The Silent Years of Christianity

 

The introduction of James the Just, brother of Jesus and head of the Jerusalem Church, occurs casually in the book of Acts, at the Jerusalem Council. This isn’t just odd. It is so conspicuous as to make one wonder why the head of the Church—probably the most powerful religious figure throughout Palestine—was so slighted. This, coupled with the fact that there is more early secular information about James the Just than there is about any other New Testament character, including Jesus and Paul, makes one wonder why he was so insignificant to the Jesus story. This leads to other strange inconsistencies within the New Testament writings. For example, if Peter was the foundation of the Church, why is he scarcely mentioned in the New Testament or in secular works? Why is there no continuity throughout the New Testament? Why are the events presented like a fireworks display, with disconnected flashes from one event to the next? Why are there so many contradictions? And why does the story end so abruptly, with the religious debate at its peak and Paul in Rome? What happened to the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem? What happened to Paul, and who took up his staff? These questions have no recorded explanations so we can only speculate but first, let’s try to grasp the situation.

To begin, we need to understand what was happening in Jerusalem with regard to the people, the temple, and the Romans. What was the relationship between the Nazarenes (Jesus’ disciples), the orthodox Jews, and the temple? For nearly two thousand years the Jews have been reviled as Christ-killers and hated throughout the Christian world. And yet, in Acts 21 we find James, the head of the Jerusalem Church, urging Paul to take a vow and pointing out that thousands of Jews “believed” and kept the Law. Paul is encouraged to enter the temple, which implies that James and the other disciples were associating with the orthodox Jews. See the conflict? If the Jews were killing the Nazarenes, how could they be attending common temple services? On the other hand, if the Nazarenes were “Christians,” what would they be doing in a Jewish temple?

The irony of the great tragedy inflicted upon the Jews is that Gentiles made no distinction between them, although there were a number of differing Jewish sects holding different religious and political values.

When the Herodians assumed power over the people and offices of the temple, some of the more zealous sects objected. As mentioned earlier, not only did they consider Herod and his offspring Gentiles, but they condemned their custom of intra-family marriage as incest. In addition, the Herodians, in cooperation with some of the priests, had opened the temple to Gentiles, even accepting their polluting gifts and offering sacrifices on their behalf.

The temple priests were divided into a high and low class structure, with the high priests holding pre-eminence because they were appointed by the Herodians. There was greed, corruption, avarice, and rioting within the temple and priesthood during the first century. In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus provides us with a much clearer understanding of the brewing trouble and the participants.

 

…a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us. But through all of the chaos, it appears the devout among the Jews continued to meet together within the temple. (20.9.4)

 

Note: Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus, pp. 389 and 588, ties Josephus’ "Saulus" to Saul, or Paul. A connection that is not that improbable considering the similarities of the two characters. Both had ties with Agrippa and the Herodians, both were openly hostile toward the Messianic Jews, and, it may be assumed, were sympathetic toward the Romans.

Another puzzle involved the relationship of James and the Jerusalem Church to the Jews and the temple. In Galatians, Paul recognizes James as the head of the Church but since different towns or cities were allowed to have their own synagogue, such a statement might be construed as meaning a local congregation apart from the temple. However, in non-canonical literature a number of writers recognized James as the most powerful and revered religious figure in Jerusalem.¹ Today, that concept is generally recognized as true, even though we know he wasn’t the high priest. By way of explanation, it should be remembered that the office of Zaddik, or the Righteous One, was held by a pious religious leader of impeccable moral character earned through a lifetime of dedication to God and the well-being of the people—not appointed by a Herodian ruler who sold the office of high priest.

Sadly, most of the information about James’ life is found in the stories of his death, so it is to them we must now turn. Both Eusebius and Jerome claim to have seen and copied accounts of James death from a lost copy of Josephus’ Antiquities. References are also found in the works of Saint Hegesippus (110 c. - 180 AD), Clement, Origen, the Pseudo Clementines, and the Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi.² Not only do these references attest to James’ position, they go into great detail concerning his life, his office, an attempt upon his life, and his death. They are in general agreement that James was not only the Head of the Church, but also the preeminent religious leader of the land. Jerome wrote that James alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies which indicates his piety and the esteem in which he was held.

After the New Testament’s abrupt ending, in about 60 AD, the messianic fury grew to a fanatical pitch. On Passover, after the death of Festus the procurator, probably in 62 AD, some members of the Scribes and Pharisees urged James to stand upon a pinnacle of the temple and calm the people. The story is recorded by the writers mentioned above, with some slight variations. From Hegesippus, writing about 170 AD, as preserved by Eusebius:

 

 

Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people, which have been before described by me in the Notes, asked him: "What is the door of Jesus?" And he replied that He was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James. So, when many even of the ruling class believed, there was a commotion among the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who said: "A little more, and we shall have all the people looking for Jesus as the Christ.

 

They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said: "We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the feast of the Passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to thy persuasion. Take thy stand, then, upon the summit of the temple, that from that elevated spot thou mayest be clearly seen, and thy words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the Passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the Gentiles also."

 

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."

 

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David," then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." And they cried aloud, and said: "Oh! Oh! The just man himself is in error." Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings." So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

 

The references made to the Greek “Christ,” should be translated into the Hebrew as “Messiah,” because the scene, the mood of the people and indeed, the entire setting, is Messianic Judaism. It is inconceivable that a Jewish mob at a Jerusalem temple gathering in 64 AD would be chanting for a savior to the Gentiles. Notice, also, that the crowd’s praise was “Hosanna to the son of David,” the same messianic greeting used to welcome Jesus to Jerusalem as their king—or messiah.

Commenting on the lost section of Antiquities, Jerome states that Josephus acknowledged that Christ was put to death by the Pharisees because of his great miracles. According to Jerome, Josephus also wrote that John the Baptist was truly a Prophet, and that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the murder of James the Apostle. However, in the extant copy, Josephus blames the Zealots for the destruction of Jerusalem. This contradiction could have come from outside corruption, or from Josephus. In his later writings, he had less fear of offending the Romans and occasionally made bolder statements. However, it does seem very coincidental that Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea, where the lost Antiquities copy was reported.

Josephus' Antiquities gives us a greater insight into the rationale and chronological order of events surrounding the incident. However, the details of James’ execution were slighted:

 

And now Caesar [Nero], upon hearing of the death of Festus [Acts 25:1-26], sent Albinus to Judea as procurator; but the King [Agrippa II] deprived Joseph of the high priesthood and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus… but this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed, when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought now he had a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the Law, he delivered them to be stoned (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1).

 

This gives us a glimpse into the activities surrounding the death of James. Eusebius recorded two versions of the murder. In one, quoting from Clement of Alexandria, he states that James was alive after the fall, but his legs were broken, and that he was actually killed by a blow from a fuller’s club.

Eisenman, in James the Brother of Jesus, (p. 589), relates a story from the Pseudo Clementines, Recognitions which recounts the same events, but divides them into two different stories. The first story concerns an attack upon James, probably around 40 AD, by his “Enemy". Accordingly, the high priests invited James to the temple for a debate, apparently a common custom, similar to the “invitation” by the “scribes and Pharisees” in Hegesippus’ version. During the debate, James’ Enemy entered:

 

A certain man, who was an Enemy, with a few others came into the Temple near the altar. He cried out, saying: “What are you doing. O Children of Israel? Are you so easily carried away by these miserable men, who stray after a magician [this, of course, referred to Jesus]?”

 

A marginal note in the writings identifies the Enemy as Saul. He begins to argue with James and when he is about to be overcome by James’ logic:

 

…he began to create a great commotion, so that matters that were being correctly and calmly explained could not be either properly examined, nor understood and believed. At that point, he raised an outcry over the weakness and foolishness of the Priests, reproaching them and crying out, “Why do you delay? Why do you not immediately seize all those who are with him?” Then he rose and was first to seize a firebrand from the altar and began beating with it. The rest of the Priests, when they saw him, then followed his example. In the panic-stricken flight that ensured, some fell over others and others were beaten.

 

Eisenman connects this event to the similar event described by Josephus, in which “the boldest sort” of men beat the poorer priests (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.4). The tale continues on pp.590-591:

 

Much blood poured from those that had been killed. Now the Enemy cast James down from the top of the stairs, but since he fell as if he were dead, he did not venture to hit him a second time. The Enemy, then, in front of the Priests, promised the High Priest Caiaphas that he would kill [the Latin uses the word 'arrest' here, as does Acts] all those believing in Jesus. He set out for Damascus to go as one carrying letters from them, so that wherever he went, those that did not believe would help him destroy those who did. He wanted to go there first, because he thought that Peter had gone there.

 

The story goes on to relate James’ rescue and flight, with some five thousand others, to Jericho. There is much more of interest in these accounts and those of Jerome, but I won't pursue them or attempt to establish their validity. My intent is to point out the similarities and compare them to other events in the New Testament. The first thing that should be noted is the detail provided, which generally indicates authenticity. A commotion is created, so that things “being correctly and calmly explained,” could not be understood. Other convincing details include, “panic-stricken flight,” “blood poured,” and James “fell as if he were dead". Later, in the same writings, Peter is talking to someone named Zacchaeus. Replying to an inquiry about James’ health, Peter states that he's “still lame in one foot". Common words or events bind the stories; the temple, James and his adversaries, a debate, and James falling or being thrown down.

While these small, connecting tidbits, woven throughout all the stories of James’ death (I haven’t included all of them) testify to some real event, the record doesn’t end with these non-canonical tales. The same identifying events spill over into New Testament stories. Of course, it is easy to connect the Enemy, and his persecution of the Nazarenes, with the almost identical story of Saul in Acts. Both men rant and rave; both acquire letters from the high priest; and both head for Damascus. Paul even admits to such deeds in Galatians 1:13. Perhaps the non-canonical tale was only a work of fiction, developed from the Acts’ story of Paul, or perhaps Acts was based on the non-canonical tales. I am more inclined to believe the latter. If we compare the differing stories of James’ beating and death, Stephen’s death, and Peters’ Pentecost speech, we come across a number of fascinating similarities.

Acts, chapter two, depicts Peter preaching Pauline salvation, an event that is ridiculous. Not only would Peter have been stoned, but the incident was prior to Saul’s conversion and his introduction of a faith based salvation (We can’t cite the Gospels as evidence to the contrary, because they had not yet been written). Another ridiculous claim, already addressed, was the conversion of three thousand Jews to Christianity.

But what if the speaker had been James, and the event, his debate with the high priest? What if the message was not Jesus the Christ, but Jesus the Messiah? That would be a likely topic of debate and a logical reason for the meeting. Like the overlapping of the two events in the story of James’ death, similar overlaps occur in the Peter/Stephen stories, indicating the confusion in actual events. The reference to three thousand converts by Peter finds a parallel in five thousand followers who fled with James to Jericho. The persecution of the Church by Saul, which immediately followed the death of Stephen in Acts, fits perfectly with the persecutions by the “Enemy,” following James’ beating. Stephen’s last words were: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” James’ last words were: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." The latter also found its way into Luke’s account of Jesus’ death.

There are many other similarities, not only in these stories, but throughout the New Testament. It seems obvious that these were either oft repeated stories that became entangled and confused with the telling, or they were purposely altered to complete the Christianization of Jesus and his Apostles. For those interested in pursuing this line of thought further, I recommend Robert Eisenman’s, James the Brother of Jesus. However, my purpose here is not to confirm or deny these stories, only to point out their similarities in an effort to explain some of the inconsistencies of the New Testament.

If we can accept any of three assertions as true: (1) that apostolic succession is baseless: (2) that Paul was the author and originator of Christianity: or (3) that the Nazarenes were Jewish Messianic followers of Jesus, not Christians; it's obvious that the Jewish Apostles had to be Christianized for the Gentile Church to survive. I know this suggests a conspiracy of preposterous proportions, but it's not so unbelievable if you consider the destructive attacks upon Judaism, and literature in general, that followed the Jewish War and fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The explosive historical events that devastated Judea wiped out almost every trace of the Essenes, the Zealots, Sadducees, and Nazarenes.

The only remaining Jewish sect of any significance was the Pharisaic Rabbis, who were submissive to the Romans. There was, as far as can be determined, no Nazarene history recorded. Paul was the originator and main author of the New Testament. The Gospels, Pastorals, and most of the Epistles were as yet unwritten, so the Hellenistic sympathizers were able to record whatsoever they chose. In fact, with Palestine in ruins and the Jews killed or dispersed, history lay open for anyone to interpret and record. We must also consider the preference for oral tradition, the lack of recorded events, the laxity in the preservation of those events, and the succeeding literary war between Christian sects—in which each destroyed or corrupted the others' writings.³ There was no improvement with the establishment of the Catholic Church. In their war against heresy, they destroyed an untold number of heretical works throughout the Christian world. In fact, it isn’t a question of, were the New Testament events rewritten and distorted, but rather, to what degree were they revised.

If we suppose that the stories of James' death and Saul’s attack upon him were the basis for the Stephen story in Acts, then it becomes easy to understand the embarrassment they would present to Pauline Christianity—not to mention the doctrinal controversies that would have been created. For example, Paul, or his heir, would not have been able to convince Jews that James and the Apostles were Christians. It would have been common knowledge among the Jews that the converts on the day of Pentecost were converts to Messianism, rather than Christianity. They would not have believed Peter was a Christian. In other words, in a Jewish world, there would have been a distinct line between the Nazarenes and Paul. However, Gentiles, led to believe that Jews were Christ-killers, would not question the rewritten stories. But what of the folktales about Jesus; how could they be distorted? People were telling them throughout the land, but were they recording them? Yes, I gave evidence to that effect in chapter three, regarding New Testament authenticity, with a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, in which the citizenry, both Catholic and Gnostic, was involved in writing fabled gospels.

When considering this subject, we must remember the common belief in miracles and divine intervention in human affairs. Stories such as virgin births, walking on water, and angel visitations would really raise a person’s esteem in the eyes of his neighbor. And if a poor fisherman shared a fish with a stranger, might he not come to believe his dinner companion was Christ? The devastation throughout Palestine was so great it’s hard to imagine a Jew producing any literature that could contend with the Hellenization of Christianity. Who then, would have been left to dispute Paul’s claims, or those of his followers? We can’t turn to Josephus; he had, for all intents, become a Roman. While the common folk were creating romantic fantasies, Gentile Christianity was busy incorporating those tales within their own Christianization of the Apostles.

That it occurred can’t be denied, apart from blind faith. We have already debunked numerous events that are obvious fabrications, including apostolic succession and the two plans of salvation attributed to Jesus. Close study reveals hundreds of small inconsistencies such as the conflict between Jesus’ birth and Herod’s death, Jesus consorting with the unclean, and the multiple contradictory tales of the resurrection. The fact of the matter is that if the New Testament is evaluated on the basis of Jesus and the Apostles being Jews (not necessarily Essenes or Zealots), and strictly observing the Law, then you could probably eliminate at least sixty percent of it as being false.

 

Non-Canonical Christian Writings

 

At this point in our studies the trail we have been following, that of the Law, comes to an end. From here, we must look to the non-canonical works. However, if we hold to the truths we have established concerning scriptural interpretations, we will still be able to discern many doctrines and customs within Church teachings that conflict with the facts we have determined to be true. From here, we will trade our old roadmap (the Law), for a new one—the secular materials available for canonization in the New Testament. As we judged the character of the New Testament by the Law, we must now reverse that standard and judge the selection of Holy Scriptures by the character of the people and the organization that wrote, edited, and compiled them into our present day New Testament.

We’ll consider who recorded or selected the material. Then we’ll reflect on the pertinences of the material chosen, and how the Church was affected. First, let's develop a reliable picture of the religious scene after the Jewish War and try to follow the development of Christianity into the second century by studying relevant philosophies and writings.

I believe we have established, as fact, that all of the original Apostles and disciples were Jews who had been reared within the teachings of the Law and the Prophets. Those who followed and embraced Paul’s teachings were mostly Gentiles, with pagan backgrounds and little understanding of the Old Testament or the Law. The enmity that developed between the two sects intensified and erupted into violence as the Jewish rebellion broke out and the Romans destroyed the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The Jewish historian, Josephus, gives us a shocking and gory insight into the blood bath that occurred when Jerusalem fell, and opened the arena for Hellenistic Christianity. In 66 AD, four years after the death of James, the zealous factions of the Jews, and those of the lower priesthood, took control of the temple and refused sacrifices to the Gentiles. Josephus, from Wars of the Jews, takes up the tale:

 

And when they had joined to themselves many of the Sicarii, who crowded in among the weaker people, (that was the name for such robbers as had under their bosoms swords called Sicae,) they grew bolder, and carried their undertaking further; insomuch that the king's soldiers were overpowered by their multitude and boldness; and so they gave way, and were driven out of the upper city by force. The others then set fire to the house of Ananias the high priest, and to the palaces of Agrippa and Bernice; after which they carried the fire to the place where the archives were reposited, and made haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors, and thereby to dissolve their obligations for paying their debts; and this was done in order to gain the multitude of those who had been debtors, and that they might persuade the poorer sort to join in their insurrection with safety against the more wealthy; so the keepers of the records fled away, and the rest set fire to them ( Wars of the Jews, 2.17.6).

 

For hundreds of years, there had been small-scale warfare between the Jews and Gentiles, especially with the Syrians and Samaritans. The division was such that each had their own cities, often side by side. Gentiles might live in Jewish cities, or vice versa, but they did so at their own peril. When the Gentiles in Caesarea heard of the battle in Jerusalem, they rose up and massacred all the Jews who resided in their city. Josephus reports that within one hour, more than twenty thousand were slaughtered, and Caesarea was completely emptied of Jews, for the survivors were arrested and carried away. What followed was a war between the Jews and Gentiles. Josephus continues:

 

Upon which stroke that the Jews received at Cesarea, the whole nation was greatly enraged; so they divided themselves into several parties, and laid waste the villages of the Syrians, and their neighboring cities, Philadelphia, and Sebonitis, and Gerasa, and Pella, and Scythopolis, and after them Gadara, and Hippos; and falling upon Gaulonitis, some cities they destroyed there, and some they set on fire, and then went to Kedasa, belonging to the Tyrians, and to Ptolemais, and to Gaba, and to Cesarea; nor was either Sebaste [Samaria] or Askelon able to oppose the violence with which they were attacked; and when they had burnt these to the ground; they entirely demolished Anthedon and Gaza; many also of the villages that were about every one of those cities were plundered, and an immense slaughter was made of the men who were caught in them (Wars of the Jews, 2.18.1).

 

No doubt many of the Jews saw this uprising as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies in which the Gentiles would be driven from the land. Of course, their victories were short lived, for Nero responded with his army, which moved rapidly throughout the countryside, destroying all the Jewish towns, slaughtering many and enslaving survivors. By 68 AD, the country was retaken, except for Jerusalem and Masada. What followed were sieges of the two fortifications. Jerusalem fell in 70 AD and Masada in 73. Josephus reported the number of dead as 1,100,000 and 97,000 enslaved. In the same chapter Josephus stated that:

 

Titus also sent a great number into the provinces, as a present to them, that they might be destroyed upon their theatres, by the sword and by the wild beasts; but those that were under seventeen years of age were sold for slaves (Wars of the Jews, 6.9.3).

 

Decades after the destruction, the question of the fate of the Christians in Jerusalem arose. Over two hundred years after the incident, Eusebius provides the answer in his Ecclesiastical History.⁴

 

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men (Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.3).

 

The revelation Eusebius refers to is commonly understood to be Jesus' dire warning:

 

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:). Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes (Matthew 24:15-18).

 

Many Christians believe this prophecy was fulfilled when the Syrian legate, Cestius Gallus, marched against Jerusalem in 66 AD. According to Josephus, the people were ready to surrender the city, but for some unknown reason Cestius withdrew his forces, allowing the Christians, who were privy to the prophecy, to escape.⁵

Other than a vague and ambiguous passage in the Pseudo Clementine Recognitions, Eusebius was the first to record the idea of a fulfilled prophecy. However, he had two ulterior motives that are made obvious in the paragraph that preceded the prophecy reference.

 

For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name (Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.2).

 

Eusebius was writing his Ecclesiastical History at the turn of the fourth century. His main purpose was to establish the apostolicity of the Catholic Church over all other Christian sects. His secondary goal was to separate Christianity from Judaism and thereby ingratiate the Church with Rome. In this paragraph he offers up the martyrs of Judaic persecution and sanctions the dispersion of Christian Apostles to "all nations to preach the Gospel". Such an assumption is not only illogical, it's baseless. Christians often think of those Jerusalem Nazarenes as Paul’s Church, but considering all the Scriptural proofs we’ve shown, it should be obvious that the Nazarenes never converted to Christianity. The incidents of vicious slaughter between Jews and Gentiles presented in this study make it highly unlikely that any of Paul's converts in Jerusalem would have been left alive. Assuming that Paul even made any converts, they would have been targets for both sides—if the Jews were really persecuting them.

Paul had established a number of churches but all were outside Judea. In any case, following the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish-Gentile war, there were obviously no survivors left who were inclined to record what happened to a few Christians, or all such records were destroyed in the literary wars that occurred between the contending religious sects during the following centuries.⁶

The earliest records from that era, other than vague references to St. John, are those of Clement of Rome at the end of the century. Also, there were epistles from Polycarp, saint and martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons; both contemporaneous with the heretic Marcion, about 130-140 AD.

What transpired in those missing years (70-130 AD) is unknown to everyone, except the Church which claims the evolution of the Jewish Apostles into Christian Apostles. However, all we can be sure of is that Pauline Christianity appeared with the new century. The logical explanation is that (assuming Paul’s death), local leaders stepped forward and continued Paul’s work. Few would have known the Apostles, other than by name. And since they were directly connected with Jesus, the Gentiles’ savior, it would only be logical that they and their deeds, should be Christianized and drawn into the Church.

Letters between the churches became our New Testament Epistles. Pastorals were penned and the Gospels composed from folktales, all espousing Christian values. However, though it is unlikely, it is also possible that orthodox Christianity did not even derive from Paul’s line of ministry. There were many Christian sects based upon philosophy, Gnosticism, mystery cults, and Jesus movements—any one, or a combination, could have evolved into today’s Christianity.

If we pause and consider the events that were unfolding, it becomes evident that we are unraveling the distillation of Christian doctrines. Religious leaders, probably in all good faith, were arguing for their concept of what God desired. Unlike God’s personal delivery of the Law and Ten Commandments to Moses, Christians were left to their own devices. In all likelihood, the very first Jesus sect leaders, working from Paul’s letters and the Greek Septuagint, wrote their own epistles and doctrines, and provided their own interpretations. It is also possible that the works were group efforts, and that the resultant documents were unsigned until a later date, when an Apostles’ name was affixed. And, as we will see in our study of Ignatius’ writings, authors thought nothing of correcting or adding to others works.

To add credence to their own writings, those early Christians often looked around for authority, and like any good promotional agency, they turned to big name appeal. They would have had little knowledge of the Apostles, other than their names and the few references made to them by Paul, but that is all they needed, because as we have already mentioned, writing under another’s name was considered honorable. So, with total conviction that they were speaking for Paul (or John, Peter, or James), they penned the name of an Apostle to their works. With that simple gesture they destroyed what the Romans could not—the Apostles’ dedication to the Law. With a few strokes of the pen, lifetimes of sacrifice, practicing circumcision and avoiding the unclean were taken from them. Peter’s disassociation from Paul and his refusal to meet with Cornelius was excused. And James, a Nazarite, the Oblias (Just) or Zaddik, the only Jew pure enough to enter the Holy of Holies,⁷ the most revered holy man in all Judea, who died proclaiming Jesus the Messiah, was converted to Christianity by some unknown author’s fables. And why not—since Paul had resurrected a Christian Jesus, it was not only logical, but absolutely necessary, that his disciples should also be Christians.

But it doesn’t end there. As one congregation rose to dominance, it assumed the power and right to dictate the beliefs of others. For authority, it turned to its apostolic writings, those supposedly written by its own members and others it had carefully screened and collected—the more writings, the greater the authority. The Scriptures of Paul provided the doctrinal foundation for the Church, but Paul’s Jesus was a spirit and, as we have seen, in real life had not taught Paul’s brand of salvation. Of course, oral tradition was already fleshing out Jesus’ character. This was the beginning of the orthodox or Catholic Church. When we consider the emphasis on apostolic writings, tradition, and the succession of teachers, it becomes evident that their teachings were modeled after schools of Greek philosophy--more evidence that the writings were Hellenistic. Such schools were understood to have had a founder/teacher whose teachings were transmitted through a line of disciple/teachers known as successors (diadochoi). The teachings were known as “traditions,” the building blocks of Catholic doctrine today. Relating the Jesus movements to this type of teaching, Burton Mack states:

 

…The spread of the Jesus and Christ movements had far outpaced the rise of a philosophical school, and the vast majority of first-generation Christians, including the teachers, preachers, and leaders in charge of local congregations, had never known the historical Jesus. Seventy years had passed without keeping track of the diadochoi in the schools of Jesus. The first itinerant founders of Christian congregations were dead. Local congregations were under the care and leadership of resident “elders” and patrons, just as any association would have been. And as for the collective memories of Jesus’ first disciples, they were very fuzzy and hardly appropriate for the task at hand. The early Jesus movements had not left any record of disciples that Jesus had trained to carry on his program. As we have seen, that is because Jesus did not have such a program and did not train disciples for leadership (Who Wrote the New Testament?—p. 200).

 

When the Church turned to referencing traditions during the middle of the second century, the purpose was not to accurately record and preserve the stories. By then, the truth concerning the life of Jesus, what he taught, his ministry, even the beginning of Christianity, had been bound up in a tapestry of fables. When early Church champions, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, began arguing for Church traditions and a succeeding line of apostolic descent, there was no proof—only ambiguous and vague references handed down by oral tradition. To compound the problem, even those tales were confusing. For example, the names of the twelve disciples, as well as their authority, were questionable. The writer of Mark made the first attempt to build a base for that authority when he had Jesus send the disciples out. Of course that still didn’t provide much information about them or their works. Matthew did better with the great commission, but it was Luke who rose to the occasion when he had Jesus appear to the eleven; had them elect a replacement for Judas, celebrate Pentecost, and then had the Holy Spirit send them out to spread the gospel of truth (Acts 2). But those scrabbling to formulate a line of succession still had no stories of these disciples’ works. Again, from Burton L. Mack:

 

Thus they needed texts. And so the writing of texts in the name of some disciple or apostle became standard practice. It is for this reason as well that previously written anonymous literature, such as the New Testament gospels, were now attributed either to a disciple, as in the cases of Matthew and John, or to an associate of a disciple, such as Mark, or to an associate of Paul, as in the case of Luke. A cursory glance at the large collection of early Christian writings traditionally known as the apocryphal New Testament (Elliott 1993) and at the corpus now known as the Gnostic scriptures (Layton 1987: Robinson 1988) reveals many texts purportedly written by a disciple as well as many stories about the disciples’ acts, missions, and preachments. The favorites include Peter, James, John, and Paul. For each of these there are letters, a collection of acts, and either a gospel or a revelation (apocalypse)…

 

This literature, most of which was written during the second, third, and fourth centuries, documents the success of the shift in early Christian mythmaking that took place at the turn of the second century. The shift produced the notion of an apostolic period, a notion that eventually made it possible for the Christian church to imagine the first chapter of early Christian “history” as the assured foundation for its institutions and offices (Who Wrote the New Testament?—p. 202-203).

 

Today, Christians, especially Catholics, speak the names of the early Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement, Tertullian, and Augustine, with reverent awe. They are upheld as the pillars of knowledge and holiness—and in a time of superstition and ignorance, perhaps they were. Education was limited to the clergy, with the focus on Church propaganda rather than reason. The Church Fathers' agenda was to prove and promote Church doctrines, not to uncover truth. Paul had already furnished them with the truth; their goal was to connect all the gaping contradictions and mold that truth into a believable, even though senseless, story. Let’s consider a couple of examples to show just how far they stretched credibility in their efforts.

With Paul’s reference to James as the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19), it was almost impossible for the Church fathers to deny the relationship. But much confusion arose when they tried to relate a virgin-birthed Savior with earthly brothers. Many questioned that Mary was the mother of them all. Some early writers, trying to maintain Mary’s virginity, even insisted that the brothers were only stepbrothers. Jerome rejected such an idea, and instead turned to John 19:25, to find two sisters, both named Mary. While the idea of two sisters bearing the same name is not impossible, it is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. For Jerome, one was the mother of Jesus and the other, the wife of Joseph’s brother. The point is not the genealogy, but the extremes to which Church writers were willing to go to establish their traditions.

Such confusion is also exhibited in a correspondence between Jerome and a younger Augustine. The passage in Galatians 2:11-12, where Peter drew away from the Gentiles when others “from James” came; and in Acts 15, where James is officiating as Head of the Church, makes it clear that Peter was not the foundation of the Church. Of course, since Peter was supposed to be the “Prince of Apostles,” this created some confusion. So, in a series of letters, a perplexed Augustine asked a much older and supposedly wiser Jerome about the embarrassing contradiction. At first Jerome ignored Augustine’s queries. He finally asked Ausustine “not to challenge an old man… who asks only to remain silent". Basically, Jerome was advising him to forget about it. This incident occurred sometime near the end of the fifth century, so it can be seen that many unsettled issues were still in need of explanations, even at that late date.