was meant in a spiritual sense,
not a natural one. Perhaps Origen was correct in this: Paul did not
regard James as the sibling brother of the "Lord Jesus " who was
the cult-figure.

Origen writes that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the

Christ. " This is ambiguous; we do not know whether Origen
meant an express denial by Josephus, or whether he was silent. It
may indicate further tampering, whereby Josephus in some way
is made to reject Jesus. At any rate this contradicts the present
Testimonium text, wherein Josephus names Jesus as "the Christ. "
Plainly, this must date after Origen.

C H A P T E R 23 31 1
 Having devoted this much space to Josephus, Origen had every
reason to quote the Testimonium in full. His failure to quote any
of it is strong evidence that the entire passage was composed at a
later date. We give the Origen passage and the reader will note the
absence of Testimonium material. Origen writes:

"I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as

somehow accepting John as a Baptist who baptized Jesus, that
the existence of John, baptizing for the remission of sin, is
related by one who lived no great length of time after John
and Jesus. For in the 1 8th book of his 'Antiquities of the Jews'
Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and
promising purification to those who underwent this rite. Now
this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, was
seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruc
tion of the temple. He ought to have said that the conspiracy
against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the
people since they put Christ to death who was a prophet.
"He says nevertheless, against his will though not far from
the truth, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a
punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother
to Jesus called Christ. The Jews had put him to death, though
he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a
genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a
brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relation
ship by blood, or their being brought up together, but because
of his virtue and doctrine.
"If then Josephus says that it was on account of James that
the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews,
should it not have been more in accord with reason to say that
it happened on account of the death of Jesus Christ, of whose
divinity so many churches are witnesses ?"3

The entire burden of the passage appears to be a complaint that the

fake reference to James should be replaced by a fake reference to Jesus.
Josephus is not called upon to do anything else. We now turn to the
mam content of Origen's book, considered in relation to the

312 C H A P T E R 23
statements in the Testimonium. By this time the four gospels had
become widely known as the main texts of the new religion, and
Celsus with his assistant direct their main fire at these books. The Jew
attacks specific episodes as fictional, and Celsus comes up with "village
atheist" arguments ridiculing the entire story. Thus we have a rehearsal
and 'prequel' for much of the scholarly criticisms of the modern era.
But the contrast is very large. In that far-off beginning, Christianity
had not attained the vast authority and invincibility of later centuries
that would block criticism as futile and dangerous. Nor were there
battalions of scholars on hand to defend and buttress the gospel
accounts where Origen floundered in his replies.
Therefore the attacks by Celsus and his ally-of-convenience repre
sent "New Testament criticism" of primary importance. To Celsus
and the Jew of Celsus, in that raw opening period, the aura of majesty
and perfection surrounding the Official Religion of the Empire, built
up over the later centuries, was unsuspected. The myth of the invin
cibility of Jesus to all criticism wasn't there. They challenged the
gospel story in every part and did not grant any credibility to the
story. At this very early date the opponents were getting their day in
court.
Turning to the content of Origen's book, we note that there were
many charlatans and god-claimants on the scene at that time, which led
Celsus and his aide into the trap of conceding reality to "Jesus" when
there was only the Christian preaching for this. Celsus writes (as
quoted by Origen):

"There are many nameless people who appear in and out of

temples, and with great ease and on the slightest occasion,
assume motions and gestures as if they were possessed. They
do this to create surprise and sensation. Each one then says, 'I
am God, I am the Son of God, I am the Divine Spirit. I have
come because the world is perishing but I wish to save you
from your sins. You will see me returning again with heavenly
power. Blessed is he who does me homage, and on the rest I
will send down eternal fire' . . .

C H A P T E R 23 313
 "To these promises are added strange, fanatical and quite
unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the
meaning. So dark are the sayings that they have no meaning at
all, but they provide occasion for every fool and impostor to
apply them to his own purposes."4

Can we blame Celsus for including "Jesus" in that list? And how
does one decide which sect to join? "The common and ready cry of
each sect is, 'Believe, if you will saved, or else begone !' What shall
those do who are anxious to be saved ? Shall they toss dice to decide
whom to join ? "5
By the sharpest of ironies, it was the opponents who invented the
human Jesus. The tactic used by Celsus and his aide was the same as
that used by the opponents in the Age of Enlightenment, sixteen
centuries later. In both eras they were erecting a human figure and a
human biography to counter the portrait of Jesus as a divinity.
Albert Schweitzer, in his landmark study, The Quest of the
Historical jesus, indicated plainly that the historical Jesus was never
established or confirmed by standard conventional evidence, but
instead was put forward as a radical hypothesis by the skeptics and
rationalists of the eighteenth century. In the opening chapter of his
book he makes this important statement:

"The historical investigation of the life of Jesus did not take its
rise from a purely historical interest; it turned to the Jesus of
history as an ally in the struggle against the tyranny of
dogma. "6

That is, if Jesus could be presented as a purely human, historical

person, free of supernatural elements, and if it could be argued that a
later Church had invented all its dogmas, mysteries and miracles and
had foisted these on the human Jesus, then that would strip this
Church of all legitimacy and authority. Had the skeptics "turned to"
the Jesus of history or had they created him? In both cases, in the early
period and in the eighteenth century, the gospels were the only source
for the counter-histories.

314 C H A P T E R 23
 Just as eighteenth century skeptics had no outside evidence or
confirmation for a "life of Jesus," so Celsus and his aide had nothing
to go by but the gospel content. Origen states this to be the case:

"This Jew of Celsus continues in the following fashion,

'Although he could state many things regarding the events in
the life of Jesus that are true, and differing from those
recorded by the disciples, he willingly omits them. ' What
then are those true statements, unlike the accounts in the
Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus passes by without
mention? . . . Or is he only pretending to have something to
say, while in reality he had nothing to produce beyond the
Gospel narrative which could impress the reader with the
feeling of its truth ? "7

The Jewish disputant uses only the Christian texts. He states: "All
these statements are taken from your own books. We need no other
witness in addition to this. You fall by your own sword." 8
The approach he used was apparently in the form of a "Dialogue
with Jesus," wherein Jesus was subject to sharp cross-examination,
with a demand that he prove his claims. Thus in the Baptism Scene, the
Jew writes:

"When you say you were bathing besides John, you say that
what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon
you. What credible witness beheld this appearance? Who
heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of
God ? What proof is there save your own assertion ?"9

If the Jew is going to press this approach to every episode in the life
of Jesus, then very little "proof" and little "credible witness " will
emerge. But since he shows himself fully qualified to present the
Jewish case, why didn't he produce original Jewish documents such as
the Sanhedrin records ? Surely he could have done so instead of invent
ing a fictional life of Jesus. And why didn't Origen demand that the
records be produced ?

C H A P T E R 23 315
 On the all-important trial sequence, the Jewish aide had nothing to
go by but the gospel account. Thus he challenges the gospel account of
the Last Supper, wherein Jesus exposes Judas as a traitor who will
betray and Peter as a perjurer who will deny under oath. Here the Jew
remarks:

"How is it that if Jesus points out beforehand both the traitor

and the perjurer, they do not fear him as a God, and then
cease, one from his intended treason and the other from his
perjury ?" 1 0

Here Origen replies: "That he was betrayed by those whom He

called His disciples is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus learned
from the Gospels. " 1 1
But surely he must have known that the Jewish leaders were directly
involved in the Judas affair. Didn't he have independent records ?
About the time Celsus published his polemical work, A True
Discourse, the Jewish Patriarch, the renowned "Judah the Prince,"
residing at Tiberias, was composing his commentaries on the Mosaic
law, which were to form the primary stratum of the Talmud. One of
the earliest tractates was Sanhedrin, which codified Jewish trial proce
dure. Judah was well aware of what was transpiring in the Diaspora
cities, and he knew of the inroads that the Christian religion was
making among the Jewish communities. His tractate Sanhedrin point
edly differed from the gospel trial accounts in every respect, and
nowhere confirmed any part of their version. The intent was clear: he
was signalling the Jewish communities that the gospel story was fraud
ulent.
I. Abrahams agrees that the Sanhedrin Mishnah appears aimed at the
gospels.

"So great, indeed, is the discrepancy between the Rabbinic and

the Gospel trials, that the Mishnah Sanhedrin IV almost looks
like a polemic of the former against the latter . . . The Gospel
narratives would hardly have been familiar to Jews before the
date of this Mishnah. " 1 2

316 C H A P T E R 23
 The Patriarch had the highest prestige : "Now that the Romans rule
and the Jews pay them the half-shekel, the Jewish thnarch through
.
concessiOns from Caesar holds great powers and dtffers little from a
true king. " 1 3

The tract then amounted to an official Jewish denial.

Origen also reveals that the Jews challenged 'high Christology':

"Although I have conferred with many Jews who professed to be
learned men, I have never heard anyone expressing his approval of the
statement that the Logos is the Son of god. " 1 4
Against the challenges and denials by the opponents Origen had no
reply except appeals to the gospel. He pointed to " . . . the wonderful
works which He Uesus] performed, and which were made the subject
of prophecy."15
The only proof for the wonderful works is that there were prophe
cies that these would take place. Celsus had issued the challenge:
"What great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God ? " 1 6
In reply, Origen admits that he has no other source for the miracle
stories than the gospel accounts themselves:

"Now to this question, although we are able to show the strik

ing and miraculous character of the events which befell Him,
yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than
from the Gospel narratives ? " 1 7

But the famed Josephus Testimonium stated expressly that Jesus had
performed "surprising feats" and this on the witness of the most
prestigious of the Jewish historians. Why didn't Origen appeal to
Josephus when he had his books in his hands, and when that would
have proved his case? This is obvious evidence that the Testimonium
appeared at a later date and was meant to bolster the Christian case.

From the foregoing evidence we state that no part of the said

Testimonium - even the truncated portion that is is supposed to be
genuine - can be traced to Josephus. Nowhere in the three-sided
debate do we find clear evidence that "the historical Jesus" existed. He

C H A P T E R 23 317
is always portrayed in counterpoint to the Christian image of God
Incarnate. There is no reference to the Josephus-passage, which would
have proved his existence. This must be dated to a later period.

Origen argues solely on the basis of proof-texts from Scripture to

prove all events in the career of Jesus. He offers no other evidence.

"Jesus is the Son of God who gave the Law and the prophets.
We, who belong to the Church, do not transgress the Law but
have escaped the mythologizing of the Jews. We have our
minds humbled and educated by the mystical contemplation
of the Law and the prophets. " 18

"All the prophecies which preceded His birth were prepara

tions for His worship. And the wonders which he wrought
were by a divine power which was foretold by the
prophets. "19

"The ignorance of the Jews regarding Christ was caused by

their not having heard the prophecies about Him. "20

This is the sum total of his argument, and is the Christian situation
as of his period, about AD 230. He has no history or tradition.

The victory of Christianity came a century later, when Constantine

chose this as the official religion of the empire. This led to the suppres
sion of rival sects and religions. The Jews survived, but were gradually
stripped of all rights under Roman law, and reduced to pariah status.
The long epic of Hellenic universalist Judaism came to an end and was
replaced by the sealed-off ghetto.
What this means is that Christianity in the early period never
succeeded in proving its case on the basis of historical evidence, but
only through the crushing force of Roman authority, censorship and
suppression. Fifteen centuries would pass from the time of Origen to
the reopening of challenges to the gospel story. We may inquire
whether the scholar-apologists of the modern period have made a
better case.

318 C H A PT E R 23
NOTES:
1 . Josephus, Antiquities, 1 8:63 - 64
2. Origen, Contra Celsus, 2:9
3. Origen, Contra Celsus, 1 :47
4. Origen, Contra Celsus, 7:9
5. Origen, Contra Celsus, 6: 1 1
6. A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe Historicaljesus, 4
7. Origen, Contra Celsus, 2: 1 3
8 . Origen, Contra Celsus, 2:73
9. Celsus, Contra Celsus, 1 :41
1 0. Celsus, Contra Celsus, 2: 1 8
1 1 . Origen, Contra Celsus, 2:40
1 2. I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism, 2: 1 27
13. Origen, Origen to Africanus, 1 4
1 4. Origen, Contra Celsus, 2:31
1 5 . Origen, Contra Celsus, 1 : 50
1 6. Celsus, Contra Celsus, 2:33
1 7. Origen, Contra Celsus, 2:33
1 8. Origen, Contra Celsus, 2:6
1 9. Origen, Contra Celsus, 8:9
20. Origen, Contra Celsus, 1 : 26

C H A PT E R 23 319
 24

NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP

"You must understand that in these matters opinions differ

so widely that the confusion is impenetrable."
Franz Kafka, The Trial

A survey of New Testament scholarship in the modern era will

reveal remarkably little in the way of results. A good summary of the
first one hundred fifty years of this research is provided by Albert
Schweitzer in his classic, The Quest of the Historical jesus. He begins
in the 1 760s and brings the quest down to his own date, the early
1 900s. He covers the work of some 250 scholars, no two of whom
agree, and in the closing chapter writes:

"There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical

study of the life of Jesus . . . He is a figure designed by ratio
nalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by
modern theology in an historical garb" 1

In this closing chapter Schweitzer also reveals that this "critical

study" was a bogus enterprise. New Testament scholarship pretends to
be engaged in obj ective research, however the field is dominated by
members of the Christian establishment, engaged in apologetics and
damage control. The scholars discussed by Schweitzer were theolo
gians, almost without exception. They were ordained clergymen, or at
least graduate students of theology, and the enormous body of
research carried out by them during the nineteenth century is labeled
by him as " . . . the science of historical theology" 2
At that period the scholars in the field had not yet arrogated to
themselves the title of historians. Instead they labeled themselves as criti
cal theologians or historical theologians.

C H A PT E R 24
 Schweitzer acknowledged candidly that "we theologians" were using
history to advance theology - in particular, to bring the secular masses
"in a roundabout way" back to the Christian fold. After Renan the
human Jesus of Nazareth was the only presentation that most readers
would accept, hence this figure was to be manipulated towards theology.
Schweitzer writes:

"We modern theologians are too proud of our historical

method, too proud of our historical Jesus, too confident in
our belief in the spiritual gains which our historical theology
can bring to the world. The thought that we could build up,
by the increase of historical knowledge, a new and vigorous
Christianity, and set free new spiritual forces, rules us like a
fixed idea . . . We thought that it was for us to lead our time by
a roundabout way, through the historical Jesus as we under
stood Him, in order to bring it to the Jesus who is a spiritual
power in the present. "3

Here we get the news that all the scholars in the field, from the earli
est period to Schweitzer's day, from radical to conservative, were
engaged in missionary activity rather than historical research. And this
continues to the present. Almost every writer in the field today is on
the faculty of a theological department or institution. Any scholar
theologian who takes this missionary approach cannot pretend to be
engaged in historical research of an objective nature. He will certainly
find ways to interpret the data to fit his goal, and will find ways to
reject documents that threaten the goal.
Schweitzer also indicated that the quest had a dubious origin. It began
by smuggling in the premise that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed, and then
used this literary creation to attack the church establishment. In the
opening stage, that of the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment,
Jesus was presented by the rationalists, skeptics and philosophes of that
era as free from all supernatural and miraculous elements. The writers
"turned to the Jesus of history as an ally in the struggle against the
tyranny of dogma" - without the small formality of proving that this
Jesus had actually lived. The quest proved to be a game of catch-up, to
locate the personage they had posited in the first place.

322 C H A PT E R 24
 The pioneer writer, named by Schweitzer as Hermann Samuel
Reimarus ( 1 694 - 1 768), wrote what was essentially a Voltairean tract,
attacking the church establishment, here thinly disguised as the disci
ples of Jesus. Reimarus used the tactic of Celsus, many centuries
earlier, of accusing the Christians of fraud: they had invented the story
and had invented the divinity of Jesus. Reimarus argued that Jesus
himself " . . . had not the slightest intention of doing away with the
Jewish religion and putting another in its place."4
At every stage Jesus is made to carry out the agenda and ideas of the
wnter.
As Reimarus saw it, Christianity was invented by the disciples.
These are portrayed as lazy, dishonest, and preying on the gullible by
inventing fake miracles and fake resurrection stories after the death of
Jesus. This was the first priesthood.

"They had forgotten how to work. They had seen that preach
ing the Kingdom of God would keep a man . . . They would
surely find a sufficient number of faithful souls who would
share their possessions with them. So they stole the body of
Jesus and hid it, and proclaimed to all the world that He
would soon return. "5

Reimarus invented scenarios out of thin air to discredit an existing

religion. In this very odd manner the historical Jesus first appears in
New Testament scholarship. Reimarus had, of course, complete
certainty that Jesus and the disciples existed, but this derived from
many centuries of Christian indoctrination. Reimarus, like the Jew of
Celsus, had nothing to go by but the gospel accounts. The historical
Jesus appears as a literary figure, created by restating the gospels in the
secular naturalist mode, and with intent to overthrow the gospels.
Reimarus dared not publish his tract, and it circulated privately in
the underground of that period. Lessing published it some ten years
after Reimarus' death, labeling it the work of an anonymous writer.
About that time, the 1 770s, another disruptive work appeared. This
was Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Schweitzer
does not mention him, but he had titled one chapter of The Quest of
the Historicaljesus as "Thoroughgoing Skepticism" - which certainly
C H A PTE R 24 323
applied to Gibbon. He appears as a latter-day Celsus, whom Gibbon
quotes with full approval. Gibbon shared his hostility to every part of
the Christian case. Gibbon was one of the giant figures of that century,
ranking with Rousseau, Voltaire and Diderot, and he sums up the spirit
of the times.
He quotes Celsus in his charge that "the Christians were perpetually
correcting and altering their Gospels. "6
His own attitude towards miracle stories can be summed up in his
dismissal of the renowned miracle tale of the Cross in the Sky ('in hoc
signo ) supposedly witnessed by the armies of Constantine:
. . .

"I shall endeavor to form a just estimate of the famous vision of

Constantine . . . by separating the historical, the natural and the marvel
lous parts of this extraordinary story which, in the composition of a
specious argument, have been artfully confounded in one splendid and
brittle mass. "7
Constantine himself was a particular target for Gibbon, who
attacked him at every opportunity.
Celsus had charged that " . . . the Christians hate each other with a
perfect hatred. " 8
Gibbon in turn emphasizes these blood-feuds, referring to the
Theodosian Code (AD 325 - 450), which named and banished 36 sects
as heretical. We find these pleasantries in the Code:

"All heresies are forbidden by both divine and imperial laws

and shall forever cease. . . No place for celebrating their
mysteries, no opportunities for exercising the madness of their
excessively obstinate minds, shall be available to the heretics . . .
The contamination of the Photinian pestilence, the poison of
the Arian sacrilege, the crime of the Eunomian perfidy. shall
be abolished even from the hearing of men. "9

The "great madness" of the other sects received similar treatment.

Celsus had narrated that in the early period there was a chaos of rival
sects, gospels and doctrines so that one had to cast dice to decide which
to join. Confirmation for this was the remarkable find, in the 1 940s, of
a large library of Gnostic texts in the Upper Nile. Concerning these
Elaine Pagels writes:

324 C H A PT E R 24
 "Yet even the fifty-two writings discovered at Nag Hammadi
offer only a glimpse of the complexity of the early Christian
movement. We now begin to see that what we call Christianity
- and what we identify as Christian tradition - actually
represents only a small selection of specific sources, chosen
from among dozens of others. " 1 0

It is notorious that history is written by the winning side, and now

we have only the official Christian version for "what happened. " As
mentioned, Gibbon avoided the whole area of Christian origins, and
waited until chapter fifteen of his book before introducing
Christianity. This was about AD 250. Only then did he feel that he
had enough reliable documentation on hand. Disputed texts,
supported only by Christian sources, were questioned and rej ected,
which is why he rejected the Josephus Testimonium. His critical
standards have been followed by professional historians of the later
period. This explains why courses in Christian origins are taught
today only in divinity schools, not in the history departments of the
umvers1t1es.
The next major figure in our inquiry will be David F. Strauss (1 808
- 1 874), a clergyman-scholar of the early period with whom begins
the actual dismantling of the gospel texts. Like others, his career was
destroyed because he expressed unwelcome views. Schweitzer devotes
three chapters to him, of more than fifty pages, and he may be
credited as establishing the main premises of New Testament scholar
ship. Schweitzer states that his Life ofjesus " . . . marked out the ground
which is now occupied by modern critical study. " 1 1
At the age of twenty-seven (in 1 835 ), he published this Life in two
volumes, of 1 400 pages, which contained a basic list of "firsts " in the
field of critical scholarship. Later generations expanded and modified
these premises, but they have defined the parameters:

The gospel writers were not disciples or eyewitnesses. The gospels

were composed generations after the alleged events. "That any of
our Evangelists was an eyewitness is a thesis for which there is no
extant evidence to prove. " 1 2

C H A P T E R 24 325
 The writers viewed Jesus in terms of their own religious ideas, and
therefore constructed his person and career as the means for
carrying out of those ideas. With Strauss it was the claim that the
writers had exalted the person of Jesus by applying many Old
Testament episodes to him, since almost automatically there is a
legend-creating process at work.

"No sooner is a great man dead than legend is busy with his
life . . . We are almost compelled to assume that the historical
Jesus will meet us in the garb of Old Testament Messianic
ideas and primitive Christian expectations. " 13

However this process distorts the original career and makes recov
ery of that career more difficult. It can lead to a rejection of the gospel
episode because the legend has replaced it.

"The call of the first disciples cannot have happened as it is

narrated . . . The call is modeled upon the call of Elisha by
Elijah . . . The creative activity of legend must have come in to
confuse the account of what really happened. " 1 4

This presents the main problems in New Testament scholarship.

The generations after Strauss placed the date of gospel composition
farther and farther away from the assumed original events; the sources
used by the writers to create the person and career of Jesus were
expanded to encompass much of the ideals and remarkable deeds of
antiquity; the creative activity of the writers became the dominant
factor in gospel composition and was now attributed to established
churches; and the origins grew more wraithlike, conjectural, and
approached the vanishing point. The scholar had to play detective,
work backwards from the gospels, and somehow locate a historical
Jesus at the starting point, despite the forbidding texts. All this assum
ing that he existed and that they were not inventing their historical
figure.
The full implication of what Strauss had started became apparent in
the writings of Bultmann, a century later.

326 C H A PT E R 24
 Scholars of the Form Criticism school, headed by Rudolf Bultmann,
took the position that these gospels were compiled and completed by
the established churches of the second century as the warrant for their
own history and legitimacy. These churches "constructed" the main
content of these texts.

Bultmann states this view:

"We conclude that the whole framework of the history of

Jesus [in the gospels] must be viewed as an editorial construc
tion, and that therewith a whole series of typical scenes, which
because of their ecclesiastical use and their poetic and artistic
associations, we had looked upon as scenes in the life of Jesus,
must be viewed as creations of the evangelists. " 1 5

But there is scarcely a scene in the gospels that is not ecclesiastical or

artistic. If these passages drop out, then very little can be salvaged as
original. At best the gospel writers used "traditional material" from the
remote past, but this material is suspect in the extreme.

"In the first place, there is the possibility that these traditional
sections may also have been edited by the evangelists; and in
the second place, though they lay before the gospel writers as
traditional material, it is not yet proved that they are histori
cal narratives . " 16

Strauss provided the lead, which Bultmann carried much further.

Strauss declared that the discourses of Jesus had been edited and
rearranged in the text by the writers.

"The Synoptic discourses, like the Johannine, are composite

structures, created by later tradition out of sayings which
originally belonged to different times and circumstances,
arranged under certain leading ideas so as to form connected
discourses. " 1 7

C H A P T E R 24 327
 The relentless Bultmann then proceeded to demolish the tradition
itself. In his writings he rejec ts all the passages that make up the actual
career of Jesus: the sayings, parables and discourses; the cures and
miracles; the confrontations and controversies with his opponents. He
traces these to Judaic or Greek sources.

"The miracle stories of the gospels possess a remarkable resem

blance to the Hellenistic miracle narratives . . . Sayings are
found which the church took over from Jewish tradition, and
with certain alterations and additions attributed to Jesus." 18

The entire story is virtually eliminated.

Prior to Bultmann, Harnack had noted with admiration that the

Christians were equal-opportunity looters, freely taking over from
other sources whatever appeared useful:

"How rich then, and how manifold, are the ramifications of the
Christian religion as it steps at the very outset on to pagan soil! . . .
It is the religion of authority and of unlimited faith; and again, the
religion of reason and of enlightened understanding. Besides that,
it is a religion of 'mysteries' . . . Every force, every relationship in
its environment, was mastered by it and made to serve its own
ends . . . It learned and borrowed from many quarters; indeed, it
would be impossible to imagine it existing amid all the wealth
and vigor of these religions, had it not drawn pith and vigor even
from them . . . Here is a religion which embraces everything . . .
One name, the name of Jesus Christ, still sums up everything. " 1 9

Jesus continues at the present time to be all things to all men, which
has led to virtual anarchy in New Testament studies since each scholar
presents his own view. John Crossan writes:

"Historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly

bad j oke . . . [because of] the number of competent and even
eminent scholars producing pictures of Jesus at wide variance
with one another . . . Seven different images of Jesus that have

328 C H A PT E R 24
 been proposed by scholars in recent years [with personas
including political revolutionary, magician, charismatic,
proto-Pharisee, rabbi, etc.] "20

We are back with Celsus: one must cast dice to decide.

Another "solution" gaining favor in recent studies is to claim "margin

ality." Jesus was a marginal figure in a marginal province. His life was so
obscure and he was so far down in the social scale that no notice was taken
of him by contemporaries, and his followers were so humble that they
could not record much. He was " . . . a peasant nobody,"2 1 as Crossan puts
it. This conveniently explains the absence of historical data but does not
explain how four gospels brimming with fictional data could emerge from
this vacuum at the outset, and why the writers would bother with him.
The ultimate in dissolution of the person of Jesus is made, at present,
by a group including Burton Mack, Ron Cameron and Dieter Georgi.
They take the position that the main body of scholars, because of their
Christian background, had instinctively taken over the gospel premise:
that a unique and remarkable Person had appeared on the scene, and
that extraordinary events had taken place.

"The fundamental persuasion is that Christianity appeared

unexpectedly in human history, that it was at its core a brand
new vision of human existence, and only a startling moment
could account for its emergence . . . It is this startling moment
that seems to have mesmerized the discipline. "22

As opposed to the unique and extraordinary, Mack's group explains

Christian origins in secular terms, relying on the humanities and the
social sciences.

"The task would be to account for the formation of the gospel

in the context of a later social history . . . Instead of assuming
eruptions of inexplicable energy penetrating the human scene
from without . . . one should look for historical circumstances,
intellectual resources and social motivations for early
Christians to have imagined such a cosmic drama. " 23

C H A PTER 24 329
 That is, nothing extraordinary and cosmic had happened at the start, but
the later group, out of its own social setting, had created the story to legit
imize itself. Thus the supernatural Jesus dissolves and disappears; he is a
creation of the later sect, and there was no history.
While this appears as the most extreme and farfetched of views, it is
but the end-product of the position of Reimarus: that the disciples
altered and invented. Jesus assumes whatever persona his lowly but
obstinate followers want him to have. We thus have the idolatry of the
image: each worshipper endows the Icon with whatever attributes,
virtues and miraculous powers that the worshipper desires. In the
modern view the attribute of "human existence" has been attached,
which brings the divine being that much closer to the worshipper. But
this is a matter of faith, not of evidence. For all their skepticism and
rejection, the Mack-Cameron-Georgi group devoutly asserts the
existence of the human Jesus as the starting point - with no shred of
proof.

330 C H A P T E R 24
NOTES:
I . A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe Historicaljesus, 398
2. A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe Historicaljesus, 4
3. A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe Historicaljesus, 400
4. H.S. Reimarus, quoted by A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe HistoricalJesus, I 7
5. H.S. Reimarus, quoted by A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe HistoricalJesus, 2 I
6 . E . Gibbon, The Decline and Fall ofthe Roman Empire, chapter I 5 , I 88
7. E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall ofthe Roman Empire, chapter 20
8. Origen, Contra Celsus, 5:63
9. Theodosian Code, I 6.5.5, I 6.5.6, enacted AD 379
I 0. E. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, xxxvi ii
I I . A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe HistoricalJesus, 84
I 2. D.P. Strauss, quoted by A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe HistoricalJesus, 78
I 3 . D.P. Strauss, Quoted by A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe Historicaljesus, 79
I4. D.P. Strauss, Quoted by A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe Historicaljesus, 82
I 5. R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 28
I 6. R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 28
I7. D.P. Strauss, Quoted by A. Schweitzer, The Quest ofthe Historicaljesus, 89
I 8. R. Bultmann, Form Criticism, 36, 57
I9. Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 3 1 2 - 3 I 3
20. ] . Crossan, The Historicaljesus, xxvii
2 1 . J. Crossan, The Historicaljesus, xii
22. B. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 4
23. B. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 9

C H A PT E R 24 33 1
 25

SKEPTICAL STUDIES

"I cannot determine what I ought to transcribe till I am

satisfied how much I ought to believe."
Edward Gibbon,
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Emp ire

With so much of the gospel story rej ected by critical scholarship,

how much confidence can we have in the central drama, namely the
passion narrative ? If that is shown to be fictional in its entirety,
then the gospel story is in virtual bankruptcy. However scholarly
studies of this narrative in recent decades have indeed gone far
towards dismantling the story. This means that the Jewish authori
ties and judges of the Sanhedrin, accused down the centuries of
bringing about the death of an innocent man, have been cleared of
any wrongdoing, and it is the gospel writers who stand accused of
putting out a fake story.
Bultmann began the dismantling process in his History of the
Synoptic Tradition, first published in 1 92 1 . He methodically
rej ected each episode as given in Mark's gospel. We summarize his
opmwns:

The betrayal by Judas 1

"Judas' betrayal, at least as it is actually presented, belongs to

legend." 2

The anointing at Bethany, foreshadowing the anointing of the body

for the burial,3

" . . . a biographical legend. "4

C H APTER 25 333
 The preparation for the Passover, where the disciples will meet
a man directing them to the Passover chamber.5

"The basis is a fairy-tale motif . . . to show the traveler his way. " 6

The foretelling of the betrayal, wherein Jesus announces that one at

the table will betray him.7

"The legendary character of the scene follows from the fact that
the announcement of the betrayal is not followed by any
practical consequences. " 8

The institution of the Lord's Supper.9

" . . . a cult legend of the Hellenistic circles concerning Paul. . .

The section was turned into an account of the Passover in
editorial revision . . . We may well ask if the author of Gospel
of John had a more primitive account of the Last Supper in
front of him. " 1 0

The road to Gethsemane and the foretelling of Peter's denial. 1 1

"The tradition behind [this] has t o b e classed a s a historical

account with legendary traits. It prepares the way for the
Arrest and the Denial. " 1 2

That is, it derives from "tradition," which is as far back as Bultmann

is able to go.

Jesus in Gethsemane. 1 3

"This is originally an individual story of a thoroughgoing

legendary character which has not survived intact in Mark . . .
It is characteristic for the history of the tradition that Luke or
his copyist has expanded the scene by the wholly legendary
section of Luke 22:43ff [Garden Scene] ." 1 4

334 C H A PT E R 25
The Arrest. 1 5

"This piece of narrative is colored by legend in the motif of the

betrayal by a kiss, and in what Jesus says in verses 48ff, which
sounds very much like Church apologetics and dogmatics. " 1 6

Peter's denial. 1 7

"The story of Peter is itself legendary and literary." 18

Trial and judgment by the Sanhedrin. 1 9

" I think the whole narrative in Mark is a secondary explanation

of the brief statement in 1 5: 1 [i.e., 'And straightaway in the
morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders
and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus and
carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.'20] In the first

place we have to ask: not what can be thought of as historical,

but what is intelligible as tradition in the Christian Church ?"2 1

That is, we have "Church apologetics and dogmatics" creating the

trial episode. Elsewhere Bultmann states that the Sanhedrin trial "must
be reckoned as a faith-legend."22

The ill-treatment of Jesus (where Jesus is buffeted and spat upon by

the Sanhedrin judges).23

"This is a piece of the tradition that is somewhat scattered and

Mark has put it at a peculiarly unfortunate place. It must have
been part of an older narrative . . . "24

Delivery to Pilate, sentence and crucifixion. 25

"This is by no means a unitary composition . . . The episode of

Barabbas is obviously a legendary expansion . . . Matthew has also
enlarged a few legendary features: Pilate's washing of his hands
[Matthew 27:24] and the death of Judas [Matthew 27:2 - 1 0]."26

C H A P T E R 25 335
The mocking of the Crucified. 27

"This is a legendary formulation on the basis of a prophetic

proof: Psalms 22:8, Lamentations 2 : 1 5 . . The appearance of
. .

the chief priests and scribes as typical opponents of Jesus is in

the secondary tradition. "28

The death of Jesus. 29

"This account is strongly distorted by legend . . . The terata

[earthquakes and resurrections] at the death of Jesus [are]
Christian legends . . . "30

The women as witnesses. 3 1

"As at the Resurrection women are here named as witnesses.

And here they are as little historical as there. They are neces
sary because the disciples who had fled could not be made to
appear. "32

The burial. 33

"This is a historical account which creates no impression of

being a legend apart from the women who appear again as
witnesses . . . Matthew 27:62-66 attaches the legend of the
sepulchre guard for apologetic [i.e., polemical] reasons."34

Finally we come to an episode labeled "historical." Bultmann does

this because he ends his critique of the passion narrative with Mark's
burial story. He makes this an implied rejection of the Resurrection,
which he does not cover. If Jesus existed he of course was buried, so
Bultmann is safe in declaring this to be historical, but all else is
rejected.

As Bultmann sees it, the Jesus that appears in the passion story is not
a human personage, but a doctrinal and cult god.

336 CH APTER 25
 "The figure of Jesus is seen in the light of faith, of cult and of
myth . . . There is no interest in his Bios in a purely historical
sense . . . The Christ who is preached is not the historical Jesus
but the Christ of the faith and the cult . . . The Gospels are
expanded faith legends . . . There is no historical-biographical
interest in the Gospels, and that is why they have nothing to
say about Jesus' human personality, his appearance and
character, his origin, education and development . . . They do
not tell of a much admired human personality, but of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, the Lord of the Church, and do so
because they have grown out of Christian worship and remain
tied to it. "35

From which it follows that the passion narrative is a doctrinal state

ment, not a historical event.
From the foregoing material we must agree that Bultmann, recog
nized as the leading New Testament scholar of the century, has
dismantled the main content of the passion narrative. The human Jesus
cannot be derived from the gospels, but is a secular invention. The
human-biographical Jesus, which today appears unquestionable, was
first created by the skeptics and philosophes of the eighteenth century,
precisely because they wanted to combat the Christ of the Church.
This Jesus then achieved vivid novelistic human reality in Renan's
Life of jesus, published in 1 863, a book that was the scandal and
bestseller of the decade, and which has set the pattern for the human
Jesus to the present. Before the modern era the Jesus of the Passion was
there only as a creation of the church, to speak and act out church
doctrines.
In the foregoing critique by Bultmann we note that all episodes that
implicate the Jews and throw reproaches and accusations against the
Jews have been declared by him to be "legendary. " These include the
bribery of Judas, the Sanhedrin trial, the mistreatment and mockery of
Jesus, the Barabbas story where the Jews prefer a criminal to Jesus, the
"washing of the hands" by Pilate, and Matthew's burial story wherein
the Jewish authorities conceal the disappearance of the body of Jesus
from the tomb. At this point the high priest Caiaphas could ask for a
directed verdict for acquittal.

C H A P T E R 25 337
 The dismantling of the passion narrative, begun by Bultmann, has
continued and intensified in recent decades. A good summary of the
present "state of the art" is given in Burton L. Mack's study, A Myth
of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins, published in 1 988.

He writes:

"For most of the rather long history of New Testament schol

arship, the passion narratives remained critically unexamined.
Only recently has this situation changed markedly. The
reasons for tardiness in coming to this text are complex, no
doubt, but underlying them all one suspects a certain hesita
tion to scrutinize those events crucial for Christian
myth-ritual . . . The passion narrative is the primary myth
ritual text for Christianity. For that reason it holds a privileged
position. For that reason also it has been less rigorously
analyzed than other portions of Christian literature.36

The long-delayed exploration gained momentum in the 1 970s. "In

the seventies many studies on the passion narratives appeared in
Germany . . . American studies set a new course in the 1 970s. "37
Mack calls the reasons "complex" but it will occur to the general
reader that enormous events had taken place in the prior thirty years:
the Holocaust and the War Crimes tribunals, which opened up the full
record of the genocide of the European Jews; the founding of the State
of Israel, with many nations supporting it; Vatican II, which with
Orwell-like suddenness canceled the age-old stereotype of the Jews as
a depraved race of Christ-killers; and the stunning victory of Israel in
the 1 967 war, which changed the stereotype from contempt to admira
tion.
Against these events the gospel passion narrative stood in fierce
contradiction, since this narrative declared that the Jewish authorities
were the driving force in bringing about the death of Jesus. Covertly,
the scholars sought to distance themselves from a narrative that was
now "politically incorrect." A revision was in order. With unspoken
accord the scholars, all members of the Christian Establishment, felt
the time had come to revise the story in a way that would leave the

338 C H A PT E R 25
person of Jesus intact, but would reduce the villainy of the Jews. The
target for the enterprise turned out to be the Gospel of Mark, declared
by the scholars to be the earliest and most historical of the gospels. If
it could be shown that Mark had put the story together and had fabri
cated the antisemitic portions, that would solve the problem. Jesus
existed, but the passion story would be explained away. We thus have
the spectacle of established New Testament scholars engaged in this
dismantling work, following their own agenda. It is further testimony
undermining gospel credibility, therefore the existence of Jesus.
We confine ourself here to two recent studies of the passion narra
tive, put out by New Testament scholars recognized to be in the front
rank in this field: A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins by
Burton L. Mack; and Who Killed jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti
Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death ofjesus by John Dominic
Crossan.
Mack indicates that he has no knowledge as to how Jesus met his
end, therefore all would have to be invented by Mark.

"One can only speculate about what happened. Jerusalem was,

of course, the big city for Galileans during this period. Jesus
must have gone there on some occasion, most probably
during a pilgrimage season, was associated with a demonstra
tion, and was killed. "38

We are not even told that there was a trial and a crucifixion. Perhaps
the Romans attacked the pilgrims, and Jesus was cut down with many
others.
Mack then rejects key episodes in the story, as did Bultmann. We list
these, which again operate to dismantle the passion narrative:

1 . The 'temple act,' wherein Jesus violently disrupts the Temple

proceedings, overthrowing the tables of the money-changers, etc,
is rejected, but this removes a major cause as to why the authori
ties would want to get rid of a dangerous enemy. Mack states:
"The temple act cannot be historical . . . The conclusion must be
that the temple act is a Markan fabrication. "39

C H A P T E R 25 339
2. "The story of the arrest (at Gethsemane) is a Markan fiction . . . The
Righteous One is the forsaken one, without helpers and alone
before his accusers. "40

3. The Sanhedrin trial is also fabricated. "Mark used the motif of the
false witnesses to create the illusion of a trial. . . The trial is really
a very vicious fiction. "41

4. "The trial before Pilate was necessary because historical credibil

ity demanded it. The Romans, rather than the Jews, executed
criminals by means of crucifixion. "42
Mack hints that Mark found himself in the dire predicament of
having to put in a historical touch.

5. "The story of Judas' betrayal is a Markan fiction. "43

6. Peter's denial was "imagined": "Many scholars have thought to

see a 'Petrine' reminiscence in this story, finding it difficult to
believe that Mark imagined all of it. The evidence that he did,
however, is overwhelming. "44

As to why Mark created this narrative, and his gospel as a whole,

Mack's explanation is that this gospel was put out by a "synagogue
reform movement" in the Diaspora in sharp conflict with the
synagogue authorities, leading to expulsion of that group. The gospel
emerged as a legitimization document, wherein Jesus embodied the
grandiose claims of that group, and also symbolized the alleged
martyrdom of the group.

"The Jews who did not accept the teaching of the Jesus-people
about Jesus and his kingdom are pictured in the gospel as
those who conspired to kill him. . . The conflict of the
synagogue reform movement with the synagogue was read
back into the myth of origins and presented as the cause for
Jesus' crucifixion. "45

340 C H A PT E R 25
 The end result was the "vicious fiction" of the Sanhedrin trial impli
cating the Jewish leaders in an imaginary event. It is a revenge-story
where later events are read back as the "myth of origin. "
This is Mack's explanation as to how Mark's gospel came into being.
It neatly explains the absence of historical credibility in Mark's gospel
while preserving the existence of Jesus and preserving the hallowed
premise of Jewish villainy in expelling and persecuting the good
reform group. This helps establish the bona fides of Mark in creating a
fictional gospel. Mack has covertly propped up the Christian case. The
gospel is a fake but it is an understandable fake.
While this appears to be a radical thesis, it fits very well with our
premise, set forth in earlier chapters, that Paul led a "reform group"
that was expelled from the James ian church, and that in retaliation
Paul came out with his virulent charge, "The Jews killed the Lord
Jesus. "
Mack remarks on this:

"Paul said once that the Jews killed Jesus as they had killed the
prophets . . . 46 Paul's meditation shows just how dangerous it
would be to historicize the kerygma [sect doctrines]. It also
shows the circumstances under which one might be tempted
to do so. The circumstances are those in conflict with Judaism
or with Christian Judaizers. "47

Exactly. The conflict will be "historicized" in the fabrication of

supposed events, including a charge of first-degree murder on the part
of the Jewish authorities.
Our second writer on the passion narrative is John Crossan. He
agrees with Burton Mack that the disciples had no knowledge as to
how Jesus met his end, therefore all had to be imagined.

"The hypothesis I am testing is that Jesus' companions knew he

had been arrested and executed but knew nothing at all about
what, if anything, had intervened. They had no details at all
about any judicial proceeding or, indeed, any knowledge
about whether any such event took place. "48

C H A P T E R 25 34 1
 Perhaps there had been no trials. In his major work, The Historical
jesus, Crossan writes: "It is now impossible for us to imagine the
offhand brutality, anonymity and indifference with which a peasant
nobody like Jesus would have been disposed of. "49
Crossan also follows Mack in the hypothesis that the Gospel of
Mark was composed by a member of a dissident group that had been
expelled from the synagogue. His gospel is a legitimization text, that
explains why his sect is the true Israel. It is also a resentment text,
putting all blame on the Jews. Just as they had persecuted Mark's
group so the Jewish leaders had persecuted Jesus in the earlier period.
Crossan explains:

"Mark writes for and to a community that has suffered severely

from lethal persecution . . . He has Jesus foretell as distant
future what he knows full well as recent past, 'As for
yourselves, beware, for they will hand you over to councils,
and you will be beaten in synagogues . . . ' Mark 1 3 :9."50

"Mark tells us of accusations made against Markan Christians by

Jewish authorities, and he retrojects such accusations back onto Jesus
himself. "51

We thought Crossan was going to defend the Jews against

"antisemitism in the gospel" and now we have Jewish villainy set forth
in full display. With friends like Crossan . . .
Johannes Weiss shows scant belief in these stories, as related in Acts:

"We are reminded, again and again, with wearisome monotony, of

the hostility and opposition of the [Diaspora] Jews, who from envy at
the Apostles' success, stir up the mob against them, hinder their activ
ity, and drive them from the place. "52

In the foregoing, Crossan has vouched for Mark's bona fides: there
was a Jesus who was slain, and there was resentment at the Jewish
authorities. Mark thus has plenary absolution in inventing as he
pleases.
Crossan nevertheless joins Mack in rej ecting major episodes:

342 C H A PT E R 25
1 . Jesus' predictions of the passion.

"There is no reason, after John Baptist's execution, that Jesus

might not have imagined some similar fate for himself, but
these precise prophecies were created and placed on Jesus' lips
by Mark himself. "53

The predictions include direct accusations: "The Son of Man must

undergo great sufferings and be rejected by the elders, the chief
priests and the scribes, and be killed. "54
This is now labeled a Markan creation.

2. The Sanhedrin trial and the Pilate trial. "The trial of Jesus was first
created by historization of Psalm 2 . . It is not just the content of
.

the trials but the very fact of the trials that I consider to be unhis
torical. "55
The trials are the very essence of the passion narrative.

3. Barabbas. "Mark invents that very character itself. "56

This is a key episode, and shows the villainy of the Jews in calling
for the release of Barabbas rather than Jesus.

4. "I consider Joseph of Arimathea to be a total Markan creation."57

Be it noted, this Joseph has a major role in the tomb and burial
stories. Pilate turns over the body of Jesus to him and he makes
the burial arrangements. If he drops out of the story then all is in
disarray.

5. "Mark created the empty tomb story, just as he created the sleep
ing disciples at Gethsemane. "58
This of course is a denial of the resurrection story.

Overall, Crossan denies historical fact anywhere in the crucifixion

story. " In conclusion, I cannot find any detailed historical information
about the crucifixion of Jesus. Every item we looked at was prophecy
historicized rather than history recalled. "59

C H A PTE R 25 343
 As Crossan sees it, the whole story was the acting out of proof-texts.
"In the beginning was passion prophecy, then came passion narrative."60
Crossan states that the gospel writers, starting with a blank page and
with zero history, were quite free with their imaginings and their
creativity. The gospel of John shows " . . . extremely creative adapta
tions . . . (with) brilliantly independent creativity. "6 1
"John's alleged used of Mark is so profoundly creative that we are
dealing with a total transformation. " 62
In general, the gospels involve . . .

" . . . historization, actualization, popularization. Some anony

mous genius took diverse Scriptural fulfillments, for example
Psalm 2, and historicized them into a story of what happened
to Jesus, but did so that the events were actualized in the most
recent experience of the Christian community, and the inter
action of past and present was presented in popularized
format. "63

This genius did all the work.

The primary source is named as the apocryphal gospel of Peter, in

itself a fictional work, after which " . . . the other evangelists each devel
oped it extensively, creatively and quite deliberately. John, however,
did so most brilliantly. " 64
"From John, as usual, one expects maximum creativity. "65

We can imagine what would happen to these accounts in a present

day courtroom. However Crossan finds it all "fascinating": "It is
fascinating to compare what Mark created to make his points, with
what John created from Mark's account, to make very different
points. " 66

Thus far, two of our scholars, Burton Mack and John Crossan, have
failed to provide any confirmation for the passion narrative. We turn
now to scholars who support the narrative and will examine their
arguments.

344 C H A P T E R 25
NOTES:
1 . Mark, 1 4 : 1
2. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 262
3. Mark, 14:3 - 9
4. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 263
5. Mark, 1 4: 1 2 - 14
6. R . Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 264
?. Mark, 14: 1 7 - 21
8. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 265
9. Mark, 1 4:22 - 25
I 0. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 266
I I . Mark, 14:26 - 3 1

1 2. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 267

1 3 . Mark, 14:32 - 42
14. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 267 - 268
1 5 . Mark, 14:43 - 52
1 6. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 268
1 7. Mark, 1 5 :53, 66 - 72
1 8 . R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 269
1 9 . Mark, 14:55 - 64
20. Mark, 1 5 : 1
2 1 . R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 270
22. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 305
23. Mark, 14:65
24. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 271
25. Mark, 1 5: 1 - 27
26. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 272
27. Mark, 1 5 :29 - 32
28. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 273
29. Mark, 1 5 :33 - 39
30. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 273 - 274
3 1 . Mark, 1 5 :40 - 4 1

C H A PTE R 25 345
32. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 274
33. Mark, 1 5 :42 - 47
34. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 274
35. R. Bultmann, History ofthe Synoptic Tradition, 306 - 307, 370 - 373
36. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence: Mark and Christian Origins, 249
henceforth referred to as A Myth ofInnocence
37. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 258, 262
38. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 89
39. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 292
40. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 293
4 1 . B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 294 - 295
42. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 295
43. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 304
44. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 305
45. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 1 70, 207
46. 1 Thessalonians, 2: 14 - 1 5
47. B.L. Mack, A Myth ofInnocence, 280
48. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? Exposing the Roots ofAnti-Semitism
in the Gospel Story ofthe Death ofJesus, 1 1 2
henceforth referred to as Who Killedjesus?
49. J. Crossan, The Historicaljesus, xii
50. J. Crossan, Who KilledJesus? 1 7
5 1 . J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 1 1 0
52. J. Weiss, Earliest Christianity. 208
53. J. Crossan, Who KilledJesus? 67
54. Mark, 8:31
55. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 84, 1 17
56. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 1 1 1
57. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 1 72
58.]. Crossan, Who KilledJesus? 1 84
59. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 1 59
60. J. Crossan, Who KilledJesus? 12
61. J. Crossan, Who KilledJesus? 21
62. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 29
63. J. Crossan, Who KilledJesus? 95
64. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 1 14
65. J. Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 1 86
66. ] Crossan, Who Killedjesus? 80
.

346 C H A P T E R 25
 26

THE THEOLOGIAN-APOLOGISTS

"In definite acquittal the documents relating to the case are

said to be completely annulled. They simply vanish from
sight."
Franz Kafka, The Trial

As noted in our introductory chapter, several Catholic clergymen

scholars emphasize the theme of "responsibility and guilt" on the part
of the Jewish authorities. However when we come to examine their
evidence we find they are in the same morass of uncertainty and guess
work as the rest of the New Testament scholars and are unable to
confirm any part of the story.
The three in question - Josef Blinzler, Hans Kung and Raymond E.
Brown - must join the others in citing Josephus as the sole evidence
of any weight that Jesus existed, while acknowledging the controversy
as to genuineness. Blinzler: "The authenticity of the Testimonium
Flavianum is much disputed, as is well known" 1
Kung discreetly refers only to the James passage, staying clear of the
main passage. "The earliest Jewish testimony is provided, about
AD 90, by Flavius Josephus . . . He mentions with obvious reserve the
stoning in 62 of James, 'the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ' " 2

The main Testimonium was too hot to handle.

Raymond Brown writes concerning the passage: " Large parts of it

are plausibly from the hands of Josephus,"3 - while listing nine
writers in a footnote that deny that any of it is.
As mentioned, we will grant that this text is genuine only if undis
puted original manuscripts of Josephus are located that confirm this
text. Brown must show more than "plausibility. " In a murder case the
existence of the victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

C H A P T E R 26 3
 Blinzler admits that the four gospel writers themselves did not
consider their accounts as "historical" - rather these were "theological":

"None of these four (gospel) accounts is an actual report of a

trial. . . The evangelists are, generally speaking, less interested
in the purely historical course of events than in their content
as religious doctrine, hence their accounts of the passion must
also be understood primarily as testimonies of faith . . . "4

The attempt to recover the "history" is what has led to all the schol
arly disputes, as Blinzler admits.
Thus concerning incendiary passages in Matthew's gospel, as where
the Jews cry out " His blood be upon us and our children," Blinzler
writes: "The strongly polemical and biased character of these passages
peculiar to Matthew alone has caused them to be generally regarded by
critics of the gospels as legendary accretions."
Blinzler however comes to the rescue: The passages "contain hardly
anything that is historically improbable. "5
The criterion of "probability" is the best that he can offer.

Kiing in turn writes: "Despite the closest critical investigation, since

we have neither official records nor statements of eyewitnesses, it is no
longer possible to reconstruct the details of Jesus' trial."

He then adds nonchalantly that it is not too important to know what

the Jews did or did not do:

" It is relatively unimportant whether a formal sentence of

death was pronounced by the Sanhedrin or whether there was
an agreement to surrender Jesus to Pilate, with all the conse
quences, or merely even a suggestion that Jesus was dangerous
as . . . a potential rebel. " 6

Meaning that Kiing has no knowledge of any kind, hence the possi
bility is left open that the whole trial story is fictional, as Crossan and
Mack have argued.

350 CHAPTER 26
 Raymond Brown was considered among the most influential of
American scholars in this field. His book The Death of the Messiah
lists 1 500 authors in the index, along with scores of scholarly publica
tions and reference works. Let us see what he has to offer on the
passion narrative - the "PN" as he calls it.

Having gotten Josephus to vouch that Jesus plausibly existed,

Brown goes on to make this central to the story. All is unproved but
Brown makes this so emphatic that the illusion of historical fact is
foisted upon the reader:
"Jesus was a human figure of actual history. "7
"One can characterize as bedrock history that Jesus of Nazareth was
crucified at Jerusalem. " 8
He was " . . . someone who lived at a particular time in a particular
place among real people. "9
"We shall begin with indisputable facts . . . All four Gospels have a
Sanhedrin session that dealt with Jesus. " 1 0
"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. " 1 1
"It is solid history that Jesus was associated with John the Baptist
and that John Baptist was put to death by Herod Antipas." 12

The above illustrates the modus operandi. By placing the assumed

Jesus in a historical framework of time, place and 'real people' then
Jesus is made historical himself. Which is like saying that in the novel
War and Peace the character of Prince Andrey becomes historical
because he is in the framework of hundreds of historical facts dealing
with Napoleon's invasion of Russia. But at least Tolstoy had his facts
right. As we demonstrated in an earlier chapter, the attempt of the
gospel writers to describe the terrain, the customs and the religion
itself of the region led to error upon error. The writers know as little
of Judea and Galilee as they know of the Upper Amazon.
If the gospel writers are so far off in describing landscape. locale,
custom and religion, how accurate can they be in describing the named
historical personages - Pilate, Caiaphas, "chief priests," Pharisees et
cetera? We note at the very outset that the gospel writers had failed to
give a naturalist-historical portrait of Jesus himself. Instead, as
Bultmann has pointed out, they had made Jesus a mythical supernatural

C H A PTE R 26 35 1
figure, a Son of God and worker of miracles, the spokesman for church
doctrines and the embodiment of proof-texts. Can we expect greater
historical accuracy in their portrayal of the opponents of Jesus ?
To maintain the mythical supernatural portrait of Jesus, the gospel
writers were compelled to make the Jews as mythical and supernatural as
Jesus, but in manichaean counterpoint: pure evil as opposed to pure good.
"The Darkness hated the Light. . . You are of your father the Devil. . . "
To reject the teachings of Jesus and to plot against against him would
require an extraordinary amount of malignancy, and this created the
stereotype of the Jew that has prevailed down the centuries until the
post 1 970s. Thus Raymond Brown fails in his argument that the
naming of actual personages in the gospels thereby establishes the
historical existence of Jesus himself. Let us see if Brown has confirmed
any other part of the "PN."
Brown fully agrees with Bultmann that Mark selected, arranged and
edited prior traditional materials and used these to construct his PN.
Brown explains how Mark constructed the Sanhedrin trial scene:

" . . . the individual evangelists have reshaped the pre Gospel

tradition . . . I have pointed out awkwardnesses that were
created by the pulling together of incidents that were separate
in the tradition . . . Why not present them forcefully as one
dramatic scene where the interaction of motives and decisions
can be more easily understood ? . . . The clarity and force of the
unified trial presentation has moved and been remembered by
hundreds of millions; the awkwardnesses have bothered a
handful of scholars subjecting the narrative to microscopic
examination. "13

Mark's dramatic and moving scene includes such pleasantries as

having Jesus struck in the face and spat upon by the Sanhedrin digni
taries. The word "tradition" is used to legitimize Mark's lurid
imagination. Burton Mack correctly called the story "very vicious
fiction. "
Brown relies heavily on the word "tradition. " However there is a
wide difference between tradition and history. Historical research
makes a sharp distinction between what is labeled as factual event,

352 CH A P T E R 26
confirmed and corroborated as to time and place, and what is found in
legend and tradition. Tradition is defined generally as " . . . the handing
down orally of stories, beliefs, customs, etc. from generation to gener-
auon. "
.

In Christianity, tradition has the specific meaning of "the unwritten

teachings regarded as handed down from Jesus and the Apostles."

Thus the word very conveniently establishes the existence of Jesus

and the Apostles at the beginning, and also establishes the sincerity and
good faith of the gospel writers at the end. These writers can be
accused of many things, but they have avoided the main charge: that
the whole story is a fake and they have invented the story. It is the
magic word "tradition" that has rescued them and granted their bona
fides.
This "tradition" obviously does not include exact time, place and
firm corroboration since if we had these elements we would have
authenticity and chronology; we would have historical fact and not
tradition. We also note that tradition is always self-serving. It is
preserved and treasured by a given group or society to enhance the
prestige, accomplishments and antiquity of that society. And quite
often the said tradition is used to discredit a rival group or society. This
is clearly illegitimate since the target group is attacked by sources
'handed down' and which cannot be verified. The target group cannot
fight back. It is simply the victim of an age-old "tradition" that
amounts to age-old defamation.
Thus the scholar who in any way appeals to the "oral tradition" of
the "early Christian community" and claims this as a source for histor
ical fact, historical event or historically accurate statement, is at once
stepping outside the area of standard research. He is using a word not
used by Gibbon or any other responsible historian. He is going in for
guesswork and scenario-writing, and he must clearly indicate this to
the reader. He must state that at best this "oral tradition" may contain
historical possibility - provided we agree that there was a Jesus of
Nazareth and that there were "apostles " to hear the sayings and report
the events and launch the "tradition." Under the guise of objective
research all this is being foisted on the reader. Not one word of it can
be used in the courtroom against the Jewish authorities.

C H A PT E R 2 6 353
 Crossan had called the process of scene-fabrication by the gospel
writers " . . . actualization, historization, popularization. "
Brown prefers the word 'vocalize' to indicate that the invented scene
is the acting out of some concept or belief. We give several examples:
Matthew has the Jews cry out. "His blood be upon us and our
children. " 1 4

Brown explains: "Matthew, wntmg after 70, vocalizes a causal

judgment that arose among Jewish believers in Jesus."15
On the trial stories:

"We are hearing Christian tradition about the basic issue of

Jesus' identity vocalized respectively between Jesus and the
Jewish authorities, and Jesus and the Roman governor. That
issue has in each case been shaped into a simple question
format and made central in a dramatized trial setting. " 1 6

Thus theJewish and the Roman trials are fictional, based on "vocalization."

The last words of Jesus on the cross: this refers to a Scriptural text
"in which Mark/Matthew vocalize Jesus' desperation." 17

Matthew's story of the guard at the tomb: "It suggests that the story
of the guard at the sepulcher was vocalized at a period when the
Pharisees had become the chief opponents of Christians."1 8
Brown makes no apology for this process. Throughout he defends
the " creative" work of the gospel writers, in inventing passages and in
expanding the work of the other writers. " Indeed one must pay tribute
to Matthew 26:42 for having expanded Mark's colorless 14:39 with
theological skill, to fashion a second prayer."19
"The individual evangelists have reshaped the preGospel tradition. "20
"The Lucan crucifixion account. . . suggests how an imaginative
adaptation of Marean material could account for many of the differ
ences between the two Gospels. " 2 1

Another example:

354 C H A PT E R 26
 "Almost twice as long as the Marean account, Matthew's
Roman trial is longer than his Jewish trial. While using
Marean material as the backbone, Matthew has supplemented
it with dramatic incidents that greatly enliven the account and
heighten the theological import. " 22

It bothers Brown not in the least that Matthew invents out of thin
air. Matthew gets high marks for his creativity.
In his campaign to defend every line of the PN, Brown frequently
uses phrases such as " not impossible" and "not implausible," no matter
how farfetched the episode is. Crossan, who seems to be carrying on a
running feud with Brown, gives a list of these in Who Killed jesus?,
pages 36 - 37, citing Brown's book. We select several from the list:

Attendants slap or beat Jesus after his Jewish interrogation. "Such

abuse is not at all implausible historically. "2 3

Passersby mock Jesus on the cross. "It is not implausible."24

Members of the Sanhedrin are present at the cross. " It is not at all
implausible. "25
And this is on the Passover.

Brown thus establishes the "responsibility and guilt" of the Jewish

authorities by a list of not-implausibles. Since when does an objective
historian go in for these tactics ?

To add to the general confusion, no one knows who wrote the

gospels or where or when.

"No Gospel identifies its author. The common designations

placed before the Gospels, eg, 'The Gospel according to
Matthew,' stem from the late 2nd century [i.e., after AD 1 50],
and represent an educated estimate of authorship by church
scholars of that period who were putting together traditions
and guesses pertinent to attribution." 26

C H A PT E R 26 355
 "Our ignorance of what preceded Mark has allowed widely
divergent theorizing about the Gospel's import. "27

Concerning the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, wherein Brown is

determined to find "responsibility and guilt, " he writes:

"Overall there is the issue of composition. How were the

accounts in the various Gospels put together ? I shall reserve
the discussion of the myriad proposals about composition
until I have commented on the whole trial. " 28

The scholars have put out a " myriad" of proposals. Which of the
thousands is correct? We have a chaos of theories as to source and
invention and shift of material from one gospel to the other, with no
two scholars in agreement. "Opinions differ so widely that the confu
sion is impenetrable, " as Kafka puts it.

Brown writes that the virtue and innocence of Christ operated to

create " great injustice" when he was executed:

"Reading the Gospels will convince most that at least, although

troublesome, Jesus was a sincere religious figure who taught
truth and helped many, and that therefore crucifying him was
a great injustice. "29

That is, the truth of the gospel creates the guilt of the Jews. But to a
devout and zealous individual setting fire to a synagogue it is the guilt
of the Jews that creates the truth of the gospel. The question is -
which came first, the Victim or the Villainy, and which created which ?

The writings of the Alexandrian Four, especially Apion, show that

the stereotype of the Jew as alien and demonic was well-known prior
to the composition of the gospels. Apion's contribution was the ritual
murder story - that each year, presumably at the Passover, the Jews
offered up an innocent victim, which was a great injustice. Can we be
sure that Apion was not one of the sources used by the gospel writers ?

356 C H A PT E R 26
 It will be recalled that Justin and the other early Christians were
emphatic that the Jews alone carried out the crucifixion - an impossi
ble situation in a Roman-occupied province. We thus have guilt
created out of thin air. And if the gospels were edited and improved
versions of Justin, these would have no higher credibility.
At the conclusion to his book, after 1 500 pages, Brown has very
little to offer the reader. He defends Mark against the charge that he is
a novelist who invented the whole story; instead Mark made use of a
"source" although that source is lost and invisible, which rescues Mark
from the charge. And Brown consoles us with the news that there are
"rich layers of tradition" still to be explored although the savants have
been working on this for 300 years to no avail.

He writes:

" Our investigation brings us to a pos1t1ve conclusion and a

point of challenge. We may safely conclude that Mark uses a
source in writing his PN. We know that source, however, only
as incorporated in Mark. The greatest challenge that lies
before us is not the separation of tradition from Marean redac
tion for, as our earlier work shows, that task may finally be an
impossible one. Rather, we must investigate the rich layers of
tradition that come to us in the form of the Marean PN. "30

Nowhere in the above is there any mention of historical fact since it

may be impossible even to obtain a separate "tradition" from Mark.
Where then is the guilt of Caiaphas and his associates ? We must
conclude that Brown has joined the others in the dismantling of the
passion narrative. But Brown had stated that " . . .from every point of
view the passion is the central narrative of the Christian story. "31

Therefore the entire story vanishes, which necessarily means the

dismantling of the case against the Jewish authorities.

C H A P T E R 26 357
As we bring our inquiry to a close several conclusions may be stated:

1 . The gospel story is fictional in its entirety. There never was a Jesus
of Nazareth and there never was a crucifixion story.

2. In particular the passion narrative must be condemned as a delib

erate fraud, meant to attack and defame the Jews.

3. Christianity has fabricated its origins, its legitimacy and its histor
ical truth by the capture and occupation of the Judaic Scriptures,
and the claim to be the True Israel. This is a conquest and occupa
tion which the Jews have never recognized.

4. An alternative explanation can be provided for Christian origins

and early Christianity - one that does not require the "historical
Jesus."

5. New Testament scholarship is a bogus enterprise. It creates

scenarios and takes over material from the social sciences to give
the impression that Christianity has an authentic historical origin.
The pose of objective research is used to prop up the gospel story
but no hard evidence can be found to support that story.

In view of the foregoing, the candid reader is asked to render a

verdict of acquittal for the Jewish authorities.

358 C H A PT E R 26
NOTES:
1 . J. Blinzler, The Trial offesus, 29
2. H. Kling, On Being a Christian, 1 20.
3. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 374 n. 1 04
4. ]. Blinzler, The Trial ofjesus, 39
5. ]. Blinzler, The Trial offesus, 2 1 6 - 2 1 7
6 . H . Kling, On Being a Christian, 3 3 1 - 332
7. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, vii
8. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 3
9 . R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 3
1 0 . R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 5 5 5
1 1 . R . Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 240
1 2. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 468
1 3 . R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 559 - 560
14. Matthew 27:25
1 5. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 29
1 6. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 730
1 7. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 047
1 8. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 289
19. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 204
20. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 559
2 1 . R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 906
22. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 754
23. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 586
24. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 027
25. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 027
26. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 4, n.2
27. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 46
28. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 454
29. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 383
30. R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, 1 523 - 1 524
3 1 . R. Brown, Death ofthe Messiah, vii

C H A PT E R 26 359
 27

EPILOGUE

" . . . A dwarfed, walled-in collection of alleys and creaking

ancient buildings, its ugliness and loneliness in marked
contrast to the warmth and charm of greater Frankfurt . . .
this was the Judengasse, the ghetto of the Jews."
Howard M. Sachar, "The Course of Modern Jewish History "

I n the present work we have traced out developments i n the

Hellenic Jewish Diaspora up to the period of about AD 240. We now
have the somber task of narrating the studied and deliberate destruc
tion of this Diaspora by a triumphant Christianity, and its replacement
by a shattered and pariah ghetto Judaism.
A standard myth is that Judaism disappeared as a significant force
after the disaster of AD 70. However our main authority for the later
period will be Marcel Simon's book "Verus Israel: A Study in the
Relations Between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, 135 -
425. " He quotes several writers to show the continued effectiveness of
this Judaism. He cites E. Schwartz who argued that " . . . a Jewish prose
lytizing movement that was both strong and many-sided survived in
the face of the victorious Church. " 1
W. Bousset " . . . thinks that the Hellenistic and universalist spirit
maintained itself much longer than is generally admitted . . . [with] a
hitherto unsuspected vitality. "2
Catholic Christianity became all-powerful after AD 325 with its
adoption by Constantine as the official religion of the empire, however
Judaism remained very much on the scene - to the alarm of the
Church.
M. Simon writes: "Though Christian anti-Semitism existed, at least
in rudimentary form, at the very beginning of Christianity, it only
unfolded fully in the fourth century [AD 3 00 - 400]."3

C H A PT E R 27 E P I LOG U E 36 1
 The charges thrown at the Jews were the same as those made at the
very beginning: "The Jews are worthy of hatred because they killed
Christ, persecuted his disciples, and rejected his teachings. "4
Not only were the Jews obstinately rejecting Christian doctrines but
were inducing others to a similar rejection. And while the Christians
had been powerless to silence the Jews at the early period, weapons
were now at hand in abundance to do the job. To the Church author
ities the Jewish 'threat' was very real:

" It was the existence of the pro-Jewish sentiments among the

laity that is the real explanation for Christian anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism was the defensive reflex of the orthodox
hierarchy to the Jewish danger, the Jewish disease [as one
Christian document put it] . . . The most compelling reason for
this anti-Semitism was the religious vitality of Judaism . . . It
was shown in the attraction that the Synagogue and its
message still managed to exercise over the [Christian] believ
ers . . . The Synagogue was an ever-present reality . . . "5

Not only a reality but an expanding one, causing in turn " . . . the
explicit and repeated legislative measures the Christians took during
the fourth century to protect themselves against Jewish expansion. " 6
The all-powerful Church found itself on the defensive. The average
Christian attracted to the synagogue seemingly was not impressed by
Church arguments based on dogma and theology. If anything, it was
the directness and obviousness of Judaism that appeared superior to
the complexity and mystery of articles of faith such as the Incarnation
and the Trinity. "Even the more troublesome obligations of Jewish
observance found a large public willing to comply with them."7
At least these were direct rituals and observances which the layman
could perform, not the elite priesthood.

The bleak record of how the destruction of this Judaism was carried
out can be found in the Theodosian Code. This Code was a compila
tion of laws and edicts issued during the period from Constantine to
Theodosius II - about AD 325 to 450.

362 C H A PT E R 27 E P I LO G U E
 Clyde Pharr writes:

"The Theodosian Code and Novellas [supplements] form the

richest single source and the only official collection of
contemporary information for the political, social and
economic conditions of the later Roman Empire. " 8

The Code, in effect, spelled out the concordat between the later
emperors and the Catholic faction, chosen among many rival sects, as
being the most disciplined and submissive to authority, and most
unswerving in its support of the empire. The emperor, his army and
bureaucracy, would control politics and the economy, maintaining
'order' with iron force. The Church would control the social and
religious life of the State, preaching harmony, with each party to the
concordat upholding the other.

From the beginnings of the Christian movement submission to

authority had been preached as a virtue. Tertullian, about AD 1 90,
affirmed his loyalty to Caesar, and declared that the fall of Rome
would mean the end of the world:

"We are ever making intercession for all the emperors. We pray
for them long life, a secure rule, a safe home, brave armies, a
faithful senate, an honest people, a quiet world, and every
thing for which a man or a Caesar can pray. " (Apologia 30:4)

He then quotes 1 Timothy 2:2: "Pray for kings, for princes and
powers, that all things may be tranquil for you." (Apologia 3 1 :3)

"There is another need and a greater one, for praying for the
Emperors . . . The end of the age itself, with its menace of
hideous suffering, is delayed by the respite which the empire
means for us . . I set the majesty of Caesar below God, and all
.

the more commend him to God, to whom alone I subordinate

him. " (Apologia 32: 1 , 33 :2)

C H A PTER 27 E P I LO G U E 363
 On the Roman side:

"Diocletian (AD 285 - AD 305) and Constantine (AD 324 -

AD 337) reorganized the state apparatus . . . An enormous
hierarchy of officials administered public affairs . . . The entire
population was organized as one vast army. "9

All occupations were frozen, with 'desertion' punished. Farm

tenants ( 'coloni) were reduced to serfdom. They and their children
would have to toil on the estates lifelong.

"Coloni who contemplate flight must be bound with chains

and reduced to a servile condition, so that by condemnation to
slavery, they shall be compelled to fulfill their duties as befit
freemen." (Code 5 : 1 7. 1 )

Church support was urgently needed to combat unrest m the

empire, especially when rival sects were encouraging this.

"The numerous heretical and schismatic sects of the period of

the late Empire frequently represented a rebellion against the
State and the authoritarian control of the State-supported
Church, rather than profound doctrinal convictions and
differences. " 1 0

Thus the 'Circumcellians' were . . .

" . . . composed of runaway slaves, ruined peasants, and the non

Roman population of North Africa, who combined
ecclesiastical with social revolt, and fanatically sought
martyrdom. " 1 1

The Code condemned some 36 of these heretical sects. "Their books

shall be immediately consumed with fire under the supervision of the
judges." (Code 1 6. 5.34)
Farm tenants ( 'coloni) who attended their meetings "shall be recalled
from these depraved religions by frequent flogging. " (Code 1 6.5.52)

364 C H A PT E R 2 7 E P I LOG U E
 "Very many persons who have been expelled from the churches go
about nevertheless with secret madness." (Code 1 6.6.2)
"They shall be flogged with leaden whips and shall receive a
sentence of exile. " (Code 1 6.6.4)
A heretic was defined as anyone who wavered in the slightest from
the Catholic faith: " If any man should disturb the Catholic faith, he is
deserving of deportation." (Code 1 6.4.3)

"Those persons who may be discovered to deviate even in a

minor point of doctrine from the tenets and the faith of the
Catholic religion are included in the designation of heretics,
and must be subject to the sanctions issued against these
heretics." (Code 1 6.5.28)

"No man shall argue about religion or discuss it, or give any
counsel. If any person, with flagrant and damnable audacity,
should dare to persist in his actions of ruinous obstinacy, he
shall be restrained with a due penalty and proper punish
ment. " (Code 1 6.6.2)

In this world of harshest authority on all sides, with all freedom of

movement in thought and occupation now forbidden, there was no
longer a place for a religion as flexible and challenging as Hellenic
Judaism. Its very existence was seen as a threat. Meaning that this
Judaism would either be wiped out, or would have to adopt the
specific role and marginal place dictated by the triumphant Church -
and that was a pariah existence. Since the Church was indispensable in
the matter of instilling obedience throughout society, any request by
the Church to the emperor would be granted. The Church would now
settle accounts once and for all with the Jews.

As Marcel Simon puts it,

"The condition of the Jews became steadily worse . . . The status

of the Jews little by little was eroded . . . The Jews' position was
made to seem more and more like a burden placed on them,
like a divine punishment falling on a class of people who are

C H A PTE R 27 E P I LOG U E 365

 under condemnation . . . These regulations progressively
excluded Jews from one area of public service after another. . .
and were intended to set the Jews apart from the rest of
society. " 1 2

This has a distinctly theological cast, and indicates that the legisla
tion was pushed through by the Church hierarchy. The Roman
authorities had no quarrel with the Jews, and were content to collect
the half-shekel. The Jewish Patriarch was the respected spokesman for
the Jewish populace. The attacks began after Constantine, with
Judaism fully protected under law prior to that time.
The new laws are found in 'Title 8, Book 1 6' of the Code, which is
labeled Jews, Caelicolists and Samaritans. ' Here we find a mixture of laws
affirming Jewish legitimacy - showing the traditional Roman
position - along with laws aimed at the destruction of Judaism. The
opening statute is blunt enough: Jews who assault Jewish converts to
Christianity as by " . . . assailing them with stones, then such assailant
shall be immediately delivered to the flames and burned, with all his
accomplices." (Code 1 6.8 . 1 , dated AD 339).
"Jews shall not be permitted to disturb any man who has been
converted from Judaism to Christianity. " (Code 1 6. 8 .5)
However, " If any person should be converted from Christianity to
Judaism, then his property shall be forfeit to the treasury. " (Code
1 6. 8 . 7, dated AD 353, and showing that Judaism was still gaining
converts)
The wording of one law indicates that attacks on synagogues were
beginning:

" It is sufficiently established that the sect of the Jews is forbid

den by no law . . . [The authorities] will restrain with proper
severity the excesses of those persons who, in the name of the
Christian religion, presume to commit certain unlawful acts,
and attempt to destroy and despoil the synagogues." (Code
1 6.8 .9, dated AD 396)

The Kristallnacht was beginning.

366 C H APTER 27 E P I LO G U E
 The Patriarchate was also under attack: "If any person should dare
in public to make an insulting mention of the Illustrious Patriarch, he
shall be subject to a sentence of punishment." (Code 1 6.8. 1 1 , dated AD
396)
The tide turned in the next century when the Patriarch Gamliel was
stripped of the title "honorary Prefect," barred from founding new
synagogues, or performing "circumcisions on a Christian." (Code
1 6 .8.22)
"Jews and Samaritans shall be deprived of all employment in the
imperial service. " (Code 1 6.8 . 1 6)
There are virulent statutes, referring to "the detestable and offensive
name of Jews . " (Code 1 6. 8 . 1 9)

The laws were aimed at . . .

" . . . a perversity that is Jewish and alien to the Roman empire . . .

It is more grievous than death and more cruel than murder
that any person of the Christian faith shall be polluted by
Jewish unbelief. " (Code 1 6. 8 .20, dated AD 409)

This was a call for the removal of Jews from all contact with
Christians, to avoid the pollution. A process of 'ethnic cleansing' then
took place, the removal being to ghetto areas. The method of choice
was setting fire to synagogues. This is the plain inference of a statute
that provided no penalty for those that set the fires, merely the pious
utterance that "now and henceforth no person shall seize and burn
their synagogues." (Code 1 6.8.25, dated AD 423)
To this was appended an order that the Jews be compensated by
being given a site on which to construct a new synagogue - which of
course would be set on fire in due course.
Even this token concession was removed by Novella Title 3 . 8 (dated
AD 438): "They shall not dare to construct a synagogue anew . . . They
must repair the ruins of their synagogue [at the original site] ."
Again a futile tactic. The only recourse left open was to retire to a
ghetto district, out of reach of the mob. The ghetto existence of the
Jews therefore derived directly from the Church's incitement to
violence.

C H A PT E R 27 E P I LO G U E 367
 The Patriarchate came to an end about AD 429 with the dissolution
of the family dynasty. The rabbinate then took over the leadership of
the ruined Jewish communities. The literature of Hellenic Judaism was
abandoned, then forgotten. This literature derived from a Judaism that
was universalist and missionary, but now only survival mattered. Thus
the long epic of Hellenic Judaism, that had started 325 BC in
Alexandria, came to an end. It had endured, with its remarkable
history and achievements, for more than seven hundred and fifty
years.

368 C H A PT E R 2 7 E P I LO G U E
No tes:
1 . Marcel Simon, Verus Israel xi
2. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel xi
3. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel 208
4. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel 208
5. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel 232
6. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel 279
7. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel 325
8. Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code, xxv.
9. Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code, xix
1 0. Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code, 582
1 1 . Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code, 582
1 2. Marcel Simon, Verus Israel, 1 27, 1 28

C H A P T E R 27 E P I LOG U E 369
 AuTHOR's NoTE

My status is that of an educated layman who has devoted many

years to the study of the literature pertaining to Christian origins and
early Christianity. This enterprise would perhaps be equivalent to
obtaining academic degrees in the field. However I do not have the
imprimatur of the scholars in the Establishment. Moreover I have been
led to conclusions that radically challenge the doctrines and positions
of the New Testament Establishment, as is apparent from the content
of this book. Hence I owe the reader some explanation as to how this
came about, and what qualifications I have for this enterprise.

Data: I was born in 1 9 1 6 in New York City. My parents were Polish

Jews recently arrived. I am now a retiree in Florida. Single.

Education: College of City of New York, 1 932-1 936. B.S. degree.

New York University School of Law, 1 936- 1 939. LL.B. degree.
Passed the New York bar; admitted November, 1 940.

U.S. Patent Office: passed examination for patent attorney and was
registered as a patent attorney 1 956.

I did not practice law as I was attracted to other fields. However this
legal background has been of great value in evaluating the testimony
and credibility of New Testament documents; especially patent law,
which deals largely with questions of dating, priority, originality of
material, infringement and copying.

Major influence: I was drawn to the field of gospel studies by a book

that made a profound impression on me. This was The Case of the
Nazarene Reopened, by Hyman E. Goldin (Exposition Press,
1 948). Goldin was a lawyer, rabbi and Talmudist. He subjected
the four gospel writers to sharp cross-examination as to each

A BO UT T H E A U T H O R 371
 one's version of the crucifixion story and was able to show almost
line-by-line divergence, contradiction, impossibility and fabrica
tion in the four accounts. Here an orthodox rabbi had broken the
ghetto taboos and had made a direct challenge to the Christian
case.
And I was compelled to follow his arguments.
From that time onward (I came upon the book in the 1 950s) I
took up extensive reading on the gospel story and on early
Christianity in general. My book is essentially a continuation and
updating of Goldin, dealing with much of the material made
available after his time, and like Goldin's book, is a legal brief for
the Jewish side. The main defense that is used is to show that the
gospel account is fictional and fraudulent in its entirety, and that
an alternate explanation for Christian origins can be provided.

Employment: During War II I served in the merchant marine as a

radio operator. I was in the North Atlantic convoys and was on
ships in relief work and army supply for the year afterwards. By
then I came in direct contact with Jewish refugees. In 1 947 I was
a crew member and radio operator for the blockade-runner
Exodus.
By this time I had become drawn to the merchant marine and
continued in this occupation for some thirty years afterwards,
though with much time ashore. This occupation over the years
brought awareness of the enormous world of the have-nots, in
many foreign ports. It also gave me the leisure to continue my
studies, with greater opportunities after retiring at age 62. While
retaining a skeptical layman' s approach, I believe I have acquired
the academic qualifications of the Establishment.

372 A BO U T T H E A U T H O R
 B IBLIOGRAPHY

In the following bibliography we cite the edition being used, though

the original edition may date earlier.

Beginnings of Christianity. editors F. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp

Lake. London: Macmillan, 1 920.

Blinzler, Josef.
The Trial ofJesus. Westminster, Md: Newman Press, 1 959.

Brown, Raymond E.
The Death of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday, 1 994.

Bultmann, Rudolf.
History of the Synoptic Tradition. New York: Harper & Row,
1 976, paperback, original: 1 93 1 .
Form Criticism. New York: Harper & Row, 1 962, paperback,
original: 1 934.

Cadbury, Henry
The Making of Luke-Acts. New York: Macmillan, 1 927.

Charles, R.H. editor Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old

Testament. 2 volume. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 973 . original:
1913.

Crossan, John D .
The Historical jesus. San Francisco: Harpers, 1 99 1 .
Who Killed Jesus? San Francisco: Harpers, 1 995.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1 9 1 5 .

BI BLIOGRAPHY 375
Encyclopaedia Biblica. 4 volume New York: Macmillan, 1 903.

Feldman, Louis
Josephus, the Bible and History. Detroit: Wayne State University
Press, 1 989, paperback

Gager, John
Origins of AntiSemitism. Oxford Press, 1 983.

Gaster, Moses
The Asatir: The Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' with
Pitron or Samaritan Commentary. Trans. by M. Gaster with
notes. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1 927.
"The Samaritan Hebrew Sources of the Book ofjoshua. " Journal
of Royal Asiatic Society. July, 1 930.

Gaster, Theodore
Dead Sea Scriptures. Garden City: Doubleday, 1 964, paperback.

Gibbon, Edward
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Modern Library,
ISBN 067960 1 48 1 , 1 995.

Goodenough, Erwin R.
The Theology of justin Martyr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1 968.
original: Jena, 1 923.

Graves, Robert
Claudius the God. Penguin Books, 1 964, paperback.

Gunther, John
St. Paul and his Opponents. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1 973 .

Harris, Rendel
Testimonia. Cambridge University Press, 1 9 1 6.
"jesus and the Exodus " The Expositor, volume 1 8 , London: 1 9 1 9.

376 BI BLIOGRAPHY
Harnack, Adolf
Mission and Expansion of Christianity. 2 volumes, New York:
Harper, 1 962, paperback, original: 1 908.

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible. editors F. C. Grant and

H.H. Rowley, New York: Scribners, 1 963 .

Josephus, Flavius. Loeb Classical Library. 9 volumes, Cambridge,

Mass: Harvard University Press, 1 965.

Klausner, Joseph
jesus of Nazareth. Boston; Beacon Press, 1 964, paperback,
original: 1 922.
From jesus to Paul. Boston: Beacon Press, 1 96 1 , paperback,
original: 1 934.

Kung, Hans
On Being A Christian. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984, paperback

Legge, Francis
Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity. New Hyde Park:
University Books, 1 964. original: 1 91 4 .

Loisy, Alfred F.
The Birth of the Christian Religion - The Origins of the New
Testament. one volume edition. New Hyde Park: University
Books, 1 962.

Mack, Burton L.
A Myth of Innocence. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 991 .

MacMillan Bible Atlas. New York: Macmillan, 1 968.

MacMullen, Ramsay
Enemies of the Roman Order. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1 966.

B I BLIOGRAPHY 377
Meier, John P.
A Marginal Jew. Volumes 1 and 2. New York: Doubleday
Anchor, 1 994.

Mitton, C.L.
Epistle to the Ephesians. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 95 1 .

Moore, George F.
judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press, 1 927-1 930.

Musurillo, Herbert A.
Acts of the Pagan Martyrs. Oxford Press, 1954.

New Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 954.

New Bible Dictionary. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1 962.

New Testament Apocrypha, editor: Henneke-Schneemelcher.

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1 964.

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 volume edition, editor: James

H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1 98 5 .

Pagels, Elaine
The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1 9 8 1 , paperback,
original: 1 979.

Patai, Raphael
The Messiah Texts. Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1 979.

Pharr, Clyde
The Theodosian Code. Princeton University Press, 1 952.

Philo. Loeb Classical Library edition, 12 volumes. Cambridge, Mass:

Harvard University Press, 1 939 - 1 964.

378 B I B LI O G R A P H Y
Powell-Davies, A.
The First Christian: A Study of St. Paul. New York: New
American Library, 1 959, paperback

Renan, Ernest
The Life of jesus. Garden City: Doubleday Dophin, no date,
paperback, original: 1 863.

Rowley, H. H.
The Relevance of Apocalyptic. London: Lutterworth Press, 1 944.

Saldarini, Anthony
Bible Review ('BR'). February 1 998.

Schmiedel, Paul
"John, Son of Zebedee. " Encyclopaedia Biblica, volume 2.
London: Adam and Charles Black, 1 90 1 .

Schiirer, Emil
A History of the jewish People in the Time of Jesus. New York:
Schocken, 1 96 1 , paperback, original: 1 890.

Schweitzer, Albert
The Quest of the Historical jesus. New York: MacMillan, 1 964,
paperback, original: 1 907.
The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. New York: Schocken, 1 964,
paperback, original: 1 90 1 .
Paul and His Interpreters. New York: Schocken, 1 964, paperback,
original: 1 91 1 .

Simon, Marcel
Verus Israel. London: Oxford Press, 1 986. original: 1 964

Smallwood, E. Mary
The jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: E.Brill, 1 9 8 1 , paperback.

B I B LIOGRA PHY 379

Suetonius
The Twelve Caesars. Translated by Robert Graves. Penguin,
1 95 7, paperback

Weiss, Johannes
Earliest Christianity. New York: Harper, 1 95 9, paperback,
original: 1 914.

Werner, Martin
The Formation of Christian Dogma. Boston: Beacon Press, 1 965,
paperback, original: 1 94 1 .

380 B I B L I O G R A PHY
 INDEX

Acts:
sole authority for a Christian origin of Jerusalem Church, 44;
falsifies Jerusalem Council meeting, 1 3 1 .
See also Luke.

Barabbas:
a christianized version of Alexandrian vagrant Carabas, 247.

Blinzler, Josef:
charges Jewish authorities with murder, 12.

Brown, Raymond E.:

charges Jews with " responsibility and guilt, " 12;
admits Matthew invented gospel scenes, 354.

Bultmann, Rudolf:
states Jews were blamed for death of Jesus for polemical reasons, 1 77;
denies controversy scenes in gospels, 1 77;
rejects each scene in passion narrative, 333 ff;
declares Jesus depicted as a cult-god, not a human figure, 337.

Caiaphas:
no details of career given by Josephus, 13;
has never had a day i n court, 1 3 .

Caligula (Emperor Gaius ):

enemy of Jews who denied his claims to divinity, 85;
enemy of Flaccus, 242.

Celsus:
his book, A True Discourse, is maj or critique of Christianity, 309;
calls Christians naive and deluded, 31 0;
claims they copied Greek sources, 31 0;
notes many charlatans and god-claimants, 3 1 3;
denies miracle stories, 3 1 7.

S U BJ ECT I N D E X 383
Crossan, John D.:
calls Mark's passion narrative "fictional," 1 02.

Domitian:
imposes Temple tax on gentile "God-fearers," 1 3 7.

Exodus story:
christianized in Epistle to the Hebrews, with Jesus replacing Moses, 69;
allegorized and spiritualized by Philo, 70;
given hostile restatement by Alexandrian antisemites, 1 42.

Flaccus, Aulus Avillianus:

Roman governor during Alexandrian riots, 24 1 ;
duplicates gospel scenes 257, 261;
duplicates Judas in betrayal, 243.

Galatians [Epistle to the]:

gives Paul's statement of his break with Jerusalem church and with Judaism, 1 2 1 ;
proclaims radical new faith, 1 30, 1 3 1 .
See also Paul.

Gaster, Moses:
published Samaritan texts relating to Joshua, 200.

Gaster, Theodore:
states that Jerusalem church derived from Qumran, 4 1 .

Gibbon, Edward:
declares the Josephus Testimonium to be a forgery, 297.

Gospels:
became canonical only after AD 1 80, 1 52;
earlier Christians unaware of gospel content, 1 53 .

Gospel writers:
show gross ignorance of geography, customs and religion of the region, 1 8 1 ff.

Harnack, Adolph:
notes missionary effort by Hellenic Judaism, 57;
notes capture of "Old Testament" by Christians, 1 7 1 .

Harris, Rendel:
traces development from proof-texts to gospels, 1 75 ff.

384 S U B J E CT I N D E X
Hellenic Judaism:
marked by prosperity, expansionism, missionary effort and universalism, 57 ff;
produced remarkable literature, 60 ff.

Herod Agrippa 1:
his arrival in Alexandria precipitates events, 244.

Historical Jesus:
not needed to arrive at supernatural Christ, 34;
not needed for "high Christology" of Logos and Son of God, 7 1 .

James:
orthodox, authoritative figure, 54.

James [Epistle of]:

shows no awareness of "historical Jesus," 54;
shows linkages to Qumran, 56.

Jerusalem:
rapid recovery after war with Rome, 1 07.

Jerusalem Church:
derives from Qumran Community, 4 1 , 42.

Jesus:
numerous Jesuses in early period, 1 9;
these in their ensemble duplicate the gospel Jesus, 23;
in particular there is intermingling with career of Joshua, 35.
See also Historical Jesus.

Jewish authorities:
have never had day in court, 1 3 .

John [Gospel of]:

identifies Jesus with Passover lamb slain by Jews, 1 44;
Bultmann gives this gospel priority, 1 58;
describes Eucharist as incarnation of Christ,
not as reenactment of Last Supper, 1 6 1 .

'Joint-Heritage':
not visible in early period, 1 67, 1 73 .

S U BJECT I N DE X 385
Josephus:
lists many Jesuses, 1 9;
his writings indispensable to researchers, 22;
unaware of Davidic Hope, 3 1 ;
notes Jewish missionary activity, 58;
defends Judaism after defeat in war, 1 1 6;
replies to pagan antisemites, 1 39;
lists prophets as orthodox Jewish historians, 1 4 1 ;
attacks Egyptian antisemites, 1 42 ff;
identified with Joseph of Arimathea, 291 ;
alleged Testimonium on Jesus declared a forgery, 297.

Joshua:
has same Greek name as Jesus, 23;
appointed by Moses as heir and successor, 33;
Joshua material transferred to Jesus, 35;
identified by Philo as 'Angel of the Way,' 7 1 ;
his career duplicates that of Jesus, 1 95 ff;
death and burial story of Canaanite kings duplicates that of Jesus, 2 1 3.

"Judaizers":
were the orthodox branch of Jerusalem church, 65;
possibly in existence after AD 70, 1 02;
unaware of crucifixion of Jesus, 1 1 7.

Justin:
states that Jews alone killed Jesus, 223;
precedes gospels, 1 52;
derides human intelligence, 1 55;
declares Jesus is God, 1 57;
declares Christianity is the true Israel, 1 66.

Kung, Hans:
charges Jewish authorities with murder, 1 3 ;
admits ignorance a s t o acts o f Jewish authorities, 3 50.

Luke:
severely criticized by scholars, 46 ff.

Luther, Martin:
rejected four New Testament books, 5 3 .

386 S U BJ ECT I N D E X
Marcion:
published earliest edition of Paul's epistles,
showing no awareness of a human Jesus, 78.

Matthew [Gospel of]:

constructed mainly of Joshuan material, 1 95.

Meier, John P.:

states that Josephus was unacquainted with gospels, 26.

Moses:
his role of intercessor and revealer of God's truth duplicates that of Jesus, 32, 3 3 .

Nazareth:
fictional city, 1 84.

New Testament scholars:

conceal presence of numerous Jesuses in early period, 1 9;
conceal good faith and candor of Josephus, 25;
suppress presence of Jesus in Exodus story, 75;
were originally called " historical theologians," 32 1 .

Origen:
uses only proof-texts, 3 1 7.

Passion Narrative:
makes chief priests main opponents of Jesus, 1 39;
in primary tradition, Jews alone responsible, 2 1 9;
Last Supper duplicates Alexandrian last supper of Flaccus, 262;
is a doctrinal statement, not a historical event, 3 37.

Paul:
not a pioneer missionary in Diaspora, 63 ff;
his epistles contain Christian additions, to make
him a witness to the "historical Jesus, " 78, 79;
denies dependency on Jerusalem church, 1 2 1 ;
was alive after A D 70, 1 24;
manipulates proof-texts, 1 67.

Philo:
acclaims Moses as near-divinity, 32;
allegorizes Exodus story, 70;
calls Logos (Word) God's eldest son, 7 1 ;
identifies Logos with Angel o f the Exodus, 7 1 ;

S U BJ ECT I N D E X 387
Philo [continued]
sketch of career, 2 3 1 ;
calls Logos the Great High Priest, 77;
his narrative of Alexandrian events has
24 parallels to Gospel passion narrative, 235;
gives alternate version of the Pilate 'superscription' scene, 280.

Proof-texts:
Jews reject these texts, 1 66, 3 1 0.

Qumran:
source of Jerusalem church, 4 1 .

Revelation:
death of "Lamb " refers to Joshua, 97;
death and resurrection of martyr-hero derives from the fall
of Jerusalem, and does not require "historical Jesus," 99.

Rival sects:
numerous in early period, 1 3 8, 1 59.

Schweitzer, Albert:
states that "historical Jesus" was an invention of secularists, 3 1 4;
states that New Testament scholarship is totally negative in results, 32 1 ;
states that New Testament scholarship i s basically a Christian missionary
campaign, 322.

Simon, Marcel:
notes sharp hostility between Judaism and
Christianity from the very outset, 1 72, 1 73 .

Strauss, David E:
begins dismantling o f Gospel historicity, 325.

Theodosian Code:
shows suppression of rival sects, 1 1 , 324;
legislation against heretics, 364, 365;
legislation against Jews, 366, 367.

War with Rome:

Rome provoked war, 87.

388 S U B.J ECT I N D E X

Weiss, Johannes:
sharp criticism of Acts and Luke, 47 ff;
rejects present text of Epistle to the Galatians, 1 27;
criticizes Paul's use of proof-texts, 1 67 ff.

S U B .I E C:T I N D E X 389
The Survey Books web site will present additional
important material on the topics within this book.

www . surveybooks.com

Reader participation is invited and welcomed.