THEY HID THE FOUR GOSPELS
PREFACE
Are the New Testament accounts of Jesus' life and death, the four gospels,
possibly true or plausible? One obstacle is knowing when they were made
available to read.
Evidence of reasonable publication matters more than the date something was
written. It will matter if you want to argue that society could contradict a
pile of historical lies when it gets a read at them. If the date is late and the
publication is late then we are entitled to refuse to take the gospels as gospel
truth.
Publication does not help indicate that the gospels were telling the truth for
literacy was low. There is no evidence that the gospels were read to people who
could assess them as true. Freeman, A New Early History of Christianity at 22
(“it would certainly be unusual to find living eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life after
AD 60 and it would be a matter of chance as to whether any of these survivors
could provide accurate and valuable information”).
If we could be sure that the four New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John were censored or largely censored during the first few decades of their
appearance we reduce the already weak evidence for the claims the Church makes
for the existence and life and significance Jesus Christ considerably. And we
can be sure. There is absolutely no evidence that anybody who would have been
able to refute the gospels had access to them and there is plenty of evidence
that the gospels were kept out of their clutches. Most Christian argumentation
in favour of Jesus Christ being a good man and a miracle worker comes from the
idea that the gospels were public and well known and weren’t debunked by people
who thought otherwise. They say for example that if the claims about Jesus in St
John’s gospel were false this would have been shouted from the rooftops and his
gospel would have been forgotten. The New Testament gives no indication that the
gospels were well-known or publicised. There is proof that they were not. It is
100% certain that there is no evidence that any part of the gospels that could
show that Jesus lived in Israel in the time and way the gospels say.
Bart Ehrman wrote, “Is it just a coincidence that none of the
noncanonical writings discovered over the course of the past century
embody an orthodox perspective? If orthodoxy was so widespread, why
is it that only heterodox documents of the second century have been
discovered? The answer to this question leads me to consider why,
after all, the Gospel of Judas should be seen as so important”.
He wrote this in his The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. To me
that is a sign that the gospels did not have great credibility or
were not well known. Or both!
WHO KNEW NO GOSPELS
If the Gospels existed or were available in the first century, they would have
used more by Christian writers and those who were interested in the Christian
history.
There is no evidence AT ALL that in the first hundred years after Jesus that
anybody had full access to those writings.
Early writings such as the Epistle of Barnabas and Diognetus seriously disagree
with the core New Testament teaching that Jews are not to be hated and that
their scriptures were taken as factual by Jesus. Barnabas denied that God
intended anybody to keep the Law of Moses for it was a code for hidden
teachings. That flies in the face of Jesus' teaching that the Law was infallible
and would be developed. Clement of Rome, an alleged successor of Peter as bishop
of Rome, knows of some gospel traditions roughly and never says he is quoting
gospels. His information came from hearsay and he is forced to distort the Old
Testament to teach Christian doctrine as if he cannot use the New. The evidence
is that those Christians did not have much access if any to the gospels. That
concealment would be deliberate.
The historian Josephus would have used the gospels for research and quoted them.
He wrote a lot about the time period Jesus lived in and spoke of John the
Baptist and Pilate and King Herod. But he didn’t even mention Jesus or
Christians though a Christian insertion says he did. The early Christians must
have been a secret and obscure cult. If they had gospels for the world to read,
nobody was interested. Or perhaps their gospels were deliberately hidden. Or
perhaps it was the major "historical" parts of them that were hidden. It is
likely that if the Christians were not afraid of people looking at their gospels
they would have sent them to writers like Josephus to get them advertised by
getting quotations from them published.
A very short piece about Jesus that sounds suspiciously like a creed was
inserted into the works of the first century Jewish historian Josephus. If
Josephus had really mentioned Jesus Christ he would have stated that we must
turn to the gospels for further information when he wrote so little. Any decent
historian would and Josephus was a clever one. If he really believed that the
man Jesus was the most important man who ever lived he would certainly have
recommended the gospels when he wrote so briefly about Jesus. If he wrote about
Jesus and did not mention the gospels then these books might not have existed as
far as he was concerned.
Pliny said that Christ was honoured as a god. If he had known the Gospels he
would not have said this. The New Testament is monotheistic.
The Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger (62-113 AD), sent his
letter to Trajan, the Emperor, in 110 to seek advice on how to stop the spread
of the Christian religion which was stealing sheep from his pagan religion for
he was puzzled why it was succeeding. The gospels would have been a significant
cause of faith if they had existed. If the Christians had had them they would
have used them to develop faith in themselves and even more so in the converts
for faith cannot be had without evidence. So Pliny would have burnt the gospels
instead of being puzzled. His looking for advice shows that the Christians had
no evidence to make converts with meaning that they had no gospels or any
scriptures maybe apart from the Old Testament. “Though we have no copy of the
letter dating prior to the sixteenth century, we know that that copy was drawn
from a manuscript of the sixth century that is without significant Christian
interpolations. The letter is therefore of 'genuine character'” (page 40, The
Jesus Event).
Pliny said nothing about the history of Jesus at all. He said that the
Christians were just harmless but depraved in superstition meaning that they
believed without evidence and therefore without gospels.
Tacitus, his friend, however apparently said that Jesus who he names only as
Christ suffered death under the reign of Tiberias by order of Pilate. He doesn’t
even say if it was a crucifixion – which he would have done for he spoke
revilingly of the Christian faith and was trying to convince his readers it was
bad news. Crucifixion was considered a disgrace and a proof that Christ was a
charlatan and a criminal who opposed Rome. So we don’t know if it was Jesus or
how he died but we can be more sure than not that this Christ was NOT the gospel
Jesus. Some would say who else could it be? It could be that Balaam in the
Talmud who was a Messiah who was hanged on the eve of the Passover. It could be
anybody that died who was supposed to have royal blood. Some messianic sects
believed that if their founder was killed, her would return from the dead one
day - perhaps in several years time. One might argue that there were loads of
Christs and since the reliable Tacitus says the Christians were misanthropes and
bad news that it was not the sect of Jesus. The Church was first called
Christian at Antioch about 50AD and the term means follower of the Messiah. But
it stands to reason that many messianic groups surrounding other figures would
have called themselves that among other names. It is just like every Christian
Church calls itself the Church of Christ but it does not mean they are the same
group. The early Church claimed that many Christian groups were too far away in
doctrine from them to be really Christians and accused them of inventing a new
Jesus.
Philo Judaeus of Alexandria who was born in 15BC, was into studying and writing
most prolifically about religious trends in Judaism. He was into tolerance and
had an ecumenical outlook. So, why didn’t he discuss the value in the gospels?
The bulk of the gospel teaching was taken straight from the Great Jewish
teachers. It was not original to Jesus. Philo distanced himself from fanaticism
which some say was the reason he ignored Christianity. But he went into the
Essenes in depth. He could still and would have looked at the teaching of Jesus
especially if Jesus was not a fanatic as the gospels imply.
WHY WE MUST EXPECT PARALLELS
We cannot be surprised if we find wordings and stories similar to the gospels in
entirely independent sources. The matches to New Testament tradition can be
explained as being down to oral tradition and not to somebody having the New
Testament.
The parable of the Prodigal Son appeared in the Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:24, a
commentary on the Law.
Hillel taught that we must treat others as we like them to treat us which
fulfils the Law and Prophets (Shabbath 31a) which is almost to what Jesus said
years later.
As Karen Armstrong noted in The First Christian (page 30), “The more we read of
the rabbis, the more we see that Jesus’ teaching is for the most part well
within the rabbinic traditions and not strikingly original. Like the Pharisees,
he is insistent that ‘Charity and deeds of loving kindness are equal to all the
mitzvot in the Torah’ (Tosefta Peah 4:19).
There is even a quote that seems to be from John 6 that has been found that says
that unless one does not partake of my flesh and drink my blood so as to be one
with me he will not be saved but which is actually from the Mithriac communion
rite.
Jesus’ teaching was stolen from other people. This Christian habit of borrowing
and plagiarism explains a lot and prevents us from using seeming Gospel quotes
in books to predate the gospels to these books. It makes it a bit more likely
that Jesus was totally invented too. It is hard to see how the crowds could have
been spellbound by Jesus, who taught differently from the scribes and Pharisees,
as the gospel says when he only served up what was on the menu for the previous
hundred years. They are keen to make him seem original because they claim he is
the revelation of God and God would not come to reveal hackneyed old hat and
aphorisms and would not be so trite.
PAPIAS
Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis, who reigned when Hadrian was emperor of Rome
which was from 117-138 AD is usually assumed to have given the first
unmistakeable evidences that the gospels existed or were circulated.
Papias speaks of a gospel written by Mark. But he complains that this gospel was
dreadfully disorganised. It cannot be the Gospel of Mark that we have now he
means, for it has been put together with sufficient skill.
Read what FF Bruce wrote about him. He wrote that Papias “preferred oral
tradition to written records. ‘I did not suppose,’ said Papias, ‘that what I
could get from the books would help me so much as what I could get from a living
a abiding voice’” (page 119). In 125 AD, Papias said that he preferred oral
tradition to books for it informed better. There could be no clearer indication
that he did not have the complete gospels for they would be preferred to every
other source by anyone claiming to be Christian. Who could deny that books are
better and more reliable than oral stories? Only those who can’t find any
coherent and credible books! What the apostles wrote was more important than
what the Church taught for the apostles being commissioned by Christ to teach
his message were more reliable. Papias is evidence that the Church had no
gospels written by the apostles.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
If the gospel of Luke was hidden then so was its sequel the book of Acts.
Richard Carrier tells us, “Regardless of when Acts was written, it was not
circulated to any notable degree until the mid-second century.” FF Bruce said
that it is only after that time that the circulation of Acts is “amply
attested.” Ben Witherington thought that the “manuscript had to be kept secret
for a considerable period of time” in page 63 of his book The Acts of the
Apostles (1998). The secrecy is interesting for there is no evidence at all that
anybody did any fact checking about Jesus or his resurrection. Acts shows how
the apostles (see Acts 2 where Peter uses only religious arguments and no
evidence based ones and Acts 28 – where Paul when arguing for Jesus’
resurrection gives only evidence from prophecies and nothing else and thus
proves that people were converting to the faith without regard for evidence or
facts).
Acts is in fact more important than the gospels. Why? Because it tells us what
the apostles who witnessed the resurrection thought of it and why it is true.
The gospels never say that the apostles were that convinced or for long. It
talks about the resurrection from an outsider point of view. Acts does not. A
testimony about a witness is nothing compared to one from a witness. No
Christian wants to depend on Acts alone for Acts is alone!! There is no
corroboration for its claims.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence at all that the Gospels were published within one hundred
years after Jesus’ demise. Regarding that period it is no wonder that Robin Lane
Fox described it as extremely difficult to figure out when the gospels were
first quoted (page 124, The Unauthorized Version). There is no evidence that
they were published for a long time after the end of the first century. Even if
they were published they were not widely known or made important and even the
highest people in the Church did not know of them. The words of Jesus were
published before the acts of Jesus. Anybody could make up the words but the acts
would be more difficult if the person did not exist or if a lot of lies were
told about him. But if you make up the teachings first and get people to want to
believe in the existence of the man who allegedly taught them it is easier to
add in the alleged deeds later. The words differ from the gospels enough to
indicate that the gospels were still evolving or were secret. These facts
utterly destroy the credibility of Christianity for the secrecy speaks of having
something to hide. For all we know, maybe there never was a Jesus.