JESUS WAS PALESTINIAN

How the Bible contradicts itself over key details about Jesus' birth

Photo by Michael Payne on Unsplash

The Conversation

November 26, 2024

Every Christmas, a relatively small town in the Palestinian West Bank comes center stage: Bethlehem. Jesus, according to some biblical sources, was born in this town some two millennia ago.

Yet the New Testament Gospels do not agree about the details of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. Some do not mention Bethlehem or Jesus' birth at all.

The Gospels' different views might be hard to reconcile. But as a scholar of the New Testament, what I argue is that the Gospels offer an important insight into the Greco-Roman views of ethnic identity, including genealogies.

Today, genealogies may bring more awareness of one's family medical history or help uncover lost family members. In the Greco-Roman era, birth stories and genealogical claims were used to establish rights to rule and link individuals with purported ancestral grandeur.

Gospel of Matthew

According to the Gospel of Matthew, the first Gospel in the canon of the New Testament, Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. The story begins with wise men who come to the city of Jerusalem after seeing a star that they interpreted as signaling the birth of a new king.

It goes on to describe their meeting with the local Jewish king named Herod, of whom they inquire about the location of Jesus' birth. The Gospel says that the star of Bethlehem subsequently leads them to a house – not a manger – where Jesus has been born to Joseph and Mary. Overjoyed, they worship Jesus and present gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. These were valuable gifts, especially frankincense and myrrh, which were costly fragrances that had medicinal use.

The Gospel explains that after their visit, Joseph has a dream where he is warned of Herod's attempt to kill baby Jesus. When the wise men went to Herod with the news that a child had been born to be the king of the Jews, he made a plan to kill all young children to remove the threat to his throne. It then mentions how Joseph, Mary and infant Jesus leave for Egypt to escape King Herod's attempt to assassinate all young children.

Matthew also says that after Herod dies from an illness, Joseph, Mary and Jesus do not return to Bethlehem. Instead, they travel north to Nazareth in Galilee, which is modern-day Nazareth in Israel.

Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of Luke, an account of Jesus' life which was written during the same period as the Gospel of Matthew, has a different version of Jesus' birth. The Gospel of Luke starts with Joseph and a pregnant Mary in Galilee. They journey to Bethlehem in response to a census that the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus required for all the Jewish people. Since Joseph was a descendant of King David, Bethlehem was the hometown where he was required to register.

The Gospel of Luke includes no flight to Egypt, no paranoid King Herod, no murder of children and no wise men visiting baby Jesus. Jesus is born in a manger because all the travelers overcrowded the guest rooms. After the birth, Joseph and Mary are visited not by wise men but shepherds, who were also overjoyed at Jesus' birth.

Luke says these shepherds were notified about Jesus' location in Bethlehem by angels. There is no guiding star in Luke's story, nor do the shepherds bring gifts to baby Jesus. Luke also mentions that Joseph, Mary and Jesus leave Bethlehem eight days after his birth and travel to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth.

The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile, although they do share some similarities. John Meier, a scholar on the historical Jesus, explains that Jesus' “birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact" but as a “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative." In other words, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of a story about Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

Raymond Brown, another scholar on the Gospels, also states that “the two narratives are not only different – they are contrary to each other in a number of details."

Mark's and John's Gospels

What makes it more difficult is that neither the other Gospels, that of Mark and John, mentions Jesus' birth or his connection to Bethlehem.

The Gospel of Mark is the earliest account of Jesus' life, written around A.D. 60. The opening chapter of Mark says that Jesus is from “Nazareth of Galilee." This is repeated throughout the Gospel on several occasions, and Bethlehem is never mentioned.

A blind beggar in the Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as both from Nazareth and the son of David, the second king of Israel and Judah during 1010-970 B.C. But King David was not born in Nazareth, nor associated with that city. He was from Bethlehem. Yet Mark doesn't identify Jesus with the city Bethlehem.

The Gospel of John, written approximately 15 to 20 years after that of Mark, also does not associate Jesus with Bethlehem. Galilee is Jesus' hometown. Jesus finds his first disciples, does several miracles and has brothers in Galilee.

This is not to say that John was unaware of Bethlehem's significance. John mentions a debate where some Jewish people referred to the prophecy which claimed that the messiah would be a descendant of David and come from Bethlehem. But Jesus according to John's Gospel is never associated with Bethlehem, but with Galilee, and more specifically, Nazareth.

The Gospels of Mark and John reveal that they either had trouble linking Bethlehem with Jesus, did not know his birthplace, or were not concerned with this city.

These were not the only ones. Apostle Paul, who wrote the earliest documents of the New Testament, considered Jesus a descendant of David but does not associate him with Bethlehem. The Book of Revelation also affirms that Jesus was a descendant of David but does not mention Bethlehem.

An ethnic identity

During the period of Jesus' life, there were multiple perspectives on the Messiah. In one stream of Jewish thought, the Messiah was expected to be an everlasting ruler from the lineage of David. Other Jewish texts, such as the book 4 Ezra, written in the same century as the Gospels, and the Jewish sectarian Qumran literature, which is written two centuries earlier, also echo this belief.

But within the Hebrew Bible, a prophetic book called Micah, thought to be written around B.C. 722, prophesies that the messiah would come from David's hometown, Bethlehem. This text is repeated in Matthew's version. Luke mentions that Jesus is not only genealogically connected to King David, but also born in Bethlehem, “the city of David."

Genealogical claims were made for important ancient founders and political leaders. For example, Ion, the founder of the Greek colonies in Asia, was considered to be a descendant of Apollo. Alexander the Great, whose empire reached from Macedonia to India, was claimed to be a son of Hercules. Caesar Augustus, who was the first Roman emperor, was proclaimed as a descendant of Apollo. And a Jewish writer named Philo who lived in the first century wrote that Abraham and the Jewish priest and prophets were born of God.

Regardless of whether these claims were accepted at the time to be true, they shaped a person's ethnic identity, political status and claims to honor. As the Greek historian Polybius explains, the renown deeds of ancestors are “part of the heritage of posterity."

Matthew and Luke's inclusion of the city of Bethlehem contributed to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah from a Davidic lineage. They made sure that readers were aware of Jesus' genealogical connection to King David with the mention of this city. Birth stories in Bethlehem solidified the claim that Jesus was a rightful descendant of King David.

So today, when the importance of Bethlehem is heard in Christmas carols or displayed in Nativity scenes, the name of the town connects Jesus to an ancestral lineage and the prophetic hope for a new leader like King David

.

Fuller Theological Seminary is a member of the Association of Theological Schools.The ATS is a funding partner of The Conversation US.

Rodolfo Galvan Estrada III, Adjunct Assistant Professor of the New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Was Jesus really born in Bethlehem?

The Conversation

December 27, 2024

Every Christmas, a relatively small town in the Palestinian West Bank comes center stage: Bethlehem. Jesus, according to some biblical sources, was born in this town some two millennia ago.


Yet the New Testament Gospels do not agree about the details of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Some do not mention Bethlehem or Jesus’ birth at all.

The Gospels’ different views might be hard to reconcile. But as a scholar of the New Testament, what I argue is that the Gospels offer an important insight into the Greco-Roman views of ethnic identity, including genealogies.

Today, genealogies may bring more awareness of one’s family medical history or help uncover lost family members. In the Greco-Roman era, birth stories and genealogical claims were used to establish rights to rule and link individuals with purported ancestral grandeur.

Gospel of Matthew

According to the Gospel of Matthew, the first Gospel in the canon of the New Testament, Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. The story begins with wise men who come to the city of Jerusalem after seeing a star that they interpreted as signaling the birth of a new king.

It goes on to describe their meeting with the local Jewish king named Herod, of whom they inquire about the location of Jesus’ birth. The Gospel says that the star of Bethlehem subsequently leads them to a house – not a manger – where Jesus has been born to Joseph and Mary. Overjoyed, they worship Jesus and present gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. These were valuable gifts, especially frankincense and myrrh, which were costly fragrances that had medicinal use.

The Gospel explains that after their visit, Joseph has a dream where he is warned of Herod’s attempt to kill baby Jesus. When the wise men went to Herod with the news that a child had been born to be the king of the Jews, he made a plan to kill all young children to remove the threat to his throne. It then mentions how Joseph, Mary and infant Jesus leave for Egypt to escape King Herod’s attempt to assassinate all young children.

Matthew also says that after Herod dies from an illness, Joseph, Mary and Jesus do not return to Bethlehem. Instead, they travel north to Nazareth in Galilee, which is modern-day Nazareth in Israel.

Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of Luke, an account of Jesus’ life which was written during the same period as the Gospel of Matthew, has a different version of Jesus’ birth. The Gospel of Luke starts with Joseph and a pregnant Mary in Galilee. They journey to Bethlehem in response to a census that the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus required for all the Jewish people. Since Joseph was a descendant of King David, Bethlehem was the hometown where he was required to register.

The Gospel of Luke includes no flight to Egypt, no paranoid King Herod, no murder of children and no wise men visiting baby Jesus. Jesus is born in a manger because all the travelers overcrowded the guest rooms. After the birth, Joseph and Mary are visited not by wise men but shepherds, who were also overjoyed at Jesus’ birth.

Luke says these shepherds were notified about Jesus’ location in Bethlehem by angels. There is no guiding star in Luke’s story, nor do the shepherds bring gifts to baby Jesus. Luke also mentions that Joseph, Mary and Jesus leave Bethlehem eight days after his birth and travel to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth.

The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile, although they do share some similarities. John Meier, a scholar on the historical Jesus, explains that Jesus’ “birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact” but as a “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.” In other words, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of a story about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.

Raymond Brown, another scholar on the Gospels, also states that “the two narratives are not only different – they are contrary to each other in a number of details.”

Mark’s and John’s Gospels

A Nativity scene showing the birth of Jesus in a manger.

Swen Pförtner/picture alliance via Getty Images

What makes it more difficult is that neither the other Gospels, that of Mark and John, mentions Jesus’ birth or his connection to Bethlehem.

The Gospel of Mark is the earliest account of Jesus’ life, written around A.D. 60. The opening chapter of Mark says that Jesus is from “Nazareth of Galilee.” This is repeated throughout the Gospel on several occasions, and Bethlehem is never mentioned.

A blind beggar in the Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as both from Nazareth and the son of David, the second king of Israel and Judah during 1010-970 B.C. But King David was not born in Nazareth, nor associated with that city. He was from Bethlehem. Yet Mark doesn’t identify Jesus with the city Bethlehem.

The Gospel of John, written approximately 15 to 20 years after that of Mark, also does not associate Jesus with Bethlehem. Galilee is Jesus’ hometown. Jesus finds his first disciples, does several miracles and has brothers in Galilee.

This is not to say that John was unaware of Bethlehem’s significance. John mentions a debate where some Jewish people referred to the prophecy which claimed that the messiah would be a descendant of David and come from Bethlehem. But Jesus according to John’s Gospel is never associated with Bethlehem, but with Galilee, and more specifically, Nazareth.

The Gospels of Mark and John reveal that they either had trouble linking Bethlehem with Jesus, did not know his birthplace, or were not concerned with this city.

These were not the only ones. Apostle Paul, who wrote the earliest documents of the New Testament, considered Jesus a descendant of David but does not associate him with Bethlehem. The Book of Revelation also affirms that Jesus was a descendant of David but does not mention Bethlehem.

An ethnic identity

During the period of Jesus’ life, there were multiple perspectives on the Messiah. In one stream of Jewish thought, the Messiah was expected to be an everlasting ruler from the lineage of David. Other Jewish texts, such as the book 4 Ezra, written in the same century as the Gospels, and the Jewish sectarian Qumran literature, which is written two centuries earlier, also echo this belief.

But within the Hebrew Bible, a prophetic book called Micah, thought to be written around B.C. 722, prophesies that the messiah would come from David’s hometown, Bethlehem. This text is repeated in Matthew’s version. Luke mentions that Jesus is not only genealogically connected to King David, but also born in Bethlehem, “the city of David.”

Genealogical claims were made for important ancient founders and political leaders. For example, Ion, the founder of the Greek colonies in Asia, was considered to be a descendant of Apollo. Alexander the Great, whose empire reached from Macedonia to India, was claimed to be a son of Hercules. Caesar Augustus, who was the first Roman emperor, was proclaimed as a descendant of Apollo. And a Jewish writer named Philo who lived in the first century wrote that Abraham and the Jewish priest and prophets were born of God.

Regardless of whether these claims were accepted at the time to be true, they shaped a person’s ethnic identity, political status and claims to honor. As the Greek historian Polybius explains, the renown deeds of ancestors are “part of the heritage of posterity.”

Matthew and Luke’s inclusion of the city of Bethlehem contributed to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah from a Davidic lineage. They made sure that readers were aware of Jesus’ genealogical connection to King David with the mention of this city. Birth stories in Bethlehem solidified the claim that Jesus was a rightful descendant of King David.

So today, when the importance of Bethlehem is heard in Christmas carols or displayed in Nativity scenes, the name of the town connects Jesus to an ancestral lineage and the prophetic hope for a new leader like King David.



Rodolfo Galvan Estrada III, Adjunct Assistant Professor of the New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Greatest Story Never Told? 

Why we need to talk about Jesus' ‘blackness’

Richard Sudan
21 Dec, 2022

Jesus was one of the most important figures in history, his whitewashing has been used to justify white supremacy, colonialism and imperialism, this is why we must ‘tell the truth’ about him, argues Richard Sudan.

A painting of a black Jesus hanging up at Saint Margaret of Scotland Catholic school. [Photo by Mark Gail/The The Washington Post via Getty Images]

Jesus was a black Palestinian revolutionary, who was born in Africa. To some, this might seem a controversial statement, but when considering the facts, reaching such a conclusion is obvious.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Palestine, which at the time of his birth was considered part of North East Africa.

The term Middle East wasn’t coined until the 1850s after the creation of the Suez Canal by the British, long after the lifetime of Jesus.

Naturally, the appearance and characteristics of the people from Palestine at the time reflected the region of the world in which they lived.

Beyond the geographical reality of the holy land in the time of Jesus, there is also an abundance of evidence in the bible itself reflecting the fact that Jesus did not have classic European features as modern day depictions like to indicate, but was in fact a dark-skinned man with curly hair.

''During colonisation, Europeans took their white Jesus with them and used it to preach a doctrine of white supremacy. The notion of white superiority relied on God being represented as white. White deity was used to sell the myth of white superiority. Similarly black inferiority cannot stand up, if God is black.''

Scripture describes Jesus as having hair “like wool” and feet like “burnished brass” and looking at some of those among his lineage suggests that it is unlikely Jesus had white European features.

Rahab the harlot, Tamar, the Queen of Sheba were all of black ancestry and part of Jesus’ genealogy. Abraham too, was born in the city of a black man, Nimrod.

In the book of the songs of Solomon, Solomon says “I am black but I am handsome.”

There are numerous other references speaking to the blackness and African heritage of those in the lineage of Jesus. Let’s not forget too, that when Jesus fled persecution he hid in Egypt among black skinned Africans. What this means when testing the white Jesus myth, is that looking plainly at the available evidence; Jesus most certainly, did not look of northern European descent.

Early depictions of black Jesus

From Ethiopia to Russia many images of Christ reflect him as a dark skinned man. Prior to the European Renaissance it was more commonly accepted that Jesus had features in line with how the people in the region looked at the time. Different cultures eventually painted Christ in their own image, and Europeans were no exception.

What this meant, however, was that during colonisation, Europeans took their white Jesus with them and used it to preach a doctrine of white supremacy.

The notion of white superiority relied on God being represented as white. White deity was used to sell the myth of white superiority. Similarly black inferiority cannot stand up, if God is black.

Jesus was Palestinian: Re-politicising Christmas

Voices

Jeanine Hourani

This thinking has persisted in Western society at least, which today remains reluctant to present Jesus as black or as a person of colour opting instead to depict him as one of their own.

While people might debate the best way to characterise Jesus, what’s certain is it is highly unlikely that he looked like the whitened Eurocentric depictions.

The big question is, 2000 years after his death, why does it matter?

A question of representation

Facts matter, but so too does representation.

Hollywood for example, with all its influence, is notorious for producing a majority of movies casting Jesus as a white man, decade after decade. At the same time, Hollywood also stands accused of readily profiting from films portraying black people negatively.

All of this of course is by design and is simply another example of a system operating as intended.

Countries like Britain and the US, which many define as Christian, cannot seem to grasp the notion that Jesus, who was a refugee, looked like the vulnerable migrants trying to enter Britain today, rather than the way he has been portrayed across history by the West.

Britain, which was barely able to accept that the oldest known remains in the country belonged to a black man, embraces white Jesus in the same way it denies or apologises for Winston Churchill’s racism.

White supremacy and racism depend on a number of falsehoods being maintained, and acknowledging Jesus as black means exposing and turning a system, and an entire way of thinking about that system, on its head.

Ancient black history: Jabel Qafzeh

Additionally, when considering the wider historical backdrop to the region, it is unsurprising that some of the oldest remains found in Palestine speak to the African 

Yes, UK has grown more diverse. No, it's not cause for panic

Voices  Mariya bint Rehan

A number of remains found in Jabal Qafzeh around 100 years ago are estimated to be between 80-100,000 years old. Recently, modern technology gave the ability to reproduce what one of those remains would have looked like had they been alive today. Jabal Qafzeh 9, bore the clear resemblance and features of a black West African woman.

Black people have been in Palestine for millennia, including the time when Palestine was considered part of Africa, and for thousands of years before that.

We also have to consider the modern context in which Jesus would have lived. As a man of colour persecuted for speaking up for the downtrodden, he’d have seen others punished for the same motive. Indeed, if Jesus were alive today, he and his people would be under siege by the Israeli Occupation Forces. 

Denied entry at borders.

Why? Jesus spoke up for the oppressed, refugees, the marginalised and those cast to the outskirts of society. While European Christianity has often watered-down Christ’s message to simple forgiveness, the fact is, Christ was a black revolutionary with a political, economic and health program who strived for equality and was lynched by the Roman empire as a result.

In this sense Jesus has to be considered in the radical black tradition which has always existed in all parts of the world including Palestine. That tradition has held firm, from the time of Christ to torchbearers like Fatima Bernawi, an Afro-Palestinian resistance fighter who recently died and who became the first Palestinian woman to be imprisoned by Israel after the 1967 war.

Reframing how we think about Jesus might also serve as a counter weight to the churches in the US and UK which unflinchingly support and lobby on behalf of Israel.

Churches with the iconography of black Jesus at the centrepiece are an important voice within the Christian community, where traditionally so many institutions have been completely whitened essentially acting as a conduit to further normalise white supremacy.

By the same token, Christian churches and institutions speaking out against apartheid and racism, challenging the dominant narrative are very much needed to change how we think about Christianity, which in the West at least has often been used to uphold power, rather than to hold it accountable.

With racism being challenged all over the globe, it is important that mainstream perceptions of Jesus change and evolve with the times. We must popularise an accurate portrayal of one of the most important figures in history, revered by so many millions of people all over the world. After all, he continues to have an important political, theological and social role today. Telling the ‘truth’ about Jesus is therefore not simply a matter of racial ‘preference’ in the religious imagery used.

Richard Sudan is a journalist and writer specialising in anti-racism and has reported on various human rights issues from around the world. His writing has been published by The Guardian, Independent, The Voice and many others.
Follow him on Twitter: @richardsudan
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for JESUS 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for GNOSTIC 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for JUDAS 

 

The Deep State’s Persecution of Its Most Vulnerable Citizens

Born in a Police State

by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead / December 18th, 2023

When the song of the angels is stilled, when the star in the sky is gone, when the kings and princes are home, when the shepherds are back with their flocks, the work of Christmas begins: to find the lost, to heal the broken, to feed the hungry, to release the prisoner, to rebuild the nations, to bring peace among the people, to make music in the heart.

— Howard Thurman, theologian and civil rights activist

The Christmas story of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.

The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.

Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?

What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family were forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?

A singular number of churches across the country have asked those very questions in recent years, and their conclusions were depicted with unnerving accuracy by nativity scenes in which Jesus and his family are separated, segregated and caged in individual chain-link pens, topped by barbed wire fencing.

Those nativity scenes were a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism and war, all driven by a manipulative shadow government called the Deep State.

The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?

What would Jesus—the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire—do about the injustices of our  modern age?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer was executed by Hitler for attempting to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn asked himself what Jesus would have done about the soul-destroying gulags and labor camps of the Soviet Union. The answer: Solzhenitsyn found his voice and used it to speak out about government oppression and brutality.

Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation as well as his life when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.

Even now, despite the popularity of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) in Christian circles, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”

Yet this is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny and love.

After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. When he grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say, things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.

When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.

Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?

Consider the following if you will.

Had Jesus been born in the era of the America police state, rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000.

Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.

Had Jesus been born in a hospital, his blood and DNA would have been taken without his parents’ knowledge or consent and entered into a government biobank. While most states require newborn screening, a growing number are holding onto that genetic material long-term for research, analysis and purposes yet to be disclosed.

Then again, had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they first would have been separated from each other, the children detained in make-shift cages, and the parents eventually turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.

From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.

Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.

Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.

From the moment Jesus made contact with an “extremist” such as John the Baptist, he would have been flagged for surveillance because of his association with a prominent activist, peaceful or otherwise. Since 9/11, the FBI has actively carried out surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations on a broad range of activist groups, from animal rights groups to poverty relief, anti-war groups and other such “extremist” organizations.

Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.

Rather than being permitted to live as an itinerant preacher, Jesus might have found himself threatened with arrest for daring to live off the grid or sleeping outside. In fact, the number of cities that have resorted to criminalizing homelessness by enacting bans on camping, sleeping in vehicles, loitering and begging in public has doubled.

Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.

Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.

Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.

Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.

Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. More than 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.

Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.

Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.

Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.

Charged with treason and labeled a domestic terrorist, Jesus might have been sentenced to a life-term in a private prison where he would have been forced to provide slave labor for corporations or put to death by way of the electric chair or a lethal mixture of drugs.

Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, given the nature of government then and now, it is painfully evident that whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.

Thus, as we draw near to Christmas with its celebration of miracles and promise of salvation, we would do well to remember that what happened in that manger on that starry night in Bethlehem is only the beginning of the story. That baby born in a police state grew up to be a man who did not turn away from the evils of his age but rather spoke out against it.

John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney and author, is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He wrote the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015). He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Read other articles by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

PRO-CHRISTIAN POLLING

Is Christianity fading away? Teens' thoughts about Jesus give us hope and a challenge.

David Kinnaman
Sun, November 6, 2022 

Barna has tracked the state of Christianity for nearly four decades. If Christianity were traded on the stock market, shareholders would have been watching a downward trend.

Although the trajectory of the church in the United States continues to be concerning and is in need of urgent interventions, recent rumors of the demise of Christianity could be greatly exaggerated.

We recently completed our largest Barna study to date, revealing important insights into how teenagers around the world, including in America, think about Jesus. We discovered a lightness among most teens today; they are open and inclusive – seeking truth, authenticity and change.

In fact, the data tells us that today’s teens may be one of the strongest reasons for hope when it comes to preserving a vibrant expression of Christianity in the United States for generations to come.

The Open Generation: A Global Teens Study surveyed nearly 25,000 teenagers from 26 countries with the intention to listen to what they think about Jesus, the Bible and making an impact on the world. The teens were from diverse geographic, cultural and religious backgrounds.

What we discovered is that it isn’t just Christian teens who still care and consider the life of Jesus – his impact crosses all boundaries:

►52% of the teens surveyed are “committed” Christians (they’ve made a personal commitment to follow Jesus) or “nominal” Christians (they identify as Christian but have not made a commitment to follow Jesus).

►70% have a high view of the Bible and read it several times a week, or are at least open to its teachings.

►75% are motivated or oriented around causes that make a difference in the world.

Teens say Jesus is relevant to them

Overwhelmingly, Christian teens today say Jesus still matters to them; 76% say, “Jesus speaks to me in a way that is relevant to my life.”

Let that sink in for a second.

In a culture that has generally downgraded the reputation of Christians and relegated Sunday worship and other church-related activities to the sidelines of society, teens remain refreshingly open to Jesus as an influencer in their lives as indicated by the responses among Christian teens in our study:

I want to find a way to follow Jesus that connects with the broader culture I live in – 68%

I want to help the church keep the priorities Jesus intended – 67%

I believe prayer makes a difference in the world – 63%

Prayer strengthens my relationship with God – 67%

What do teens think about Jesus? Here are three key findings:

►Today’s teens think highly of Jesus. About half of all teens describe Jesus as “loving” (49%) and believe he offers hope (46%) and cares about people (43%). The global impression of Jesus is that he is trustworthy, generous, wise and peaceful. For many, Jesus is merciful; he stood up against wrongs, was compassionate, forgave those who wronged him, offered forgiveness and cared for his friends.

Creating an equitable world: Why we issued Racial Equity 2030 challenge – our children require more than hope

In a world increasingly marked by cancel culture, ghosting and a growing epidemic of loneliness, what Jesus seems to provide is exactly what teens today need – the counter to each of these problems.

►Today’s teens don’t think as highly of Jesus’ followers. It seems that teens are following the trend found in other generational groups – people think more highly of Jesus than they do of his followers.

Although globally the reputation of Christianity is fairly positive, it falls well short of what teens think of Jesus. While 49% of teens say Jesus is loving, only 31% say that of his followers. Similarly, 16% of teens say Christians are judgmental compared with just 4% who say Jesus is. And 18% say Christians are hypocritical vs. 3% who say Jesus is.

Those who claim to follow Jesus have a long road ahead if they are to represent Jesus well to a new generation.

►Today’s teens want to learn about Jesus. Despite this dichotomy of Jesus’ image versus that of his followers, teens today desire to learn more about Jesus. In fact, 59% are either “very motivated” or “somewhat motivated” to continue learning about him.

It doesn’t really matter where we are coming from – we are all weary of the constant tension and division we see played out on the public stage and in our social media feeds and of hurtful rhetoric and love with limits. But it seems that this coming generation still believes that there is a person who reminds us that there is a good and right way to live.

Evangelical voters want the broken immigration system fixed. Will GOP leaders listen?

Teens are optimistic overall

Teens’ openness to the world and all its potential is striking. Granted, no matter what context a teen lives in, they are in the early stages of developing their worldview and character. Their openness is, on some level, a reflection of youth. But that fact doesn’t diminish the reality of their overall optimism, which is all the more surprising considering they responded to our survey during a global pandemic.

The teens in our study are not jaded or cynical. They are open to different faiths, including Christianity, and they’re open to friends, causes and ideas. Though parents, educators and others who mentor young people have a tall task to provide wise guidance to emerging adults, today’s teens are confronting the church with something that I think we haven't seen before – a kind of blank slate, a chance to imagine a different future.

Hate groups are targeting our children: Here's how you can help to protect them online.

The global teens study is intended to help all of us – Christian leaders and faith practitioners, parents and the public at large – listen to teens today. Our findings show they have a lot to say.

This rising generation holds the keys to the future of the church. The question now is: Will we humble ourselves enough to hear them and engage with them on their faith journey in a way that’s transformative for them – and the church?

David Kinnaman is the author of "Faith For Exiles," "Good Faith, "You Lost Me" and "unChristian." He is CEO of Barna Group, a leading research and communications company.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Does Jesus matter to teens? Our research found a surprising answer

A Roman governor ordered Jesus’ crucifixion – so why did Christians blame Jews for centuries?

‘Ecce Homo’ (Behold the Man), by 19th-century painter Antonio Ciseri, depicts Pontius Pilate presenting Jesus to a crowd in Jerusalem.

 Tungsten/Galleria d'Arte Moderna via Wikimedia Commons Nathanael Andrade

The Conversation

April 12, 2025

It’s a straightforward part of the Easter story: The Roman governor Pontius Pilate had Jesus of Nazareth killed by his soldiers. He imposed a sentence that Roman judges often inflicted on social subversives – crucifixion.

The New Testament Gospels say so. The Nicene Creed, one of Christianity’s key statements of faith, says Jesus “was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” The testimony of Paul, the first person whose preaching in the name of Jesus Christ is preserved in the New Testament, refers to the crucifixion.

But over the past 2,000 years, it was common for some Christians to deem Pilate almost blameless for Jesus’ death and treat Jews as responsible – a belief that has shaped the global history of antisemitism.

Throughout medieval times, Easter was often a dangerous time for Jewish communities, whom Christians targeted as “Christ-killers.” This perception was integral to the hate that motivated mass violence in Europe as late as the 19th and 20th centuries, including pogroms in Russia and even Nazi genocide.

Why did Christian teachings practically let Pilate off the hook? Why did many Christians allege Jews were to blame?
The Gospels’ story

In the Gospels, the first four books of the New Testament, Pilate believes Jesus innocent of any crime. In some of them, he even proclaims so in public.

But the chief priests of the ancient Jewish temple at Jerusalem see Jesus as a charismatic and popular Jewish preacher who challenges their authority. They have Jesus arrested and tried before Pilate during the week of Passover.
‘Jesus Before Pilate, First Interview,’ by 19th-century painter James Tissot.Gandvik/Brooklyn Museum via Wikimedia Commons

Pilate schemes for Jesus’ release, but a riotous crowd clamors for his death. Pilate caves and decides to crucify Jesus, whom Christians believe rose from the dead three days later.

Any reader of the Gospels knows the sequence, though it varies somewhat in each of them. The earliest Gospels, composed at least a generation after Jesus’ death, blamed the chief priests and attending crowd for persuading Pilate to have Jesus crucified. The Gospel of John, written some decades after the other three, portrayed Jews in general as responsible, and so did much of early Christian literature.

One account, written in the mid-second century or later, and not included in the New Testament, even claimed that Jesus’ crucifixion was not ordered by Pilate. Instead, it blamed Herod Antipas, the Jewish ruler of Galilee – the region where Jesus grew up. Other texts from after the first few centuries A.D. said that Pilate became a Christian.
Roman history

Scholars have long debated the historical facts of Jesus’ trial. In my 2025 book, “Killing the Messiah,” I do too.

The Gospel testimonies capture the basics of criminal trials before Roman judges, which were held in public. Judges posed questions to prosecutors and defendants, and had ample power to decide whether a person was innocent or guilty and impose a punishment.

Writers who lived in the Roman Empire portrayed judges as capricious, unaccountable or swayed by menacing crowds. The Gospels reflect this attitude by making Pilate appear bullied into condemning an innocent man

.
An illustration from the 14th century shows Pontius Pilate washing his hands to absolve himself as Christ is beaten before crucifixion.

Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

But from a historian’s viewpoint, there is a crucial problem with the Gospels’ description. Roman judges could and sometimes did face removal from office, property confiscation, exile or even death for executing clearly innocent people. In other words, it seems unlikely that Pilate would have proclaimed Jesus guiltless, but then conceded to pressure and condemned him anyway.

Other ancient writers describe Pilate as someone who was not above offending the Jews of Judaea. According to the first-century Jewish philosopher Philo and the historian Josephus, Pilate had his soldiers carry objects that honored Roman emperors into Jerusalem, which Jewish residents saw as sacrilegious. When crowds protested, he sometimes backed down. But his soldiers attacked an agitated crowd that opposed Pilate’s use of Temple money to build an aqueduct. They also massacred an insurrection of Samaritans – people who also claimed descent from Israelites.

Pilate did not cave to hostile crowds indiscriminately, or do whatever the chief priests wanted. Since Roman prefects like him had to coordinate with Jewish priests to govern Jerusalem, he likely viewed people who incited social disturbance against them as subversive. Jesus would have fit in that category, but neither Philo nor Josephus provides examples of Pilate killing people after acquitting them.

Growing divide

Why, then, did Pilate have Jesus crucified? As many scholars have argued, the simple answer would be that he believed Jesus committed some sort of sedition – not that the crowd simply pressured Pilate into doing so.

Yet, when the Gospels were composed a generation after the crucifixion, they portrayed Pilate as convinced of Jesus’ innocence. As more time passed, other works of ancient Christian literature shifted accountability from Pilate to Jews.

A mosaic showing St. Paul, one of the earliest apostles who preached after Jesus’ death, in the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy.Reserveacc/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The experiences of Jesus’ early followers help explain this shift. They, like Jesus himself, were Jewish, and they considered him a heaven-sent Messiah. But over the course of the first and second centuries, they increasingly separated themselves from other Jews, until they began to see themselves as members of a non-Jewish movement: Christianity.

In Roman authorities’ eyes, the Christians were troublesome, and they sometimes faced prosecution and capital punishment. In addition, Rome had inflicted atrocities and punitive measures upon Jews after insurgencies – further motivating Jesus’ followers to distance themselves. Their literature became increasingly hostile toward Jews.

Historians and biblical scholars continue to debate why Pilate condemned Jesus. Was it for suggesting that he was the Messiah, or, in Pilate’s wording, “King of the Jews”? Did Jesus incite a crowd disturbance at the Temple during Passover – or were officials worried he could, even inadvertently? Were Jesus and his followers engaged in armed insurrection?

But regardless of the answer, as I argue in my book, responsibility for the crucifixion lies with Pilate – not the chief priests and the Jewish crowd at Jerusalem.

Nathanael Andrade, Professor of History, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

BAH, HUMBUG

Findings cast doubt on the existence of Jesus Christ

Yes, there is a war between science and religion

Valerie Tarico

December 24, 2024

ALTERNET

Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are "mythologized history." In other words, based on the evidence available they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity. At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a "historical Jesus" became mythologized.



For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians grounded in this perspective have analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn't, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth. Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot by Reza Aslan and How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

By contrast, other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually "historicized mythology." In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position. Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, the author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All. Fitzgerald points out that for centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.

Fitzgerald–who, as his book title indicates, takes the "mythical Jesus" position–is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, Zeitgeist the Movie introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

More academic arguments in support of the Jesus Myth theory can be found in the writings of Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Carrier, who has a Ph.D. in ancient history uses the tools of his trade to show, among other things, how Christianity might have gotten off the ground without a miracle. Price, by contrast, writes from the perspective of a theologian whose biblical scholarship ultimately formed the basis for his skepticism. It is interesting to note that some of the harshest critics of popular Jesus myth theories like those from Zeitgeist or Joseph Atwill (who argued that the Romans invented Jesus) are academic Mythicists like these.

The arguments on both sides of this question—mythologized history or historicized mythology—fill volumes, and if anything the debate seems to be heating up rather than resolving. Since many people, both Christian and not, find it surprising that this debate even exists—that serious scholars might think Jesus never existed—here are some of the key points that keep the doubts alive:

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself believes the stories were built on a historical kernel):
"What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus' name ever so much as mentioned." (pp. 56-57)

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus' life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the "Silence of Paul" on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus' authority precisely when it would make his case. What's more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus' disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren't just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus' own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded.
Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus' historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.


3. Even the New Testament stories don't claim to be first-hand accounts.

We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began.

For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are "signed" by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don't actually say, "I was there." Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who . . . .

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.


If you think you know the Jesus story pretty well, I suggest that you pause at this point to test yourself with the 20 question quiz at ExChristian.net.

The gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest existing "life of Jesus," and linguistic analysis suggests that Luke and Matthew both simply reworked Mark and added their own corrections and new material. But they contradict each other and, to an even greater degree contradict the much later gospel of John, because they were written with different objectives for different audiences. The incompatible Easter stories offer one example of how much the stories disagree.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

They include a cynic philosopher, charismatic Hasid, liberal Pharisee, conservative rabbi, Zealot revolutionary, and nonviolent pacifist to borrow from a much longer list assembled by Price. In his words (pp. 15-16), "The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time." John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that "the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment."


For David Fitzgerald, these issues and more lead to a conclusion that he finds inescapable:
Jesus appears to be an effect, not a cause, of Christianity. Paul and the rest of the first generation of Christians searched the Septuagint translation of Hebrew scriptures to create a Mystery Faith for the Jews, complete with pagan rituals like a Lord's Supper, Gnostic terms in his letters, and a personal savior god to rival those in their neighbors' longstanding Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic and Roman traditions.

In a soon-to-be-released follow up to Nailed, entitled Jesus: Mything in Action, Fitzgerald argues that the many competing versions proposed by secular scholars are just as problematic as any "Jesus of Faith:"

Even if one accepts that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth, the question has little practical meaning: Regardless of whether or not a first century rabbi called Yeshua ben Yosef lived, the "historical Jesus" figures so patiently excavated and re-assembled by secular scholars are themselves fictions.

We may never know for certain what put Christian history in motion. Only time (or perhaps time travel) will tell.

____________________________

Author's note: Not being an insider to this debate, my own inclination is to defer to the preponderance of relevant experts while keeping in mind that paradigm shifts do occur. This means that until either the paradigm shift happens or I become a relevant expert myself, I shall assume that the Jesus stories probably had some historical kernel. That said, I find the debate fascinating for several reasons: For one, it offers a glimpse of the methods scholars use to analyze ancient texts. Also, despite the heated back and forth between mythicists and historicists, their points of agreement may be more significant than the difference between historicized mythology and mythologized history. The presence of mythic tropes or legendary elements in the gospel stories has been broadly accepted and documented, while the imprint of any actual man who may have provided a historical kernel–how he may have lived, what he may have said, and how he died–is more hazy than most people dream.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Subscribe to her articles at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.