A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy

By Mike Licona

Copyright © 2001, TruthQuest Publishers

Acharya S is a skeptic with an interest in mythology who has written a book entitled

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. This book presents an hypothesis of how Christianity came into being. Although it has received no

attention from scholarship, with the lone exception of a negative book review and

that from an atheist scholar,(1) The Christ Conspiracy has nonetheless gained

support from a number of laypersons. The occasion for this paper is to assess

Murdock’s major claims in a brief manner in terms of their accuracy and whether her book is a worthwhile contribution on the origin of Christianity. The paper will sample

some of her major claims. No attempts will be made to defend the Christian

worldview.

Acharya means "guru" or "teacher." Her actual name is D. Murdock.(2) Throughout the remainder of this paper, this author will be referred to as Ms. Murdock. The

thesis of The Christ Conspiracy is that pagans and Jews who were Masons from the

first and second centuries got together and invented the account of Jesus and his

disciples in order to create a religion which it was hoped would serve as a one-world

religion for the Roman empire. This religion would be a collage of all of the other

world religions and combined with astrology.

This, of course, is a radical and unorthodox picture of Christianity. However, being

radical and unorthodox does not invalidate a view. Notwithstanding, if Ms. Murdock’s

picture of Christianity is to be believed as correct, she has to be accurate in her

assessment of the details of the other religions she cites in terms of their similarities with Christianity, correct in her assessment of ancient astrology, correct in her

peculiar datings of the Gospels, and correct concerning the Masons. If she is

incorrect on any one of these, her hypothesis must be altered or abandoned. It is

when we look at the areas of astrology, comparative religion, New Testament higher

criticism, Freemasonry, and other issues, we find her to be incorrect in every one of

these areas.

1. Astrology

Ms. Murdock claims that as myth developed, "it took the form of a play, with a cast

of characters, including the 12 divisions of the sky called the signs or constellations of the zodiac. The symbols that typified these 12 celestial sections of 300 each were

not based on what the constellations actually look like but represent aspects of

earthly life. Thus, the ancient peoples were able to incorporate these earthly aspects

into the mythos and project them onto the all-important celestial screen."(3) Based on this understanding, she claims that the mythical Jesus recognized the coming of

the age of Pisces; thus, the Christian fish.(4)

Is it true that astrology played a large part in the formation of Christianity as Ms.

Murdock asserts? Noel Swerdlow is Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago. He has specialized in the study of the practice of astronomy in

antiquity through the 17th century. I emailed Dr. Swerdlow on this matter. Here is

what he had to say on Ms. Murdock’s view:

In antiquity, constellations were just groups of stars, and there were no borders

separating the region of one from the region of another. In astrology, for

computational purposes the zodiacal signs were taken as twelve arcs of 30 degrees

measured from the vernal equinox. Because of the slow westward motion of the equinoxes and solstices, what we call the precession of the equinoxes, these did not

correspond to the constellations with the same names. But . . . within which group

of stars the vernal equinox was located, was of no astrological significance at all.

The modern ideas about the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius are based upon

the location of the vernal equinox in the regions of the stars of those constellations. But the regions, the borders between, those constellations are a completely modern

convention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping . . .

and never had any astrological significance. I hope this is helpful although in truth

what this woman is claiming is so wacky that it is hardly worth answering.(5) So

when this woman says that the Christian fish was a symbol of the 'coming age of Pisces', she is saying something that no one would have thought of in antiquity

because in which constellation of the fixed stars the vernal equinox was located, was

of no significance and is entirely an idea of modern, I believe twentieth-century,

astrology.(6)

In other words, the ancient "Christ conspirators" could not have recognized the 12

celestial sections in order to incorporate them into a Christian myth and announce

the ushering in of the Age of Pisces as Murdock claims, because the division into the celestial sections did not occur until a meeting of the International Astronomical

Union in the 20th century!(7) Therefore, her claim is without any merit.

Ms. Murdock also holds that when we see 12 figures in the Bible that these are

representative of the 12 zodiacal signs. She writes, "In reality, it is no accident that

there are 12 patriarchs, 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples, 12 being the number of the astrological signs . . ."(8) If we want to accept her thoughts on this, we also

need to accept that Dunkin Donuts is owned by an astrologer since they give a

discount when you buy a dozen donuts. Grocery stores are also run by astrologers,

since you buy eggs by the dozen. Even our legal system must have been influenced

by astrology, since there are 12 jurors. When you want to see astrology in something, you see it, even when it requires that you read in foreign meanings into

the texts.

But there are further problems with her thesis. Were the 12 tribes of Israel

representative of the 12 signs of the zodiac as she claims?(9) She asserts that Simeon and Levi are Gemini. Judah is Leo. And the list goes on. She also claims that

when Jacob set up 12 stones representing the tribes that they were really

representing the 12 signs of the zodiac.(10) But this is impossible. Genesis was

written approximately 1,000 B.C. and contains the story of the 12 tribes of Israel which would have occurred even earlier.(11) The division into the 12 zodiacal signs

did not occur until the Babylonians made the divisions in the fifth century B.C.(12)

Therefore, reading astrology into the twelve tribes is anachronistic.

She also claims that "[t]he Hebrews were ‘moon-worshippers,’ since many of their feasts and holidays revolved around the movements and phases of the moon. Such

moon-worship is found repeatedly in the Old Testament (Ps. 8:13 [sic], 104:19; Is.

66:23), and to this day Jews celebrate holidays based on the lunar calendar. At

Isaiah 47, these moon-worshippers are equated with astrologers, i.e., ‘. . . those

who divide the heavens, who gaze at the stars, who at the new moons predict what shall befall you.’"(13)

Were the Hebrews moon-worshippers? This seems unlikely for a couple of reasons:

(A) Just because the Jews operated under a lunar calendar, does not mean that they

were moon worshippers. (B) When you look at the three biblical references she provides to support her claim that moon worship is found repeatedly in the Old

Testament, it is readily seen that these has been taken out of context. Let us look

briefly at these. The verses before and after have also been included, in order to

provide you with their context. The verses Ms. Murdock appeals to have been

italicized.

From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of your

enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is

man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm 8:2-

4, NIV)

The high mountains belong to the wild goats; the crags are a refuge for the coneys.

The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down. You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl. The lions roar for

their prey and seek their food from God. The sun rises, and they steal away; they

return and lie down in their dens. Then man goes out to his work, to his labor until

evening. (Psalm 104:18-23, NIV)

As we read these verses, we discover that they have nothing at all to do with moon

worship. The third reference is from Isaiah where God is supposed to be speaking

and says:

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,"

declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow

down before me," says the LORD. "And they will go out and look upon the dead

bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire

be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (Psalm 66:22-24)

These verses do not speak of moon-worship. Rather the psalmist says that as time

goes on, all mankind with worship the Lord. Let us now look at the final verse Ms.

Murdock appeals to in support of her thesis that the Hebrews were involved in

moon-worship.

Disaster will come upon you, and you will not know how to conjure it away. A calamity will fall upon you that you cannot ward off with a ransom; a catastrophe

you cannot foresee will suddenly come upon you. Keep on, then, with your magic

spells and with your many sorceries, which you have labored at since childhood.

Perhaps you will succeed, perhaps you will cause terror. All the counsel you have

received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those

stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They

cannot even save themselves from the power of the flame. Here are no coals to

warm anyone; here is no fire to sit by. That is all they can do for you-- these you

have labored with and trafficked with since childhood. Each of them goes on in his

error; there is not one that can save you. (Isaiah 47:11-15, NIV)

In this passage, the moon-worshippers and astrologers are clearly not the Hebrews,

but the Babylonians whom God is saying He is about to destroy! So we have seen that the three passages Ms. Murdock appeals to in support of her thesis that the

Hebrews were involved in moon-worship do not support her view in the least. Rather

they have been taken out of context, a practice referred to a "proof-texting."

Unfortunately, average readers will not look up her references and see this for

themselves.

This is not to say that there was not a single Hebrew who worshipped the moon. But

her absurd interpretations indicate that she has not supported her view that the

Hebrews as a nation had a practice of moon-worship. This is further confirmed by

the fact that the worship of anyone or anything other than God was prohibited. Whenever this practice is mentioned in the Bible, there is correction or strong

condemnation.(14) Contrary to Ms. Murdock, the Bible is not friendly towards

astrology. There is not a single verse that approves of sun worship, moon worship or

astrology.

Ms. Murdock also claims that the Bible is favorable towards divination. She writes,

"In the earliest parts of the Bible, divination is praised as a way to commune with

God or divine the future (Genesis 30:27). Indeed, the word ‘divination’ comes from

the word ‘divine,’ which is a demonstration that divination was originally considered

godly and not evil."(15) This too is an incorrect understanding of the text. Genesis

30:27 records Laban telling Jacob that he has learned through divination that God has blessed him on Jacob’s account. But Laban was known to worship other

gods.(16) This verse does not praise divination and God has said elsewhere that

divination is evil. For example in Leviticus 19:26, it is written, "Do not practice

divination or sorcery." Likewise, in Deuteronomy 18:10-12 it is written, "Let no one

be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or

who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these

things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the

LORD your God will drive out those nations before you."

She claims that the Bible teaches the signs found in the stars and quotes Genesis

1:14 in the old KJV: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the

heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,

and for days, and years . . ." She says that this verse "basically describes the zodiac."(17) However, modern translations present a more accurate translation:

"And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day

from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years’"

(NIV). This is also how prominent Hebrew dictionaries understand it.(18)

Dr. Richard Patterson is an Old Testament scholar who has specialized in ancient

Semitic languages during his career. He was involved in the translations of the New

Living Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and is currently working on

the revision for the New International Version. He has written close to 150 journal

articles, critical reviews, and Hebrew dictionary entries. Concerning Genesis 1:14, Dr. Patterson comments, "The KJV translates this verse in a wooden sense.

However, if we want to understand the original sense of the Hebrew, the NIV and

NLT provide a more accurate rendering. Moreover, a look at the occurrences of this

word throughout the Old Testament reveals that it is not used in the sense of

astrological signs even one time outside of our verse in question."(19)

It is interesting to note that the equivalent Greek word (shmeion) is never used in

the sense of an astrological sign in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of

the Old Testament which was popular among the Hebrews and the early Christians,

although it appears 123 times.(20)

Ms. Murdock says a lot more in reference to astrology and the Bible which this short

paper cannot address. However, it is hoped that these few samples are adequate to

demonstrate that she is terribly inaccurate in her understanding of the practice of

astrology among the ancients as well as her ineptness in using the Bible to support

her view.

2. Comparative Religion Studies

a. Similarities to Krishna

Ms. Murdock contends that Jesus as crucified savior was merely borrowed from

other religions. For her, one of the most striking similarities is found with Krishna,

the Hindu god. Indeed, her forthcoming book, "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" expounds on this position.(21)

What about Ms. Murdock’s claim that Krishna is so similar to Jesus that Christianity

must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at

Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper, he has

just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Peguine World Classics and is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.

When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna had

been crucified, he replied, "That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is

absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion."(22) He also added that Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in the

heal. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages who came there

for him could not really see it.(23)

Then I read a statement by Ms. Murdock from her article "Krishna, Crucified?" an

excerpt from her forthcoming book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.(24) In it she states, "it appears that Krishna is not the first Indian god

depicted as crucified. Prior to him was another incarnation of Vishnu, the avatar

named Wittoba or Vithoba, who has often been identified with Krishna." To this

Bryant responded, "She doesn’t know what she’s talking about! Vithoba was a form

of Krishna worshipped in the state of Maharashtra. There are absolutely no Indian gods portrayed as crucified." Then he became indignant and said, "If someone is

going to go on the air and make statements about religious tradition, they should at

least read a religion 101 course."(25)

Later I emailed him regarding her 24 comparisons of Krishna to Jesus which the reader may find in The Christ Conspiracy.(26) He stated that 14 of her 24

comparisons are wrong and a 15th is partially wrong.(27) What about her 9 _ that

are correct; especially Krishna’s virgin birth, the story of the tyrant who had

thousands of infants killed (a parallel to Herod), and Krishna’s bodily ascension?

Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and

divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in

India, "[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from

Christianity], but not the name."(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels

come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former "to

be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD."(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts.

Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources

seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again

hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation.(30) An earlier

date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early

as the second century.(31) Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the

Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires.

Ms. Murdock further claims that Christianity has failed in India because "the Brahmans have recognized Christianity as a relatively recent imitation of their much

older traditions."(32) To this, Dr. Bryant simply commented, "Stupid comment."(33)

Ms. Murdock’s claim that Christianity has borrowed substantially from Hinduism is

without merit. Her claims are false, unsupported, and exhibit a lack of

understanding of the Hindu faith.

b. Similarities to Buddha

In addition to Krishna, Ms. Murdock cites similarities between the Buddha and Jesus

as an example of how Christianity has borrowed from Buddhism. As with Krishna, she lists 18 similarities Jesus shares with Buddha in The Christ Conspiracy.(34)

Regarding these, I emailed Professor Chun-fang Yu, Chair of the Department of

Religion at Rutgers. Dr. Yu has specialized in Buddhist studies. I listed the 18

similarities recorded by Ms. Murdock and asked if these were actual traditions of the

Buddha. She replied writing, "None of the 18 [are] correct. A few, however, have some semblance of correctness but are badly distorted." She then listed a total of

eight that had some similarities and provided details.(35)

Dr. Yu ended by writing, "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism.

It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. You should not honor [Ms. Murdock] by engaging in a discussion. Please ask [her] to take a basic course in

world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she does not

know."

It is appropriate to mention here that Ms. Murdock claims to have mastered several religions. Her book, The Christ Conspiracy claims a mastery of Christianity and her

new book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, with excerpts found

on her web site also indicate that she believes Hinduism and Buddhism to be two

other religions which she has mastered in terms of her knowledge of them.

However, as we have seen, she is terribly ignorant of the actual traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism. And as we are about to see, she is likewise mistaken when

it comes to her understanding of Christianity.

3. Christianity

We saw in section one (i.e., "Astrology") that Ms. Murdock does not use biblical texts in an accurate manner to support her views. In this section we will notice that

she also possesses some peculiar views when it comes to New Testament higher

criticism. Can these views be supported?

a. Very Late Datings of the Gospels

Ms. Murdock holds that the Gospels were not penned until after A. D. 150, a view

held by no major New Testament scholar, irrespective of their theological

perspective. She supports her position by quoting John Remsburg who wrote: "The

Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His

writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had

they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the

Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New

Testament; but none from the four Gospels."(36)

But this is false. In Justin’s First Apology [i.e., First Defense], he writes, "For the

apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus

delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when

He had given thanks, said, ‘This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;’ and

that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, ‘This is My blood;’ and gave it to them alone."(37) So Justin calls the Gospels the

"memoirs" of the apostles and then quotes from them.(38) In his Dialogue With

Trypho, Justin makes mention of the "memoirs" another 13 times.(39) In every

instance he either quotes from a Gospel or relates a story from them.

Why is it that Justin does not cite the Gospels when defending the deity of Christ?

He is dialoguing with a Jew and wants to use the Old Testament Scriptures to

defend his position, since he shares these in common with Trypho. This was also the

practice of Paul: "Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia,

they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And

according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures . . ."(40)

As further support she cites Charles Waite: "At the very threshold of the subject, we are met by the fact, that nowhere in all the writings of Justin, does he once so much

as mention any of these gospels. Nor does he mention either of their supposed

authors, except John."(41) It is true that Justin never says who wrote them.

However, contrary to Murdock’s sources, we know that they existed because Justin

referred to them and quoted them as just demonstrated above. Ms. Murdock could claim that the Gospels Justin referred to were different than the four we now have.

But if this is the case, what data can she provide to support her view? She must also

adequately explain why there is a complete absence of manuscripts for these while

we have an abundant number of manuscripts for the four Gospels we now have.

Moreover, the Gospels Justin appeals to seem to have precisely the same content as the four we now have. So she will have difficulty demonstrating that multiple layers

of legend were added from Justin’s time until the latter part of the second century,

since the early sources with which Justin was familiar and from which the four

gospels supposedly borrowed said precisely the same things!

She quotes Waite again: "No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part

of the New Testament. . . ."(42) He goes on to say that there is no other evidence of

a Gospel until the latter part of the second century. But this is false as well. Paul

appears to quote from Luke’s Gospel (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Lk 10:7). The oldest

manuscript we have is a fragment from the Gospel of John and dates to around A.

D. 125 (labeled p52 and kept at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England). The early Church father, Ignatius (c. A. D. 110), who either knew the apostles or

was close to those who did, seems very familiar with the Gospel of Matthew,

because of the numerous parallels and apparent quotations from Matthew. Clement

(c. A. D. 95) and Polycarp (c. A. D. 110), who knew the apostles, also make use of

Matthew. 2 Clement (c. A. D. 120-140) employs numerous sayings from Matthew, Luke and a few from Mark. The author of the Shepherd of Hermas (c. A. D. 90-150)

almost certainly knew some or all of the four gospels. All of these early Christian

writers were from the latter part of the first century through no later than the

middle part of the second century.(43) Therefore, her claim that the Gospels were

not composed until the latter part of the second century is without support. And there are no respected New Testament critical scholars who embrace her datings.

Murdock quotes from The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets: "No extant

manuscript can be dated earlier than the 4th century A. D."(44) This shows no

knowledge of the manuscripts that we have. The p52 papyrus mentioned a moment

ago dates to around 125. p75 dates to between 175-225. p46 and p66 are slightly earlier and both date to around 200. p45, the first of the Chester Beatty Biblical

papyri dates to the first half of the third century. p47 dates to the latter part of the

third century. p72 dates to the third century.(45) In summary, we have seven

manuscripts, which predate the fourth century.

b. Marcion’s Gospel came first?

In the middle part of the second century, there was a fellow named Marcion, who

was considered by many in the early Church as a heretic. His view was that the God

of the Jews was evil and that Jesus was a good God who came along to save the world from this evil God. During His crucifixion, Jesus merely appeared to have

suffered. But He really did not according to Marcion, since he did not believe that

Jesus as God could suffer. Marcion is the first person known to have made a list of

the Christian books and letters which he believed were inspired. He did this between A. D. 180-200. Because of his beliefs, he rejected all of the Gospels accept Luke

which he in turn changed substantially to fit his beliefs. He also accepted ten of

Paul’s letters. Amazingly, Ms. Murdock says that Marcion’s Gospel preceded Luke’s,

a view no serious scholar takes. Why does she think this? Because Luke said that he

was writing to Theophilus in Luke 1:3 and that Theophilus was the bishop of Antioch from A. D. 169-177.(46) But this is absurd. Why are we to believe that this is the

same Theophilus? If she is going to use verse 3 of the first chapter of Luke to

establish that Luke was writing to Theophilus, would it not be wise to also read

verse 2 where Luke says that he received his information from the "eyewitnesses" of

Jesus and "ministers of the word"? This "buffet line" approach to biblical texts where she takes what she wants and simply ignores what is not convenient is an extreme

case of hermeneutical gymnastics.

She also thinks that the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark was an associate of

Marcion. Where does she get this? She quotes a passage from Eusebius who mentions a Mark who associated with Marcion.(47) However, Eusebius never says or

even implies that this was the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark and Mark was a

common name. There is no reason at all to believe that these are the same Marks.

c. Paul’s Letters

She believes that all of Paul’s letters are forgeries. In support of this position she

quotes Joseph Wheless: "The entire ‘Pauline group’ is the same forged class . . .

says E. B. [Encyclopedia Biblica] . . . ‘With respect to the canonical Pauline Epistles,

. . . there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or

eight, nor yet even the four so long "universally" regarded as unassailable. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false-writings, forgeries). . .’"(48) She also

quotes Hayyim ben Yehoshua who writes, "we are left with the conclusion that all

the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic" and he also refers to Paul as a "semi-

mythical" figure.(49) Again, this is a position that no major scholar takes.

Polycarp (c. A. D. 110), who knew the apostles, quotes 1 Corinthians 6:2 and

assigns it as the words of Paul (Philippians 11:2). Three of the earliest apostolic

fathers, two of whom probably knew the apostles, mention Paul in their writings

(Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius). They mention several things about Paul

including his sufferings and martyrdom,(50) his position as an apostle,(51) and that

he "accurately and reliably taught the word."(52) Moreover, the apostolic fathers site several of Paul’s letters: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians,

Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy. Therefore,

there are good reasons to believe that Paul was an historical person who authored

several letters, which are contained in the New Testament. No serious scholar takes

the position of Ms. Murdock and there are good reasons why.

d. Genre

Appealing to Origen as the "most accomplished biblical scholar of the early church,"

Ms. Murdock quotes him as saying, "The Scriptures were of little use to those who

understood them literally, as they are written."(53) When we look at her endnote referencing Origen, we find that her source is Godfrey Higgins, not a biblical scholar

or an historian, but an attorney who is claiming Origen said it. When we then do a

search through all of Origen’s writings, we find that he never made that statement. In fact, Origen says precisely just the opposite. Throughout his writings, Origen does

show how certain parts of the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically, such as

"the hand of God" or God’s "anger." However, in De Principiis, he says the following:

"Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in

Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place. . . . For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much

more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual

signification."(54) Again, this shows that Ms. Murdock is not personally familiar with

Origin’s works. She never interacts with him directly in The Christ Conspiracy.

Instead, she only quotes others who end up being wrong.(55)

e. All the Variants

She says that there are about 150,000 variants in the manuscripts of the New

Testament.(56) This is quite a distortion of the truth. There are basically three

different manuscript traditions when it comes to the New Testament: Alexandrine, Cesarean, and Byzantine. While the Alexandrine and Cesarean are the oldest and

considered the most reliable, the Byzantine is the latest and has the majority of

manuscripts. Let us say that the spelling of a single word in one verse in the

Byzantine differs from the spelling of that word in the same spot in the Alexandrine

and Cesarean. Radical critics count all of the Byzantine manuscripts as a variant. So for example, if there are 4,000 Byzantine manuscripts, by her count there are 4,000

variants. If there is a difference in the word order in a specific verse in the

Byzantine, that adds another 4,000 variants, although the words are the same; only

their order in Greek differs. So, from only 1 difference in spelling and 1 variance in

word order, we have 8,000 variants by her count, instead of just two! You begin to see that her way of counting presents a distorted picture of the way things actually

are.

How accurate is the text we have today? When scholars incorporate the principles of

textual criticism, they can reproduce a text of the New Testament that is better than 95% pure to what the originals said. A more conservative estimate comes from

Princeton New Testament scholar, Bruce Metzger who writes that by far the greatest

proportion of the text is virtually certain.(57) It is important to also note that any

unresolved differences do not change a single doctrine of the Christian faith.

f. Careless Readings

Many of her claims reflect a careless reading of the text. For example, she cites

Eusebius concerning Dionysius’ claims that others were adding and taking from his

writings and says that this is proof that the Gospels were being tampered with!(58)

In another example, she states, "In Acts we read that the first ‘Christians’ are found at Antioch, even thought there was no canonical Gospel there until after 200

CE."(59) However, this too is false. In Acts 11:26, we read, "The disciples were

called Christians first at Antioch" [italics mine]; not that the "first ‘Christians’ were

found at Antioch" as Murdock asserts.(60) Moreover, her claim here that no

canonical Gospel was in Antioch until after A. D. 200 is likewise false. The apostolic

father, Ignatius, was the bishop of Antioch and wrote around A. D. 110 and shows a strong familiarity with Matthew’s Gospel. As Clayton Jefford, a biblical scholar who

has specialized in studies on the apostolic fathers, writes, "Because of the presence

of numerous parallels and apparent quotations from Matthew in Ignatius’s writings, it seems evident that Ignatius knew, and probably used, that gospel. An especially

important consideration is the way in which he has used the gospel. The bishop did

not tend to use quotations from his source text, but rather made allusions to

Matthean episodes and concepts. These became the point of contact for his own

arguments throughout the letters."(61) In other words, Ignatius’ familiarity with Matthew’s Gospel is evident in his use of material unique to Matthew and, therefore,

not found in the other Gospels. One can see this in the following writings of

Ignatius: To the Ephesians (14:2, cf. Matthew 12:33; 17:1, cf. Matthew 26:6-13),

To the Trallians (11:1, cf. Matthew 15:13), To the Philadelphians (3:1, cf. Matthew

15:13), To the Smyrnaeans (1:1, cf. Matthew 3:15; 6:1, cf. Matthew 19:12), To

Polycarp (2:2, cf. Matthew 10:16).

g. The Myth of Massive Martyrdom

Ms. Murdock claims that Christians were never martyred by the masses. She labels

it a "myth" that "the early Christians were gentle ‘lambs’ served up in large numbers as ‘martyrs for the faith’ by the diabolical Romans."(62) Moreover, she claims that

the accounts of massive martyrdom were the inventions of Christians in the 9th

century.(63)

One of the main passages which support the position that many Christians died at the hands of the Romans is found in the writings of the Roman historian, Tacitus (A.

D. 55-120).(64) However, Murdock states that this passage is a forgery. Why? She

argues that Tacitus "was born two decades after ‘the Savior’s’ alleged death; thus, if

there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his immediate followers,

they would be secondhand and long after the alleged events."(65) As discussed below with Josephus, this is a naïve view of how historical studies are conducted. If

you have to be an eyewitness in order to give an accurate account of history, then

no one could write a text today providing a history of the American Civil War and,

indeed, much of what we know historically would have to be discarded.

She claims that the "passage is an interpolation and forgery" because no one quotes

it prior to the 15th century. Perhaps no one cited this passage because there were

no occasions when it would have been helpful. The overwhelming majority of

scholars consider this passage to be authentic, since it is not laudatory of

Christians.(66) Ms. Murdock wants it both ways. She rejects the Josephus’

Antiquities 18:3 passage because it is so friendly towards Christ. However, she rejects Tacitus, even though he is hostile towards Christ. It seems that there is

nothing that would convince her. Since there is no evidence of interpolation or

forgery in this passage, Ms. Murdock’s position is entirely without merit. So, Tacitus’

writings stand as a testimony that Christians were being killed for their faith.

Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia (c. A. D. 61-113) likewise writes of his actions

against Christians. He interrogated Christians, asking if they were believers. If they

answered, "yes," he asked them two more times, threatening to kill them if they

refused to recant. If they continued their confession, he had them executed.(67) Of

Pliny, Murdock states, "One of the pitifully few ‘references’ held up by Christians as evidence of Jesus’s existence is the letter to Trajan supposedly written by the

Roman historian Pliny the Younger. However, in this letter there is but one word that

is applicable, ‘Christians,’ and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also

suspected of the entire ‘document.’"(68)

Are Letter 96 of Pliny and the Emperor Trajan’s response forgeries as Murdock

suggests? Murdock provides no reasons to believe this. New Testament scholar,

Robert Van Voorst says no.(69) The text of these letters is well-attested in the

manuscripts and their authenticity is not disputed seriously by scholars. They were also known by the time of Tertullian (A. D. 196-212). The prominent Oxford

historian A. N. Sherwin-White, who is not a Christian, has disposed of the few

suggestions that never gained credence which claim that the letters were part or

wholesale forgeries.

Is there any evidence that Christians of the first and second centuries were dying for

being Christians? Following are some references in addition to Tacitus and Pliny,

which support the position that people were killed for being Christians:

1. Shepherd of Hermas (Parable 9, section 28 [or ch 105]; Vision 3,

section 1, verse 9-2:1 [or ch 9:9-10:1]; 5:2 [or ch 13:2])

2. Melito of Sardis (cited by Eusebius, Ecc His, 4:26:3)

3. Dionysius of Corinth (cited by Eusebius, Ecc His, 2:25:8) 4. Hegesippus (cited by Eusebius, 3:32:3; 2:23:18; 4:22:4)

5. Eusebius (Ecc His, 5:2:2-3; 1:26, 48; 2:25)

6. Polycrates of Ephesus (Bishop of Ephesus) in his letter to Victor

of Rome

7. Josephus (Ant 20:200) 8. Stephen (Acts 7:59-60)

9. James (Acts 12:2)

10. Antipas (Revelation 2:13)

Although the mass killing of Christians had not yet begun when the apostle Paul

penned his letters, he writes of how Christians were suffering in his day for being

Christians. To the Philippian church he wrote (c. A. D. 61), "To you it has been

granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil 1:29ff). Christians were suffering for their faith by the middle of the first

century.

Around the year 200, Tertullian mentioned Rome’s brutality towards Christians

including numerous executions by the Romans in his day. He wrote to the rulers of

the Roman Empire saying, "The more often we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed."(70)

Ms. Murdock appeals to Origen’s statement in Contra Celsus 3:8 where he writes

that the Christians who were killed "can be easily numbered." However, Origen’s

statement may also be interpreted to refer to the more prominent examples ("on special occasions"). These would be people like Polycarp, Ignatius, and others. It is

important to remember that Murdock’s possible interpretation of one statement in

Origen does not nullify the multiply attested and certain accounts of many.

4. Non-biblical Sources who mention Jesus:

According to Murdock, "There are basically no non-biblical references to a historical

Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus’ purported

advent."(71) Most historians of antiquity disagree with this claim, acknowledging a number of non-biblical sources, Christian and non-Christian alike, who mention

Jesus in their writings. Let’s look at two non-Christian sources on whom Murdock

comments.

a. Josephus. "[I]n the entire works of the [sic] Josephus, which constitute many volumes of great detail encompassing centuries of history, there is no mention of

Paul or the Christians, and there are only two brief paragraphs that purport to refer

to Jesus. Although much has been made of these ‘references,’ they have been

dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries, as have been those

referring to John the Baptist and James, ‘brother of Jesus.’"(72) This is a big statement by Ms. Murdock who does not provide any reasons as to why these

passages should be rejected.

Murdock's claim is grossly naïve as well as false. Josephus’ passage on John the

Baptist(73) is regarded as authentic and is hardly disputed by scholars. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History at Miami University writes, "No scholar has

questioned the authenticity of this passage, though there are some differences

between Josephus's account and that in the Gospels . . ."(74) New Testament

scholar, Robert Van Voorst of Western Theological Seminary likewise comments that

the passage by Josephus on John the Baptist is "held to be undoubtedly genuine by

most interpreters"(75) and that "scholars also hold [it] to be independent of the New Testament."(76) John Meier, professor of New Testament at The Catholic

University of America writes that Josephus' mentioning of John the Baptist is

"accepted as authentic by almost all scholars" and that it "is simply inconceivable as

the work of a Christian of any period."(77) Jewish scholar, Louis Feldman of Yeshiva

University and perhaps the most prominent expert on Josephus comments on this passage: "There can be little doubt as to the genuineness of Josephus’ passage

about John the Baptist."(78) Therefore, Murdock's comment that this passage has

"been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries" is

demonstrably false.

The reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage are: (a) The style and

vocabulary belong to Josephus. (b) If a subsequent Christian editor added the

passage, we would expect a comment about John's preaching regarding the Messiah

who was Jesus. (c) An interpolator would most likely not have included the

discrepancy between the Gospels and Josephus in terms of the reason John was

executed.

What about Josephus' comments on James, the brother of Jesus in a separate

passage?(79) Is this the work of an ancient Christian editor who added them? Have

these likewise "been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as

forgeries" as Murdock claims?

Among the reasons for accepting the passage as authentic by Josephus are: (a) a

Christian editor would have used complimentary language to describe James and

more laudatory language referring to Jesus.(80) (b) The main point Josephus is

attempting to make is that Ananus was deposed because of his illegal executions of several that included James. However, James is mentioned simply in passing. (c)

Josephus' account differs from other Christian accounts of the death of James.

Feldman writes, "The passage about James [Antiquities Book 20, Sections 197-200] has generally been accepted as authentic."(81) Elsewhere he mentions this text and

"the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged."(82) Another

Jewish scholar, Zvi Baras, states that this passage "is considered authentic by most

scholars."(83) Yamauchi comments, "Few scholars have questioned the genuineness

of this passage."(84) Van Voorst writes, "The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words 'the brother of Jesus called Christ' are authentic, as is the

entire passage in which it is found."(85) Again, Murdock's claim is false and reveals

that she is either unfamiliar with scholarship on the subject or simply ignores it,

since it fails to support her peculiar views.

Only one passage about Jesus in Josephus is disputed seriously by scholars. This

passage is found in Book 18, Section 3 of Antiquities and is often referred to as the

Testimonium Flavianum. A lot has been written on this passage within scholarship.

In his book, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980, Feldman lists 87

scholarly discussions on this passage during that time period.(86) This passage

typically reads as follows:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works — a teacher of such men as receive the truth

with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the

Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal

men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first

did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning

him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Most scholars reject a wholesale acceptance of this passage. Origin was an early

Church father and indicated that Josephus was not a Christian.(87) Therefore, it

would be odd that a non-Christian Jew would make statements like Jesus was "a

wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man", "He was the Christ", and "he appeared

to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

While debate continues on this fascinating passage, most scholars believe that a

majority of the passage is Josephus, because (a) the term, "wise man" is typical for

Josephus and less than we would expect from a Christian editor,(88) (b) the style

belongs to Josephus,(89) (c) the Greek word for tribe is not a typical Christian expression.(90) Many scholars today accept that this passage was included

originally by Josephus with the exceptions of the three additions that appear to be

the result of a subsequent Christian editor sometime during the second and early

fourth centuries. Van Voorst writes, "In sum, Josephus has given us in two passages

something unique among all ancient non-Christian witnesses to Jesus: a carefully neutral, highly accurate and perhaps independent witness to Jesus, a wise man

whom his persistent followers called ‘the Christ.’"(91) Yamauchi comments,

"Josephus knew that Jesus was the brother of James, the martyred leader of the

church in Jerusalem, and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wide

and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders."(92) Feldman comments, "I believe that

the Josephus passage about Jesus was partly interpolated by Christians. I agree

with John P.Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 60-61 that

three passages have been interpolated: if indeed one should call him a man; he was the Messiah; and for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the

divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about

him."(93) Zvi Baras writes that the "more plausible" position is "accepting parts of

the passage and rejecting others."(94) Morton Smith, professor emeritus of ancient

history at Columbia University, concludes that Josephus certainly mentions Jesus in this passage but is pessimistic that the original can be reconstructed.(95)

In conclusion, the majority of scholars accept that Josephus certainly mentions

Jesus on two occasions and that his account of John the Baptist is authentic. As Van

Voorst writes, "[Josephus’] implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that extra-biblical

evidence is not [proving] on this point." Thus again, Ms. Murdock has made a claim

which anyone doing legitimate research on the subject would know to be false.

b. Tacitus. Ms. Murdock asserts that Tacitus cannot be regarded as a source who confirms the existence of Jesus. Why? Tacitus wasn’t born until about 25 years after

Jesus and so all of his information is second hand.(96) This type of thinking though

is medieval. It is literally how people in the Middle Ages did historical studies, when

only an eyewitness counted! If we conducted historical inquiry that way today, we

could know very little about history.

For example, most of what we know about Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus

comes from the ancient Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius. However, Tacitus and Suetonius are even more removed from Julius and Augustus than they were

from Jesus. So if we listened to Ms. Murdock, no one could know anything about

these two most famous Roman Caesars. In fact, no one today could write a history

of the American Civil War, since it would by no means be first hand knowledge. But

we can write an accurate history of the Civil War, since there are letters, documents,

and the written testimonies of those who were there. Tacitus and Suetonius were a lot closer to the events they write about than we are to the American Civil War.

John Meier is a non-evangelical critical scholar. In his book, A Marginal Jew:

Rethinking The Historical Jesus, Meier states, "despite some feeble attempts to show

that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-

Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible."(97) Similarly,

in his book, Jesus Outside the New Testament, Robert Van Voorst writes that only a

few words in the text are generally disputed, such as Tacitus’ spelling of the word

"Crestians" instead of "Christians," and his naming Pilate as "procurator" instead of the more accurate "prefect." He writes that on the basis of these a few have claimed

that the entire passage is the result of a subsequent Christian editor, but calls this

"pure speculation."(98) The differences are easily reconciled. Moreover, the style of

the text definitely belongs to Tacitus. Pagan editors did not express themselves in

the Latin that Tacitus uses(99) and a Christian editor would not have had Tacitus

call Christianity a "deadly superstition." Besides all of this, the passage fits well in the context. Tacitus was a Roman Governor and could have had knowledge of past

events concerning the Roman Empire. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that

Tacitus mentions Jesus as an historical person and His crucifixion by Pilate as an

historical event.

c. Why was Jesus seemingly overlooked by many secular writers? Murdock writes, "If we were to take away all the miraculous events surrounding the story of

Jesus to reveal a human, we would certainly find no one who could have garnered

huge crowds around him because of his preaching. And the fact is that this crowd-

drawing preacher finds his place in ‘history’ only in the New Testament, completely

overlooked by the dozens of historians of his day, an era considered one of the best documented in history."(100)

The siege and overthrow of the Jewish zealots at Masada is attested alone by

Josephus and archaeology. However, it is not mentioned by a single existing Roman

historian. In fact, it is not even mentioned in Jewish writings like the Talmud. Ancient writers sometimes chose to omit big events. And perhaps Jesus was

mentioned in other records that have since been lost.

I challenge Ms. Murdock to name someone other than Jesus who lived in the first

century (e.g., Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, etc.), who is mentioned by 17 writers who do not share his convictions, and who write within 150 years of his life. No first

century person was as well attested as Jesus.

d. Was Jesus’ message new?

Was Jesus’ message of salvation borrowed from earlier religions? In his book, The World Religions, J. N. D. Anderson lists some offshoots where a religious sect

embraces a few of the same thoughts presented in Christianity.(101) However, for

the most part, Christianity is unique in its major areas:

1. Salvation by Grace (unmerited favor of God)

2. Atonement (God paid the price for us)

3. Jesus is only founder of a major world religion about whom deity is claimed in the

first generation afterwards.

4. Resurrection. Pagan claims to a resurrection rarely concern historical persons,

and they are without any evidence. In fact, as Christian philosopher/historian Gary

Habermas who has specialized in resurrection studies states in an article entitled

"Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions" that there is not a single clear

parallel account of a dying and rising god which precedes Christianity and that the first does not appear until a minimum of 100 years after Jesus.(102) As professor

Edwin Yamauchi of Miami University who has specialized in ancient religions writes,

". . . we find that early accounts attribute miracles only to Jesus."(103) Murdock

mentions the resurrections of Buddha, Krishna, and Osirus. We have seen that the

experts in Buddhism and Hinduism say that this is absolute nonsense and reflects no knowledge of these two religions, contrary to her claims to be an expert in them.

Regarding Osirus, it is not a clear parallel account at all. The story is that Osirus was

killed by his brother who chopped him into 14 pieces and scattered him throughout

Egypt. The Egyptian goddess, Isis, began collecting the parts and assembling them

back together. Unfortunately, she was only able to find 13 of the 14 pieces. And she

never brought him back to life on earth, but gave him position as god of the mummies or of the netherworld. So the picture we get of Osirus is of this guy who

doesn’t have all of his parts and who maintains a shadowy existence as god of the

dead. As my friend Chris Clayton puts it, Osirus’ coming back to life wasn’t a

resurrection, but a zombification!

5. Masonry

Jack Harris is an expert on Freemasonry. Before becoming a Christian in the 1970s, he went through the ranks of York Rite Masonry, the alleged "Christian" branch, and

became a worshipful master. He also has a degree in Biblical Studies. These show

that Mr. Harris is well acquainted with Masonic views and interpretations as well as

the Bible. I asked Mr. Harris about the statements Ms. Murdock made regarding

Freemasonry. Below are six comments from Murdock regarding Freemasonry. Harris

responded to the first four. These are in parenthesis.

1. The four canonical gospels represent the "‘four corners of the world.’ In reality, this comment is Masonic, and these texts represent the four books of magic of the

Egyptian Ritual . . ."(104) (False)

2. The book of Job, "is a complete description of the Masonic ceremonies or Egyptian

Masonry, or trial of the dead by Osiris . . ."(105) (False)

3. Peter "the Rock" and his keys are Masonic symbols.(106) (False)

4. "[T]he ‘carpenter’ label . . . is a Masonic designation, reflecting the sun’s role as

the great builder."(107) (False)

5. "As Nazarenes, Jesus and Paul were Masons as well." This is quite an interesting

comment, since Murdock believes Jesus and Paul to be mythical figures! In addition,

Paul was from Tarsus, not Nazareth.

6. "The historian Josephus certainly knew of the Masons and allegedly was one . .

."(108)

Mr. Harris stated that every one of her assertions regarding Freemasonry are wrong. Moreover, he stated that Masonry began, as we know it, in A. D. 1717.(109) So it is

impossible that these alleged conspirators in antiquity who allegedly made up the

Christian story were Masons! So much for Josephus taking the oaths of the third

degree!(110)

Furthermore, if the writers of the New Testament were Masons, why did they include

teachings that go against Freemasonry such as that Christianity is the only way to

heaven and that one should not take oaths? Freemasonry is filled with oaths and

teaches the doctrine of universalism, that there are many ways to God. Ms. Murdock

seems to want to see astrology in everything and a Mason hiding behind every

corner throughout history.

6. Poor Scholarship

On the home page of her web site, Ms. Murdock claims to be a scholar.(111) If

anything has become apparent while we have briefly examined her book, The Christ Conspiracy, it is that precisely just the opposite is true.

In addition to all that we have just reviewed, a few other points stand out.

Practically all of her sources are secondary rather than primary sources. For

example, she quotes Adolf Hitler as saying that it was his Christian convictions

which led him to attempt to exterminate the Jews.(112) Where did Hitler say this?

We cannot know from reading her book, because her source is The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets! On another occasion, she appeals to the Catholic

Encyclopedia.(113) However, rather than quote directly from it, she merely quotes

someone else who is summarizing from it. On still another point, she quotes Otto

Schmiedel.(114) However, when you look at the endnote, you find that her source is

Rudolf Steiner, a mystic.(115) This shows that Ms. Murdock knows what some others are saying. But it does nothing to prove that what her sources are saying are

correct. Rarely are reasons provided by her sources in support of their statements.

It is like someone arguing that terrorism is justified and cites ten terrorists claiming

that terrorism is just. However, this does nothing to support their position that

terrorism is justified; only that some believe that it is. It also indicates that she has not checked out the claims of her sources, but rather uncritically accepts what they

say.(116)

Much of her book is blocks of quotes from these secondary sources, most of whom

are hardly authorities. Let us look at whom she cites: Barbara Walker’s The

Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets!; J. M. Roberts, Esq. (not a scholar but an attorney) who wrote Antiquity Unveiled for Health Research; Col. James

Churchward’s The Lost Continent of Mu. An uncomfortably large number of her

citations are by non-scholarly sources such as these.

She makes a large number of unrestrained claims without supporting them. Here are a few examples: (a) The story of Lazarus’ rising from the dead is an Egyptian

myth.(117) (b) The author of Acts used Josephus and Aristides as sources.(118) (c)

The book of Acts "was fabricated by monks, ‘devil-drivers’ and popes, who wished to

form an alliance by writing the book."(119)

She draws conclusions based on certain obscure definitions of English words rather

than their original meanings in Greek. For example, she says "the Gospel was not

designed to be rational, as the true meaning of the word ‘gospel’ is ‘God’s Spell,’ as

in magic, hypnosis and delusion."(120) This is laughable. The word "Gospel" has an

Anglo-Saxon origin where the term "spell" means "news," not magic.(121)

Moreover, it does not matter what the English word means. What matters is what the word means in Greek, something Murdock does not even bother to consider. The

Greek word for "Gospel" is "euangelion." It comes from 2 words: eu which means

"good" and angelos which means "angel" or "messenger." Euangelos means good

messenger and our word, euangelion means the "good message."(122) Thus, you

can see why English translators have used the term "Gospel" for "good news." This is a very odd mistake by someone who claims to be a scholar of the Greek

language. Again, we notice a lack of responsible research on Ms. Murdock’s part.

Are scholars saying anything about The Christ Conspiracy? With the lone exception

of a book review which was negative towards The Christ Conspiracy, there has been a silence from scholarship regarding it. It seems painfully obvious why this is the

situation. Her book offers no credible information towards supporting her thesis.

Dr. Robert Price is far from being a Christian. Rather, he is a prominent atheist and a member of the Jesus Seminar who reviewed Ms. Murdock’s book. After referring to

it as "sophomoric," Price comments,

She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her

sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated

data open to many interpretations. One of the most intriguing claims made

repeatedly in these books is that among the mythical predecessors of Jesus as a

crucified god were the Buddha, the blue-skinned Krishna, and Dionysus. Is there any basis to these claims, which Murdock just drops like a ton of bricks? Again, she

does not explain where they come from, much less why no available book on

Buddha, Krishna, or Dionysus contains a crucifixion account. . . . When Murdock

speaks of the ‘Christ Conspiracy,’ she means it. She really believes that ‘people got

together and cooked up’ early Christianity like a network sitcom. And who were these conspirators? The, er, Masons (pp. 334 ff.). It is remarkable how and where

some people’s historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt. But it gets much,

much weirder than that. We start, in the last chapters, reading bits and pieces

drawn from James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu;

Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchen, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia; and of course all that stuff about the maps of the

ancient sea kings. The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled)

eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many

outright looney.(123)

7. Conclusion

Ms. Murdock claims that the reason she and her sources are ignored by scholars is

because her "arguments have been too intelligent and knifelike to do away with"

and have "no doubt [been] fearfully suppressed because they are somewhat

irrefutable."(124) Murdock would have us all believe that prominent scholars within New Testament criticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, astronomy, history, and

Freemasonry are all intellectual lightweights compared to herself and who either

cannot appreciate her arguments or suppress them for reasons untold.

However, it is abundantly clear why scholars have ignored and turned their noses up

at her views. The reason for the lack any positive acknowledgment from scholars is:

a. Almost all of her sources are secondary and are themselves wrong on many occasions.

b. A large number of her sources are not scholars.

c. She makes wild claims without supporting them.

d. Her claim that astrology permeates the Bible such as that the 12 tribes of Israel

and the 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac is so erroneous that a

Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago who

specializes in ancient practices in astronomy referred to her as "nutty."

e. Her claim that Krishna represents a dying and rising god prior to Christianity is so

mistaken that the Professor of Hindu Studies at Rutgers said that this claim is

"absolute and complete nonsense," that "she doesn’t know what she’s talking about," and that she should take a religion 101 course before making these kind of

claims.

f. Her claim that many similarities exist between Buddha and Jesus elicited a similar

response from the Chair of the Department of Religion at Rutgers who specializes in Buddhism: "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism. It is very

dangerous to spread misinformation like this. . . . Please ask [her] to take a basic

course in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she

does not know."

g. Indeed, even an atheist scholar, Bob Price called her book "sophomoric." He also

commented that her book is "a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some

few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney."

One thing you have to grant Ms. Murdock; she is consistent.(125) If you enjoy

extreme and unsubstantiated views with an attitude, you will like The Christ

Conspiracy. If you appreciate anything you can get your hands on that insults

Christianity, irrespective of the quality of the arguments and the data, you will relish The Christ Conspiracy. But in terms of this book being a responsible account of the

origin of Christianity, it is unsalvageable.

1. Murdock responded to this paper with "A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's 'Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy.'" You may read this rebuttal by clicking on the following

hyperlink: Acharya's Responds to Licona's Rebuttal.

2. Licona replied to Acharya's rebuttal with another paper and may be read by

clicking on the following hyperlink: "Licona Replies to Acharya: Part 2"

Footnotes. . .

1. See the review by Robert M. Price, "Aquarian Skeptic" in Free Inquiry, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Amherst: The Council for Secular Humanism, 2001), pp. 66-67. For Dr.

Price’s comments, see sections 6, "Poor Scholarship," of this paper.

2. Ibid., p. 66.

3. Acharya S. The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (Kempton:

Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999), pp. 151-152.

4. Ibid., p. 79, 146, 164, 224, 360. 5. Personal email correspondence on 9/18/01.

6. Personal email correspondence on 9/19/01.

7. Jay Pasachoff is the Director of Hopkins Observatory, Chair of the Department of

Astronomy at Williams College, Encarta expert on astronomy, and a member of the

International Astronomical Union. In a 9/25/01 personal email correspondence he wrote, "The exact divisions into 88 constellations covering 100% of the sky was

adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 1928 and codified in 1930. But

the constellation shapes are irregular, and the 12 zodiacal constellations are not

exactly 30 degrees each. The sun actually travels through parts of 13 constellations

each year." For more information pertinent to this topic, the reader is referred to Jay Pasachoff’s Field Guide To The Stars And Planets (Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1999).

8. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 166.

9. Ibid., pp. 141-142.

10. Ibid., p. 142. 11. This dating of Genesis is evangelical. Other datings vary greatly. Do we know

with certainty that the Israelites existed during this time? Yes. A memorial stele

referred to as "the Israel Stele" has been found in Egypt and dates back to just

before 1,200 BC. The inscription on it reads how Merneptah, the last Pharaoh of

Dynasty 19 of the New Kingdom Period, had warred against and defeated some peoples. He mentions the Israelites and indicated that they were a large people who

were spread out by planning. See Amihai Mazar. Archaeology of the Land of the

Bible, 10,000-586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1992),

p. 234, 354.

12. In a personal email correspondence, astronomer Jay Pasachoff writes, "Many of the constellations were referred to in Homer in the 9th century BC. The Babylonians

divided the zodiac into 12 constellations in the 5th c. BC."

13. Ibid., p. 136. The Isaiah reference is Isaiah 47:12-13.

14. See for example, Isaiah 47:13-14 and Ezekiel 8:14-18.

15. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 139.

16. See Genesis 31:30, 34-35. 17. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 132.

18. Willem A. VanGemeren, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament

Theology & Exegesis, Vol 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), p.

332. Harris, Archer, Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,

Volume 1 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), p. 18. 19. In a personal telephone conversation 9/18/01.

20. The closest is Jeremiah 10:2 which refers to comets, meteors, and eclipses [cf.

Is 7:11]. However, God tells Jeremiah not to be alarmed by these. The popularity of

the Septuagint (LXX) is noteworthy. Of the 330 times the Old Testament is quoted

in the New Testament, the majority of the quotations are from the Septuagint. 21. At the time of the writing of this paper, the book is not published. However,

excerpts from the book may be found on her web site. See

www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm for her attempt to establish that Krishna

was crucified in Hindu legend.

22. In a personal telephone conversation 9/6/01.

23. Ibid. 24. At the time of the writing of this paper (11/01), the book is not published.

However, excerpts from the book may be found on her web site. See

www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm for her attempt to establish that Krishna

was crucified in Hindu legend. See page 2 of the article.

25. In a personal telephone conversation 9/6/01. 26. The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 116-117.

27. Personal email correspondence on 9/20/01. The email is here cited. It includes

Murdock’s claim and Bryant’s comments: 1) Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki

or "Divine One" on 12/25. "Yes. This is true. She was transmitted through the mind

of Vasudeva." 2) His earthly father was a carpenter, who was off in the city paying tax while Krishna was born. "He was a cowherd chief. And he was, indeed, off in the

city paying taxes, although this was just after Krishna was born." 3) His birth was

signaled by a star in the east and attended by angels and shepherds, at which time

he was presented with spices. "Partially. The astrological configurations in general were very auspicious (but no mention of a specific star in the East). There were the

Indian equivalent of angels (celestial beings who sing and play instruments). No

shepherds -- but cowherds were there. No spices, but the heavenly hosts rained

down flowers." 4) The heavenly hosts danced and sang at his birth. "Yes." 5) He was

persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants. "Yes. This is very similar to Herod. The local king heard a divine voice stating that someone

who was to be his death was to take birth from Devaki, Krishna's mother. So he

killed all the infants who had been recently born in the entire area." 6) Krishna was

anointed on the head with oil by a woman whom he healed. "Not quite. He was

offered fragrant ointments by a hunchback woman, after which he healed her." 7) He is depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent. "He subdued a 1000

headed serpent who has polluted the local river by dancing on its head with his

feet." 8) He worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the

deaf and the blind. "This is phrased in rather New Testament type terms, but

Krishna did heal people and certainly performed many miracles." 9) Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love, and he lived poor and he loved

the poor. "He didn't live particularly poorly, although his childhood was spent

amongst the cowherd community. He certainly taught, although not specifically in

parables. Krishna devotion is certainly available to the poor, and there are

statements which directly favour them." 10) He castigated the clergy, charging them

with ambition and hypocrisy. "Tradition says he fell victim to their vengeance. Well.... he criticized the ritualistic brahmanas who were so absorbed in their rites

they did not recognise him." 11) Krishna’s "beloved disciple" was Arjuna (John).

"Nothing to do with John." 12) He was transfigured in front of his disciples. "No."

13) He gave his disciples the ability to work miracles. "He didn;t have disciples,

exacly, but devotees. Some could perform supernormal things." 14) His path was "strewn with branches." "No." 15) In some traditions he died on a tree or was

crucified between two thieves. "No." 16) Krishna was killed around the age of 30,

and the sun darkened at his death. "I think he was 150. Inauspicious astrological

omens erupted at his death." 17) He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven in

the sight of all men. "He ascended to his abode in his selfsame body, although men only saw part of his ascent." 18) He was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his

feet, as well as having a heart emblem on his clothing. "No." 19) Krishna is the lion

of the tribe of Saki. "Not Saki. Sura, or Yadu, are two of the dynasties with which he

is associated." 20) He was called the "Shepherd God" and considered the

"Redeemer," "Firstborn," "Sin-Bearer," "Liberator," "Universal Word." "No to the first

(but cowherd god, OK), OK to the rest." 21) He was deemed the "Son of God" and "our Lord and Savior," who came to earth to die for man's salvation. "No." 22) He

was the second person of the Trinity. "No." 23) His disciples purportedly bestowed

upon him the title "Jezeus," or "Jeseus," meaning "pure essence." "No."

24) Krishna is to return to judge the dead, riding on a white horse, and to do battle

with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth. "A future incarnation is Kalki, who will ride a white horse and kill all

the demons in the future."

28. Benjamin Walker, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism, Vol. 1

(New York: Praeger, 1983), pp. 240-241.

29. Personal email correspondence on 10/18/01. 30. See as examples, the article on the UCLA web site:

www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Religions/texts/Puranas.html; the short description

of the Harivamsa provided by the San Diego Museum of Art:

www.sdmart.org/exhibition-binney-literature.html, and the Encyclopedia Britannica Intermediate: http://search.ebi.eb.com/ebi/article/0,6101,34678,00.html.

31. David V. Mason. Personal email correspondence on 11/6/01.

32. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 118.

33. Personal email correspondence on 9/20/01. I also asked Dr. Bryant regarding

the historical evidence for Krishna as an historical rather than mythical figure. He responded that we know that people were worshipping Krishna as god in the fifth

century (maybe sixth century) B. C. However, there is nothing more than that in

terms of evidence. Traditional sources place him 3,128 B .C. or about 2,500 years

before our oldest historical evidence for him appears. This is quite different than the

strong evidence we have for Jesus as an historical person. 34. The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 109-110.

35. I have numbered these for the reader’s convenience. They correspond with

Murdock’s list on pages 109-110, although she does not number them. I have listed

Murdock’s claim followed by Dr. Yu’s comments. Occasionally, I have added

comments found in brackets. (1) Murdock: "Buddha was born on December 25 of the virgin Maya, and his birth was attended by a ‘Star of Announcement,’ wise men

and angels singing heavenly songs." Yu: "Queen Maya was Buddha's mother but she

was declared to be a virgin. Rather, she conceived the Buddha after dreaming a

white elephant entering her right side in the dream. Buddha was born on the 8th

day of the lunar 4th month." (2) Murdock: "At his birth, he was pronounced ruler of

the world and presented with ‘costly jewels and precious substances.’" Yu: "At birth he took seven steps and declared that this would be his last birth and he would be

the most honored one in the world." (4) Murdock: "Buddha was of royal lineage."

Yu: "Buddha was a prince, the son of a king of a small kingdom in northern India or

Nepal (his birthplace, Lumbini, has been claimed by both Nepal and India as being

located in their territory." (6) Murdock: "He crushed a serpent’s head (as was traditionally said of Jesus) and was tempted by Mara, the ‘Evil One,’ when fasting."

Yu: "Mara tempted him before his enlightenment but was defeated." (10) Murdock:

"His followers were obliged to take vows of poverty and to renounce the world." Yu:

"His followers were monks who lived in monasteries and observed chastity and non-

attachment." (14) Murdock: "Buddha ascended bodily to Nirvana or ‘heaven.’" Yu: "When he died, his body was cremated. He was not reborn again but said to be in

Nirvana." [This is not even close to bodily resurrection as Murdock would hope.]

(15) Murdock: "He was called ‘Lord,’ ‘Master,’ the ‘Light of the World,’ ‘God of gods,’

‘Father of the World,’ ‘Almighty and All-knowing Ruler,’ ‘Redeemer of All,’ ‘Holy One,’

the ‘Author of Happiness,’ ‘Possessor of All,’ the ‘Omnipotent,’ the ‘Supreme being,’

the ‘Eternal One.’" Yu: "He is called Lord and Tathagata (‘Thus Come’)." (18) Murdock: "Buddha is to return ‘in the latter days’ to restore order and to judge the

dead.’" Yu: "The Future Buddha called Maitreya ("The Friendly One") will be born as

a human in the future just as the Buddha some 2500 years ago and revive the

religion and bring peace to the world." As you can readily see, Murdock mixes

tradition with that which is not a part of Buddhist tradition. Some similarities are very weak as Dr. Yu points out. Others are quite unimpressive (e. g., 4, 10, that

both are called "Lord" in 15).

36. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 25.

37. Justin, First Apology, chapter 66.

38. Murdock and her sources are evidently unaware of this passage in Justin. For in her article "The ‘Historical’ Jesus", an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Suns of

God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled located at

http://truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm, she notes the existence of the "Memoirs

of the apostles" mentioned by Justin, but claims that it "is a single book by that title, not a reference to several ‘memoirs’ or apostolic gospels" (p. 8).

39. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 100-107.

40. Acts 17:1-3.

41. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 25.

42. Ibid., p. 26. 43. These datings are from Clayton N. Jeford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An

Introduction (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996) and Lightfoot, Harmer,

Holmes, eds. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English translations of Their

Writings, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992).

44. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 26. 45. Bruce Manning Metzger. The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission,

Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 36-41.

46. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 37.

47. Ibid., p. 38. The passage in Eusebius is from Ecclesiastical History, Book 4,

Chapter 6. 48. Ibid., p. 33.

49 Ibid., p. 34.

50. Clement of Rome. To the Corinthians 5; Polycarp. To the Philippians 9:2.

51. Clement of Rome. To the Corinthians 5; Ignatius. To the Romans 4:3. Polycarp

may also be referring to the apostolic status in his letter To the Philippians 12:1. In

this verse, he quotes from Ephesians two times and refers to it as "Sacred Scripture." If indeed Paul wrote Ephesians, Polycarp is placing his authority on the

highest level.

52. Polycarp. To the Philippians 3:2.

53. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 132.

54. Origen. De Principiis Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 19. 55. Another example embarrassing for Murdock is on pp. 70-71 where she quotes T.

W. Doane’s citing of Origen on Celsus who "jeers at the fact that ignorant men were

allowed to preach, and says that ‘weavers, tailors, fullers, and the most illiterate and

rustic fellows,’ were set up to teach strange paradoxes. ‘They openly declared that

none but the ignorant (were) fit disciples for the God they worshiped,’ and that one of their rules was, ‘let no man that is learned come among us.’" The references are

from Origen’s Contra Celsus, Book 3. The first reference to "weavers, tailors . . ." is

from chapter 56 and the latter from chapter 44. In chapter 56, Origen answers

Celsus’ claims by asking him to provide examples that this is the case and adds,

"But he will not be able to make good any such charge against us." In chapter 44,

Origen answers Celsus, "although some of them [i.e., Christians] are simple and ignorant, they do not speak so shamelessly as he alleges." Again, if Ms. Murdock

had checked her source, she would have found that he was gravely mistaken just as

Celsus was.

56. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 41.

57. See his comments in The Greek New Testament, Third Edition (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983), pp. xii-xiii.

58. Ibid., pp. 27-28.

59. Ibid., p. 46.

60. This is the only occurrence of the term "Christians" in the New Testament. The

word occurs in the singular in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16. 61. Clayton N. Jefford. Reading the Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (Peabody:

Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996), p. 67.

62. Ibid., p. 5.

63. Ibid. 64. Cornelius Tacitus. Annals 15:44.

65. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.

66. See section below on Tacitus, "Non-biblical Sources who mention Jesus."

67. Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Letters, Book 10, Letter 96.

68. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51. 69. Robert E. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the

Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000),

p. 27 citing A. N. Sherwin-White in The Letters of Pliny (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966),

pp. 691-692.

70. Tertullian. Part First, Apology, chapter 50. 71. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 49.

72. Ibid., p. 50.

73. Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Sections 116-119.

74. See the chapter by Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament:

What is the Evidence?" in Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds. Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995, p. 212.

75. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 98.

76. Ibid., p. 103.

77. John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One

(New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 66.

78. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, The Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p. 429.

79. Josephus. Book 20, Section 200.

80. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 83-84. Louis H. Feldman,

translator. Josephus IX, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 496.

81. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, p. 434. 82. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity

(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), p. 56.

83. Ibid. p. 341.

84. Yamacuhi, "Jesus and the Scriptures," p. 53.

85. Van Voorst. Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 83. 86. Elsewhere Feldman states that he has "noted more than a hundred discussion of

this topic during the past fifty years" (Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, p. 55).

87. Origen. Commentary on Mathew (See his comment on Matthew 10:17) and

Contra Celsus 1:47.

88. Van Voorst, p. 88. He adds, "Josephus says the same about Solomon (Ant.

18.5.2 §53) and Daniel (Ant. 10.11.2 §237), and something similar about John the Baptizer, whom he calls ‘ a good man’ (Ant. 18.5.2 §116-9)." Yamauchi, Jesus

Under Fire, p. 213.

89. Meier, p. 62. Van Voorst, p. 90. Yamauchi, ibid., p. 213.

90. fu'lon. Van Voorst, pp. 91-92. Yamauchi, ibid., p. 213.

91. Van Voorst, pp. 103-104. 92. Yamauchi, ibid., pp. 213-214.

93. In a personal email correspondence on 8/28/01.

94. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, p. 339.

95. " . . . Josephus’ mention of Jesus (A XVIII, 63f.) has been so much corrupted

that no attempted reconstruction of the original can be relied on. At most the description, ‘a doer of amazing works,’ can be salvaged" (Ibid., p. 252).

96. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.

97. Meier. p. 90.

98. Van Voorst, pp. 42-43, note 60. 99. Tacitus had a unique style that included an economy of words. He was not prone

to use redundant phrases within a sentence, but made his words count in other

phrases if possible. Ibid., p. 43.

100. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 19.

101. Sir Norman Anderson. Christianity and World Religions (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), chapters 1-3.

102. Gary R. Habermas, "Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions" in Journal

of Religious Studies, 25, 1989.

103. Edwin Yamauchi. Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Muhammed (Downers

Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p. 40. 104. Ibid., p. 35.

105. Ibid., p. 134.

106. Ibid., p. 344.

107. Ibid.

108. Ibid., p. 345. 109. When Freemasonry started in the 18th century, two men, James Anderson and

John Desaguiliers, used the operative tools of the craft to represent the speculative

science of the lodge and assigned them moral truths. For example, the gavel breaks

off the superfluities of life (i.e., sin). In antiquity, master masons were given a

password so that they could identify themselves to other master masons in other

countries in order to get work there. Passwords and handshakes were used for this purpose. This was later adopted into the lodge.

110. A personal conversation with Jack Harris on 9/21/01. One may find more

information on the origins and meanings behind Masonic rituals in Jack Harris,

Freemasonry: The Invisible Cult In Our Midst.

111. www.truthbeknown.com. 112. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 3.

113. Ibid., pp. 36-37.

114. Ibid., pp. 40-41.

115. www.anthropress.org/AboutRudolf.htm

116. One example of this is her comment on Tertullian that he believes because it is "shameful", "absurd", and "impossible" (The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 24-25).

However, if she had read Tertullian in context (Tertullian, On The Flesh Of Christ,

chapters 4-5), she would have known that he was speaking sarcastically in response

to Marcion’s views and that her source, T. W. Doane, took him out of context.

117. Ibid., p. 39.

118. Ibid., p. 46. 119. Ibid., p. 39.

120. Ibid., p. 45.

121. www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=gospel

122. This can be confirmed by any lexicon of Koiné Greek.

123. Free Inquiry, Summer 2001, pp. 66-67. 124. The Christ Conspiracy, p. 21.

125. This comment from Old Testament scholar, Richard Patterson.

A Refutation of Acharya S's Book "The Christ Conspiracy":

Pt 2

Dear Ms. Murdock,

An answer to your rebuttal titled, “A Rebuttal to

Mike Licona's „Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy‟”

Mike Licona

Thank you for emailing me your brief rebuttal to my paper on your book. I have also reviewed

“A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's „Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy‟” on your web site. Since the

latter and more formal involves greater detail than your email, this reply shall be directed towards

the later. Despite your references to me as a “used-religion salesman” and a “shallow apologist,”

I‟ll confine my reply to addressing the issues you have raised. I have listed these in the order you

present them in your rebuttal. You may also find this paper as well as my initial critique of The

Christ Conspiracy at www.risenjesus.com/acharya-s.html.

Personal Attack:

I am sorry that you interpret my paper as an attempt to attack your credibility. In academia, when

you make an assertion, especially one as peculiar as your own, you should be prepared for

unfavorable responses. The criticisms of others are not attempts to attack you personally. Rather

they have drawn attention to the historical criterion you utilize in order to establish a point.

You claim that in my critique of The Christ Conspiracy, I constantly misrepresent statements

from your book and web site in order to make you look ridiculous. Fortunately, you have

provided a few instances where you believe I have done this. We will look at these as they arise

throughout this examination of your rebuttal and learn whether my critique stands.

It seems to me that the difference between your method and my own is that, as a general practice

employed throughout your book, you make an assertion and back it up by quoting several others

who have made the same assertion, many of whom I consider questionable as scholarly sources

and several are demonstrably wrong. As I stated in my paper, making an assertion and quoting

those who agree with you is a long way from establishing your point. You must also provide

reasons. Now I will grant that you do this on occasion. However, as we observed with your

comparisons of Krishna and Buddha with Jesus, not only are you certainly incorrect, but we are

left asking the question as does skeptic Robert Price, “Is there any basis to these claims, which

Murdock just drops like a ton of bricks? Again she does not explain where they come from . . .”

I am sorry that you do not like my description of you as an “astrologer.” I accept your reasoning

for rejecting that title and I am happy to change my description to “a skeptic with an interest in

mythology.” I have adjusted my initial paper accordingly.

Astrology:

In your attempts to show that Judaism was strongly influenced by astrology (e.g., the 12 tribes of

Israel represent the 12 signs of the zodiac), you endeavor to establish that the zodiac goes back

much earlier than accepted by the majority of scholars. You state that “the Babylonians and the

priestly caste of Chaldeans were expert astrologers centuries to millennia prior to the Christian

era--denying that fact is beyond ridiculous! [ital. mine] But it does reveal the depth of dishonesty

needed in order to shore up fables.” [1] In support, you quote from the writings of Robert Graves,

Walter Maunder, and Edwin Krupp.

In my initial paper, I stated that “the Babylonians made the divisions in the fifth century B.C. [2]

If this dating is correct, reading astrology into the twelve tribes is anachronistic, since Genesis

was written approximately 1,000 B.C. and contains the story of the 12 tribes of Israel which

would have occurred even earlier.” [3] Please show us where is “the dishonesty needed in order

to shore up fables” of which you accuse me. Ms. Murdock, throwing unfounded accusations

against others who disagree with you is an easy task. Research integrity is much more difficult

and respected by others.

I emailed your comments on astrology and your citing of Graves, Maunder, and Krupp to

Professor Nowel Swerdlow of the University of Chicago. If you will recall, Professor Swerdlow

is the Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics and has specialized in the study of how those in

antiquity through the 17th

century viewed the skies. I received this reply from him:

I read through the passage you sent me and it is so filled with errors about ancient

astronomy and astrology that one barely knows where to begin. She simply repeats a lot

of nonsense that is not taken seriously by any competent historian of ancient astronomy

and astrology. And all she can do is quote modern writers, some of them very

misinformed, and she seems to have no understanding of her own of the ancient

evidence. What she writes is not history, but mere citation of authority. That may be all

right in theology, but not in history. I will just add a few specific comments about her

remarks:

In truth no one knows the origin of the zodiac. Claims to the contrary are nothing more

than speculation unsupported by evidence, as in her citation of Robert Graves‟s

derivation from Gilgamesh, which is pretty and ingenious, qualities found in all of

Graves‟s work, which is always fun to read, but is not supported by ancient evidence. No

one knows when the zodiacal constellations originated, but it is not as early as the third

millennium BC. And while there were constellations of some sort at that date, little is

known of them and there is no evidence for a group along the ecliptic, that is, the

zodiacal constellations. There is certainly nothing in Aratus which indicates that the

original zodiac existed in the late third millennium BC as she claims. Ask her to produce

the passage.

Nor is there a scrap of evidence for knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes before

Hipparchus (2nd

century BC). Even for Hipparchus it was just one of different possible

explanations for why distances of bright stars from the equinoxes did not seem to be

constant, using observations of his own compared with those of Timocharis and

Aristyllus in the early third century, evidently the earliest he had that were applicable to

this. Much has been made in recent years of an early date for the equinox in Taurus,

meaning among the stars of the constellation Taurus. But again there is no ancient

evidence for this, and citing references to a bull is not evidence. Taurus is often referred

to as a sign of spring, but this does not mean that the equinox is located among its stars,

only that the sun is in Taurus in the spring, which is obviously true but trivial. There are

also ancient sources, as referred to by Varro, that take the midpoint of Taurus as the

beginning of summer, with Taurus here considered as a sign of thirty degrees. Does this

mean that the summer solstice is located in Taurus? No, just that there is variation in

relating agricultural seasons to the location of the sun in the zodiac. The location of the

equinox among one or another zodiacal constellation, as the so-called Age of Aquarius or

Age of Pisces, is something of concern to modern astrology, but is never mentioned as

significant in ancient astrology. It is simply anachronistic to believe that what is

important to twentieth century astrology was of importance to ancient astrology. To

name another anachronism that appears to underlie her interpretation, the borders of

constellations, between, say, Aries, Pisces, and Aquarius, are modern conventions of the

International Astronomical Union, and there is nothing ancient about them. Ancient

astrologers did not use Norton‟s Star Atlas nor anything else that drew arbitrary lines

between sidereal constellations.

What little can be said of the origin of the zodiac is far more complex and uncertain.

Which constellations does she mean? The zodiaca constellations, known from 700 BC to

the Babylonian and from 300 BC to the Greek, are not exactly the same, although there is

no doubt that the Greek are adapted from the Babylonian. There is no evidence for the

zodiac in Egypt before the third century BC, and the „Egyptians‟ who use it are

Hellenistic Greeks in Alexandria. There is no evidence for the zodiac among the real

Egyptians at an earlier date. The zodiac is definitely in use among the Babylonians by the

seventh century BC and may go back somewhat earlier. But there is no evidence for its

being much earlier. The cuneiform text MUL.APIN, from about 1000 BC, contains all of

the zodiacal constellations, some under different names than they later had and not

necessarily exactly the same stars. But, and this is important, they are not thought of as a

single group aligned along the ecliptic, or the path of the sun, moon, and planets, but,

along with many other constellations, divided among the three paths, of Enlil, Anu, and

Ea, which are roughly northern, equatorial, and southern constellations. The twelve

standard zodiacal constellations are never singled out as a group. Further, although the

Babylonians recognize the twelve zodiacal constellations by the seventh century, taking

twelve zodiacal signs as arcs of 30 degrees each is later, at the earliest the fifth century

and perhaps not until the fourth. And counting them as arcs of 30 degrees beginning at

the vernal equinox is later still, perhaps not until the time of Hipparchus or even later.

Ptolemy, in the second century AD, explains the convention of counting from the

equinox, with his reasons for doing so, as though it is not all that well known and must

be explained. Whatever she may say about the origin and use of the zodiac, it is clear that

she simply does not know the original sources that provide evidence. If she wishes to

argue for an early date for the recognition of the twelve specific constellation or 30-

degree signs of the zodiac, let her show from original sources, not from a few speculative

modern writers, what the evidence for her claim is. As an example of her citations,

Lockyer's work was considered nonsensical when it appeared and is considered even

more nonsensical today. She must not only cite Lockyer, she must prove that he is

correct. Again, she quotes modern writers as though they are final authorities but knows

nothing of the original ancient sources for what she says or quotes. [4]

Swerdlow states that some of the experts you appeal to are “misinformed” and that a lot of what

they write is “nonsense” and “speculation unsupported by evidence.”

I am not suggesting that Swerdlow‟s comments are gospel. However, he is a recognized scholar

who has specialized in astronomy in antiquity. Therefore, his opinion does carry some weight. Of

course Swerdlow‟s additional comments will not mean much to you. After quoting Dr. Edwin

Krupp in your rebuttal [5] you conclude, “So much for Licona's „experts,‟ who actually make

quite erroneous assertions. A word to the wise: caveat lector when it comes to such „experts!‟”

You may find it interesting that I emailed Dr. Krupp regarding Dr. Swerdow and your remarks

concerning the age of Pisces. Following is my email:

I'm currently involved in a dialogue with someone on the topic of astrology. My

opponent is more familiar with the topic than I and claims that as ancient myth

developed, “it took the form of a play, with a cast of characters, including the 12

divisions of the sky called the signs or constellations of the zodiac. The symbols that

typified these 12 celestial sections of 300 each were not based on what the constellations

actually look like but represent aspects of earthly life. Thus, the ancient peoples were

able to incorporate these earthly aspects into the mythos and project them onto the all-

important celestial screen.” [6] Based on this understanding, she claims that Jesus, whom

she regards as no more than a myth, recognized the coming of the age of Pisces; and

thus, the Christian fish of antiquity was created.

I contacted Nowel Swerdlow, professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the Univ. of

Chicago and asked him about her position. Prof Swerdow responded with the following:

“In antiquity, constellations were just groups of stars, and there were no borders

separating the region of one from the region of another. In astrology, for computational

purposes the zodiacal signs were taken as twelve arcs of 30 degrees measured from the

vernal equinox. Because of the slow westward motion of the equinoxes and solstices,

what we call the precession of the equinoxes, these did not correspond to the

constellations with the same names. But . . . within which group of stars the vernal

equinox was located, was of no astrological significance at all. The modern ideas about

the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius are based upon the location of the vernal

equinox in the regions of the stars of those constellations. But the regions, the borders

between, those constellations are a completely modern convention of the International

Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping . . . and never had any astrological

significance. I hope this is helpful although in truth what this woman is claiming is so

wacky that it is hardly worth answering. So when this woman says that the Christian fish

was a symbol of the 'coming age of Pisces', she is saying something that no one would

have thought of in antiquity because in which constellation of the fixed stars the vernal

equinox was located, was of no significance and is entirely an idea of modern, I believe

twentieth-century, astrology.”

May I ask you what your take on this is? Do you agree with my opponent or Swerdlow?

Or do you have some separate thoughts? Thank you for your consideration. [7]

Dr. Krupp responded to me the same day with the following email:

Professor Swerdlow is well informed on the ancient history of astronomy and astrology,

and his report to you reflects current scholarly opinion formulated by textual evidence.

Although people have traditionally projected terrestrial concerns and priorities onto the

sky in celestial myth, the detailed astrological mapping your opponent advocates is not

supported by evidence and certainly cannot be tracked back two millennia or more as

described.

Your own source acknowledges that Swerdlow is both “well informed” and that his opinion

reflects “current scholarly opinion” based on textual evidence. It seems that your contempt for

the experts I cite is in error, Ms. Murdock. Furthermore, I find it likewise noteworthy that Krupp

disagrees with you concerning your assertion that the Christian fish is evidence that those in

antiquity recognized the coming of the age of Pisces, commenting that what you advocate “is not

supported by evidence and certainly cannot be tracked back two millennia or more as described.”

I ask you again, please tell us how you know that those in antiquity recognized the ushering in of

the age of Pisces by observing the skies. As I pointed out in my initial paper, Noel Swerdlow as

well as Jay Pasachoff, the Director of Hopkins Observatory, Chair of the Department of

Astronomy at Williams College, and Encarta expert on astronomy have pointed out that the

celestial divisions were not accomplished until the 20th

century by the International Astronomical

Union in 1928, rendering it impossible for the ancients to recognize an age of Pisces. Again, Ms.

Murdock, do not merely make an assertion; please give us evidence. If my sources are correct

(and yours!), you will find no sources in antiquity supporting your position. I also think finding

sources is going to be especially difficult for you, since you reject second hand information (see

your comments on Tacitus in The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51). This means you will need primary

sources from the first century or before that support your contention that those in antiquity

recognized the age of Pisces.

Moon Worship & Judaism

Was Judaism essentially “moon worship” as you claim? I answered you on pages 3-5 of my

paper and you failed to respond to those criticisms. Your only response is a promise to

substantiate your claims in your forthcoming book, Suns of God, by producing a number of

experts who will prove your point. This is a tacit acknowledgement that you have failed to do so

in The Christ Conspiracy. Perhaps in Suns of God you will do more than merely quote a few

people who believe as you do. Perhaps you will be more careful to cite passages in their context

in this forthcoming book, since you failed to do so in The Christ Conspiracy as I pointed out on

pages 2-5 of my initial paper. It is not a matter of allegory being “above the heads of the vested

believers” as you assert in your rebuttal. It is a matter of a responsible exegesis of the text, one

that any interested individual can employ simply by reading the text in the cases you have cited.

In your rebuttal, you cite psychologist Theodor Reik on the matter of moon worship within

Judaism. But do Reik‟s reasons establish your point that the Jews of the first century and before

were moon worshippers? Let us look at these one at a time. For the moment, I am granting that

you have quoted Reik accurately and in context.

1) Reik appeals to Moses Maimonides (1135-1204 CE) who cites moon worship as “the

religion of Adam.” Rabbi Michael Panitz disagrees by saying there in no extant literature

to support this. [8] Panitz agrees that volumes of ancient near eastern texts have been

recovered which speak of a very powerful moon-goddess in pagan cultures. Moreover,

there certainly seems to have been syncretistic cultures within Judaism where a pure

Hebrew faith was tainted by pagan influence, which was absorbed into the culture and

retained for some time. However, the absorbing of pagan practices has been done by

some adherents in all religions to some extent and is not indicative that Judaism had

pagan moon-worship as its origin.

2) Reik claims, “The moon was the emblem of Israel in Talmudic literature and in Hebrew

tradition. The mythical ancestors of the Hebrews lived in Ur and Harran, the centers of

the Semitic moon-cult.” You then comment that Abraham‟s father was a star-worshipper

as was Abraham himself until he found the real God. The Talmud is 2nd

century A. D.

and beyond and does not support your point for 1st century or prior corroboration.

Although some of the data in the Talmud originates in the first century, your task is to

demonstrate that moon-worship belongs to that class. And you have not done that.

Furthermore, you have not cited a single Talmudic reference in support of your view.

Joshua admits that Abraham‟s father served other gods (Joshua 4:2). However, this does

not mean that Abraham was a moon-worshipper. There is no evidence that this was the

case. Moreover, even if he was, you yourself comment that this was only until he found

the real God. Abraham‟s alleged practice of moon-worship before finding the real God

no more indicates that he continued this practice after finding the real God any more than

Paul‟s prior commitment to a zealous Judaism indicates that he continued ritual sacrifices

after his conversion to Christianity. You are employing non-sequitur reasoning.

3) Reik then states that Jewish astrotheology is reflected in Joseph‟s dream where Jacob is

called the sun, his mother the moon and his brothers the stars. [9] However, let us read

these verses in their context:

Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, “Lo, I

have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars

were bowing down to me.” He related it to his father and to his brothers; and his

father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have had? Shall

I and your mother and your brothers actually come to bow ourselves down before

you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:9-10, NASB)

It seems pretty obvious that, in the context of Joseph‟s dream, the sun, moon, and eleven

stars are used in a very figurative sense. For me this is far from convincing that Joseph

and his family practiced sun, moon, or star-worship.

4) You quote Reik:

The experts assure us that the observance of Rosh Chodesh, the first of the

month, was once a major holiday, more important than the weekly Sabbath. They

also say that this festival was a reminder of the cult of the moon god.

Rosh Chodesh is a minor monthly Jewish holiday observing the new month. The Jews

determine the date of this holiday based on the Jewish lunar calendar. Where are Reik‟s

experts who “assure us . . . that this festival was a reminder of the cult of the moon god”?

Even if Rosh Chodesh has traces of paganism for any of a number of speculative reasons,

that is not to say that Judaism had its origin in a moon cult any more than Christianity

had its origin in paganism because many Christians decorate a tree at Christmas or tell

their children about the Easter Bunny. Christians do not worship trees or pray to a

gratuitous bunny rabbit. 5) Reik then asserts that Mount Sinai means “the mountain of the moon,” with Sin being the

Babylonian moon god. Can Reik be so certain of what he states as fact? The

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has the following introductory comments on

Mount Sinai: “The origin of the name is uncertain; some have suggested that it is related

etymologically either to Heb. seneh, „thornbush,‟ or to Bab. Sin, the ancient Semitic

moon-deity. Neither of these suggestions seems particularly satisfactory . . .” [10] The

reasons for this are because both the mountain and the surrounding wilderness are called

“Horeb,” with “a root meaning a „desolate region‟ or „ruin.‟” This is prominent in

Deuteronomy and present elsewhere in the Pentateuch. [11] Moreover, “„Sinai‟ and

„Horeb‟ are used synonymously.” [12] These are the type of problems you run into when

people who are commenting on subjects outside of their area of expertise are consulted

consistently, a practice you follow frequently. I think this a good time to point out that

this is a good example of what Robert Price said in his review of your book: “She is

quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either

wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many

interpretations.” [13] Why do you uncritically accept Reik‟s interpretation of Mount

Sinai, which is at least questionable, while rejecting far better recognized data, such as

Josephus‟ mentioning of Jesus? You also do this throughout your book with the

traditions of Krishna and Buddha. It should be of no surprise to you that Price goes on to

comment regarding your book: “It is remarkable how and where some people‟s historical

skepticism comes crashing to a halt.” [14] 6) Finally, Reik takes us to the Old Testament where he claims that “traces of ancient moon-

worship” exist. In support, he cites Deuteronomy 33:4, “Moses charged us with a law, a

possession for the assembly of Jacob” (NASB), and Psalm 12:16. It is difficult to see

how the former supports moon-worship even when the surrounding verses are considered

and the latter reference does not even exist! He also appeals to Jeremiah 8:1-2: “„At that

time,‟ declares the LORD, „they will bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the

bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and the

bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves. They will spread them out to the

sun, the moon and to all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have

served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have

worshiped. They will not be gathered or buried; they will be as dung on the face of the

ground‟” (NASB). Does this prove that moon-worship was an orthodox belief of Judaism

rather than a cult to which some strayed? I‟ll grant you now that Jeremiah attests that

moon-worship was practiced by some high-ranking Jews. However, the Old Testament is

filled with accounts of the Jewish nation and some of its kings straying away to other

gods. Jeremiah certainly indicates that there were times when certain kings, princes,

priests, prophets, and inhabitants of Judah worshipped the sun, moon, and stars.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that this is what is being condemned in the

Hebrew Scriptures, not approved! You can assert all you like that the commands in the

Hebrew Scriptures‟ against moon-worship is “a veil of allegory that was mistaken for

„history.‟” [15] But you provide no reasons for us to believe this to be the case and

further demonstrate the accuracy of Price‟s statement who is bewildered at how your

historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt.

Masonry

Regarding Masonry‟s influence on the origin of Christianity, in support of your view that Masons

were involved in the invention of Christianity, you provide a quotation from Thomas Paine who

does not say, at least in your quotation of him, that Christianity had its origin from Masons. He

merely claims that both “are derived from the worship of the Sun,” [16] a claim that is certainly

wrong. Consider the following:

And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars,

all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which

the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. (Deut. 4:19,

NASB)

If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is

giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God,

by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them,

or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if

it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is

true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall

bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the

man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. (Deut. 17:2-5, NASB)

If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is

giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God,

by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them,

or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if

it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is

true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall

bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the

man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. (Job 31:26-28, NASB)

Then He brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house. And behold, at the

entrance to the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-

five men with their backs to the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east; and

they were prostrating themselves eastward toward the sun. He said to me, "Do you see

this, son of man? Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominations

which they have committed here, that they have filled the land with violence and

provoked Me repeatedly?” (Ezek 8:16-17, NASB)

In the presence of these references, Paine had a lot of further explaining to do in regards to how

the first Christians who were Jews went from sun-worship to Jesus, when sun-worship was

forbidden in Judaism. You then cite Manly Hall, a 33rd

-degree Mason who claims that religion is

based on astrology. Yet, does this support your view that Masons were responsible for the origin

of Christianity? You have not made a case worth our serious consideration in my assessment.

“God‟s Spell”

In your answer to my point concerning the absence of scholarship in your definition of “Gospel,”

you say that I have “no sense of humor or imagination.” [17] Your remark reminds me of

Solomon‟s proverb, “Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man who

deceives his neighbor, and says, „Was I not joking?‟” (Proverbs 26:18-19, NASB). Let the

readers of your book read your statement in context and judge for themselves whether you were

joking or if you made an academic blooper:

In reality, the contradictions in the gospels are overwhelming and irreconcilable by the

rational mind. In fact, the Gospel was not designed to be rational, as the true meaning of

the word “gospel” is “God‟s Spell,” as in magic, hypnosis and delusion. As Mack says:

“The narrative gospels can no longer be viewed as the trustworthy accounts of unique

and stupendous historical events at the foundation of the Christian faith. The gospels

must now be seen as the result of early Christian mythmaking.” [18]

Upon further review of your statement in context, it still does not appear to me that your

statement regarding the meaning of gospel is anything but a statement of fact. Even in your

second defense of this definition, you indicate that you truly are holding on to that meaning of the

gospel, defending that “the basic etymology of „gospel‟ as provided by The Concise Oxford

Dictionary English Etymology” supports this view. [19] But again and as I stated in my paper, “it

does not matter what the English word means. What matters is what the word means in Greek,

something Murdock does not even bother to consider.” [20] Again this seems to me a very odd

mistake by someone who claims to be a scholar of the Greek language or, for that matter, any

language.

Textual Criticism

You state that I exhibit “sloppiness” when commenting on your “reporting of the claim that the

New Testament has some 150,000 „variant readings.‟” You say that you are “quoting someone

else,” the “influential German theologian Griesbach (1745-1812).” Moreover, you say that I have

“not bothered to inquire as to why this figure had been reached but immediately assumes it‟s

incorrect.” [21]

Let us look again at your statement in context:

As noted by Otto Schmiedel . . . “If the Synoptists are right, the Fourth Gospel must be

rejected as a historical source.” In fact, as Wheless says: “The so-called „canonical‟

books of the New Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions

of text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more „variant readings,‟ as is well known

and admitted.” In regard to these „variant readings,‟ Waite states: “Of the 150,000 variant

readings which Griesbach found in the manuscripts of the New Testament, probably

149,500 were additions and interpolations.” In this mess, the gospels‟ pretended authors,

the apostles, give conflicting histories and genealogies. [22]

It is clear by what you write that you are in support of Wheless and Waite in terms of the 150,000

variants. Therefore, I see no problem in asserting, “She says that there are about 150,000 variants

in the manuscripts of the New Testament.” [23]

Regarding your second contention that I have not asked you how this figure was arrived at, I

believe it is clear that my assessment is what is going on. You are aware that the Nestle-Aland

Greek New Testament provides some of the most comprehensive information in terms of the

textual apparatuses, which discuss the textual variations in the New Testament. This text lists the

manuscript variances for most verses in the New Testament. A few instances exist where

variations are not recorded. This is because they are so minor and insignificant that our attention

is not merited due to their insignificance and that the matter is considered solved without dispute

by textual critics. [24] There are 683 pages in this Greek New Testament. If 150,000 variant

readings existed in any other sense than what I presented in my paper, there would be an average

of 220 variations per page! One quick glance throughout the comprehensive textual apparatuses

will reveal that this is certainly not the case, since a page loaded with variations contains only

about 10. As I stated in my critique of your book, once the principles of textual criticism are

applied in the consideration of these variations, we arrive at a text that is virtually pure. It is

important to note as well that any unresolved differences caused by the variances do not change a

single doctrine of the Christian faith. [25]

With this in mind, Ms. Murdock, you have the proper forum now. Tell us how this figure was

reached if I am incorrect.

Lighten Up

I admonished you at the beginning of this reply that, in academia, you must be prepared for

criticisms that challenge your views. In your rebuttal, you write of me and those whom I quote,

“To these suspicious detractors, I say, why don‟t you just ask me where this information,

research, etc., comes from, instead of writing polemics and ad hominems against me? Why are

you taking my dissection of Christianity so personally that you are getting personal with me?

There are obviously some unresolved psychological issues, and the behavior is childish. [sic] As

well as macho, blustering, pompous, arrogant, conceited, etc. Probably even sexist” [26] and

“Their knee-jerk reactions without inquiring of me or my research--even recommending a snooty,

sophomoric and obnoxious response of ignoring me at all costs--are a sign of a personality

problem, not of their cleverness or erudition.” [27] Spiteful rock-throwing at those who disagree

with you does not change a thing. On the one hand, you constantly boast of how well you have

documented your points by how many endnotes are contained in your book. Yet on the other

hand you desire us to ask you where your information comes from. We see where it is coming

from, Ms. Murdock, and we are saying to you that we find it unconvincing and lacking in

academic quality.

Atrocities Committed in the Name of Christ

You write, “And why are these men attacking me . . . over . . . an ideology that has been

responsible for the torture and slaughter of millions of people worldwide? How can any honest

person with any integrity defend this ideology, with its bloody past, or its supposed founder, on

whose omnipotent shoulders ultimately rests the responsibility for the management of the world

and, thus, its endless atrocities?” [28] You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. Jesus would not have condoned the crusades and the

numerous inquisitions initiated by the Catholic Church. Jesus would not have said to kill people

in his name. Indeed, He told Peter to put his sword away [29] and that Christians should love

their enemies. [30] It was only later that the Catholic Church, motivated by its political

ambitions, used religious rhetoric to sanctify its goals of domination as well as provide an

aggressive defense against an even crueler and conquering Islam. You cannot judge a philosophy

by its abuse.

Have you forgotten the evils committed by atheists? In the 20th

century alone, more than 17

million people were killed as a result of atheistic movements (Stalin: 7 million; Hitler: 9 million;

Khmer rouge: 1.2 million). By contrast, about 500,000 people or less were killed as a result of the

crusades between the very end of the 11th

and 16th

centuries (about 400 years), although most

consider the crusades to have ended by the beginning of the 14th

century. [31] Even if you add

those tortured and killed by numerous inquisitions conducted by the Catholic Church, it is not

even close to the tens of millions you claim. [32] Now of course we did not have the weapons of

mass destruction in the Middle Ages that we have today, so the comparison only goes so far. A

more accurate comparison might be with regards to consciously religious states such as Iran, Iraq,

and Israel verses nationalistic states such as Germany, Russia, and Cambodia. Even considering

the Islamic states of Iran and Iraq as well as the deaths caused by Islamic terrorists in the 20th

century, including the recent attacks on our country, these hardly compare with the deaths caused

by nationalism during the same period, even though a great many national causes dress

themselves up in religious jargon just as they have used terms like freedom (e.g., Vietnam and

Lenin). Do these atrocities committed by atheists invalidate atheism? I think not, because you can

not judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Lest you plan on responding that Hitler was a Christian as you do in your book, [33] let me

address that now. I grant that at the beginning of his political career, Hitler used the German

Church for political propaganda purposes by utilizing Christian jargon. However, this does not by

any means make him a Christian. Not only do his fruits prove otherwise, but we have his

personal conversations. You yourself admit, “Whether or not Hitler was a „true‟ Christian is

debatable.” [34] In a book respected by historians titled Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944,

[35] Hitler states that religion is an “organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain

the absolute master. . . .it‟s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies. . . . [It]

was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples.

. . . Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six

divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn‟t prevent them from

going to their death with serenity in their souls.” [36] These are not the words of a Christian.

Josephus

You are upset with my criticisms of your statements concerning Josephus. You write, “Licona

makes outrageously false statements that reflect how shallow is his knowledge of his chosen

vocation: E.g., his claims about the passage in Josephus called the “Testimonium Flavianum”

(“TF”). No, the “overwhelming majority of scholars” do NOT believe the TF to be authentic, but

what can you expect from someone trying to sell such a bogus fable? As I will show in Suns of

God, many very well-known and erudite scholars have dismissed the TF in toto as being a

forgery. In fact, it is quite obviously a forgery to those with common sense. In the meantime,

readers may find quite a bit of debunking of the TF at

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christcon.htm.”

I have pointed out in my initial paper that your claim is not only unsubstantiated; it is false.[37] I

have listed several well-known and respected scholars who acknowledge Josephus‟ mentioning

of Jesus in TF. What do the majority hold regarding this passage? I intend on conducting a survey

of all the scholarly literature written on the authenticity of the passage during the past 70 years. In

the meantime and in lieu of this, I can share with you that the prominent Josephus scholar, Louis

Feldman, who is not a Christian, shared the following with me in an email: “My guess is that the

ratio of those who in some manner accept the Testimonium [to those who reject all of it as an

interpolation] would be at least 3 to 1. I would not be surprised if it would be as much as 5 to 1.”

[38] This Josephus scholar has written extensively on the subject (e.g., Louis H. Feldman and

Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, The Bible, and History [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987],

473 pages; Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity [Detroit:

Wayne State University Press, 1989], 448 pages; Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980

[Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1984], 1,055 pages. In the latter, Feldman notes more than 100 scholarly

discussions on this passage during that time period. Feldman was also the translator for the works

of Josephus for Harvard University Press‟s Loeb Classical Library.). So please understand why I

do not believe you when you claim “the „overwhelming majority of scholars‟ do NOT believe the

TF to be authentic.” [39] And even if you present “many very well-known and erudite scholars

who have dismissed the TF in toto as being a forgery,” [40] something you have yet to do, this

does nothing to substantiate your claim that the “overwhelming majority of scholars” reject the

authenticity of the Testimonium. If Feldman is correct in his hunch, there are three to five times

more scholars who grant that the Testimonium mentions Jesus.

In your rebuttal, you refer us to Earl Doherty‟s treatment of the Testimonium on your web site.

This is not the place to critique his article. However, Doherty is not a Josephus scholar and one

source does not constitute an “overwhelming majority of scholars.” Citing a few scholars who

totally reject Josephus‟ mentioning of Jesus will not do. You must support your claim that “these

„references,‟ [i.e., the two occasions in Josephus that mention Jesus] they have been dismissed by

scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries” [41] and that “the „overwhelming majority of

scholars‟ do NOT believe the TF to be authentic.” [42]

Tacitus

In your book you state that the passage in Tacitus‟ Annals 15:44 cannot be used to confirm the

existence of Jesus. Your reason for making this assertion is because Tacitus was not born until

about 25 years after Jesus‟ death and, therefore, his information is secondhand.[43] In my paper,

I responded that such thinking is medieval in terms of historical criticism and that if this approach

is adopted we could know very little of history.[44] Indeed, no one today could write an accurate

history of the American Civil War.

In your rebuttal, you state that “interested parties, however, should read Cutner's Jesus: God,

Man or Myth and the sources he cites, such as Hochart, Taylor and Ross. Licona's tactic in

"refuting" me and my work seems to rest on his presenting my claims very superficially and

making it seem as if I don't back them up.”[45] Before looking at this article you have

recommend, it should be noted that in your book, The Christ Conspiracy, you do not back up

your claims, except to say that no one mentions the passage prior to the 15th

century.[46] As with

your treatment of Justin, are the readers of The Christ Conspiracy supposed to know to go to your

web site in order to receive information you should have documented in your book?

In Jesus: God, Man or Myth, you repeat your arguments from The Christ Conspiracy that the

reference of Jesus in Tacitus is not mentioned by anyone prior to the 15th

century and, even if

genuine, is not an eyewitness account. However, I answered these in my paper and you never

responded to my critiques.

Let‟s look now at your article, which is a summary of Cutner‟s work and the new arguments you

present against the authenticity of this passage. Cutner‟s reasons are presented in italics with my

responses following:

1. If there had been a Neronian persecution, why in heaven's name has so remarkably little

been found concerning it elsewhere? Authors write on the subjects of their choice. Ms.

Murdock, are you aware that Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, or Nero are never

mentioned in any of the writings of the apostolic fathers? Does this exclude the existence

of these emperors? Are you aware that Julius Caesar‟s crossing of the Rubicon (49 B.

C.), an event that forever changed the course of Rome, is mentioned only by Vellieus

(after A. D. 30), Appian (2nd

century A D), Plutarch (after A. D. 70), and Suetonius (A.

D. 115)? [47] That is only one source within 100 years of the event. Moreover,

considering your criteria of needing to be an eyewitness, there aren't any and the earliest

manuscript we have of these writings are 1,000 years removed from the alleged originals.

Why not argue that these, too, are late and forgeries as you seem to do with Tacitus and

deny the existence of Julius Caesar and his crossing of the Rubicon?[48] You would be

laughed out of court. Should it be of no surprise to you then that no scholars are taking

your work seriously?

2. Why was the passage never quoted by Tertullian (who often quotes Tacitus) or Eusebius

or any other early Christian apologist? All Tacitus affirms in his mentioning of Jesus is

that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and that his followers did not abandon him after

his death. What benefit would this passage have played in an apologetic, if no one in the

time of the author was questioning the existence of an historical Jesus? Not one of the

writings from the early opponents of Christianity such as Celsus seemed to have

questioned the existence of Jesus. It appears as though you expect Tertullian and

Eusebius to address issues that apparently did not exist. I ask you, Ms. Murdock, provide

us with references in Tertullian and Eusebius or any of the early Christian apologists you

mention where these words of Tacitus would have been beneficial for them to use.

3. Tacitus does not mention Christ, Christians or Christianity anywhere else in his writings.

Tacitus is a secular historian writing of Roman history. Where would bringing up Jesus

have helped his objective in writing? Please provide an example in order to support your

point.

4. This entire work of Tacitus known as Annals was unknown until the 15th century, when it

was "discovered" by Poggio Bracciolini. In 1878, WJ Ross attempted to prove that

Bracciolini himself had forged the Annals. With his expertise in Latin, Ross was readily

able to demonstrate that the Annals differed in style from Tacitus's genuine writings.

Indeed, some of the phrases match those employed by Bracciolini in his own writings. I

have not read Ross‟ book on Tacitus. However, if Ross‟s thesis on Tacitus is so

compelling, I find it interesting that no scholars who specialize in Roman history today

acknowledge it that I know of. Rather, as I pointed out in my paper, several

contemporary scholars use expressions like “feeble attempts” and “pure speculation” to

describe writings like Ross‟s. [49]

5. It is obviously only a report from believers in “Christ.” How is this “obvious,” Ms.

Murdock? In The Christ Conspiracy, you likewise refer to Tacitus‟ mentioning of Jesus

as “an interpolation and forgery.” [50] Where is your data in support of this? You have

not provided any in your book or your article. It remains an unsubstantiated assertion on

your part.

I think at this point it is quite clear that you have failed to support your position that Tacitus does

not acknowledge the historical Jesus. Moreover, you failed to answer any of the reasons I

provided for why the passage in Tacitus is genuine. Therefore, the critical New Testament

scholar, John Meir‟s conclusion still stands, “despite some feeble attempts to show that this text

is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed

in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian

origin almost impossible.” [51]

Justin

Regarding Justin‟s knowledge of the Gospels, you are correct that I was unfamiliar with your

article on your web site. However, as I pointed out regarding Tacitus, this does not excuse you

from the lack of documentation in your book regarding this matter. Let‟s now look at your article,

since you claim to have “gone into great detail regarding the purported references in Martyr” in

this article. You write, “A number of the purported passages in Justin that correspond to New

Testament scriptures come from a text called „Memoirs of the Apostles,‟ which, Cassels shows,

is a single book by that title, not a reference to several „memoirs‟ or apostolic gospels.”[52]

In support of this you cite Cassels who claims this volume is in contradiction many times with

the four Gospels. However, as I pointed out in my paper, Justin elsewhere refers to the Memoirs

as the Gospels: “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,

have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[53] I pointed this out to you in my

paper, but you completely ignored it.

We have not been informed by you, Cassels, or Keeler who you likewise appeal to of any

meaningful contradictions with the Gospels. You quote Keeler who writes, “There is almost

invariably some difference, either in sense or construction, showing that Justin's book was

different from our Gospels. Moreover, he [i.e., Justin] quotes from it things which are not in our

Gospels.” [54] Where are these differences in the Memoirs, which Keeler asserts distinguish

them from the Gospels? We are never told. If contradictions between the Gospels and the

Memoirs really exist, please point them out to us. Do not leave us merely to accept the words of

your sources. This should not be difficult for you to research, since I have listed all of Justin‟s 14

references to the Memoirs of the Apostles in my paper.[55] However, you will find that not one of

Justin‟s citing of the Memoirs contradicts the Gospels. Keep in mind that in these passages,

Justin uses Old Testament verses, the Gospels, and his own commentary. Why did you not check

these out, Ms. Murdock?

Other than these additional comments from your article to which you have referred us, I see

nothing in it that adds anything to what you claim in The Christ Conspiracy. Therefore, you have

not addressed and refuted my critiques as you claim.[56] Justin certainly refers to the Gospels in

his writings, which places their composition earlier than you have claimed.

Krishna

In your rebuttal you write, “Nor did his “experts”--who are evidently completely unaware of this

debate--apparently bother to read the excerpt, or they could not have so shamelessly impugned

my character with their puerile remarks.” Ms. Murdock, they were aware of your excerpt.

Appropriate portions of your article and book were quoted to them verbatim. Regarding your

“Christian sources,” Lundy and Georgius, even if you are correct, Lundy and Georgius write of

their contemporary experiences with present-day Hindus. This does nothing to support your

position that Hindus in antiquity worshipped a crucified Krishna. Hindu traditions on the life of

Krishna come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa, which as I pointed out in my

paper, both post-date the rise of Christianity and, therefore, do nothing to support your thesis.[57]

If you desire to convince us that the experts to whom you defer like Barbara Walker, who writes

on issues concerning women and who produces tarot cards is more acquainted with Hinduism

than the professor of Hindu Studies at Rutgers who has devoted his career to the subject, you

must do more than simply claim that my sources “are unable to do research into anything „new‟”

and that they are “completely unaware of this debate.” Please provide us with clear evidence that

refute their contention that you are misinformed. Do not merely quote the opinion of others. Tell

us which ancient manuscripts contain stories of a crucified and resurrected Krishna and Buddha

and provide us with a dating of these manuscripts in order to demonstrate that, even if they exist,

the stories precede the Christian account and are not copying from it.

Buddha

In your rebuttal and citing your own words from The Christ Conspiracy, you write of, “this non-

historicity and of the following characteristics of the Buddha myth, which are not widely known

[ital. yours] but which have their hoary roots in the mists of time . . .” [58] We still have yet to

learn from where you get your “not widely known” information. You simply quote others who

many times turn out being terribly wrong and unscholarly in both their exegesis and reasoning.

In reading the article to which you refer us, I saw no striking similarities or much in support of

the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity that you claim in your book. Granted, the

Hindus have worshipped gods over time. No one would ever dispute this. However, the mere

worship of God or a son of God does this prove your overall thesis that your alleged fabricators

of Christianity borrowed from Hinduism or even Buddhism? Your article does nothing new to

support this thesis. In fact, your research method is still evident: You seem to think that merely

quoting someone who states the position you hold provides evidence for the truth of your view.

Furthermore, you quote someone, for example, Abbé Huc, who obviously quotes someone else

quoting him, indicating a secondary source—and do not bother to inform us who it is you are

citing. Your interaction with primary sources is extremely rare. Moreover, when we go to those

primary sources, on numerous occasions we learn that they are wrong.

What of the Rest of Your Book?

You inquire of me what I do with the remaining of The Christ Conspiracy that I have not

commented on. My intent was not to provide an exhaustive critique on the entire volume. What I

have commented on should be sufficient for the interested reader to conclude that poor

scholarship permeates your book and articles. Even in this current follow-up to your rebuttal, we

have seen that you appeal to scholars who write on subjects outside of their field and

consequently misinterpret the Bible, [59] uncritically accept improbable meanings[60] and

statements by others,[61] cite verses without regard for context,[62] and mistake allegory for

history, [63] something you yourself admit that people do.[64] You continue to exhibit naïveté

regarding Josephus scholarship[65] and hold irrational historical criteria, which no professional

historian holds and of which your own positions cannot stand up to.[66] Nothing quite strains and

kills an otherwise interesting argument like the facts. If you are interested, you may find a more

detailed critique from Dr. Robert Price in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Higher Criticism, a journal for skeptics. I am told this review will be much more detailed than what he wrote for

Free Inquiry.

Regarding atheist Dr. Price, whom I cite as a critic of your book, you ask if I “agree also with the

rest of his thesis, that Christ is a fiction [sic]” and question his stability and credibility because he

converted from being a Christian to an atheist.[67] I do not agree with Dr. Price that Christ is a

fictitious character. However, the point I am making in my initial paper is that when someone

who is a noted scholar and who accepts the same conclusion as you, i.e., that Christ is no more

than a myth, and who stands to benefit if your arguments are sound, yet points out numerous

bloopers and blunders with them to the point of calling them “outright looney,”[68] the red flags

must raise in the head of the rational person that something may very well be wrong here.

Although I am saddened that Price abandoned his faith in the past, I see no reason to question his

stability and credibility as a result. On the other hand, I am optimistic that as an astute scholar, he

will continue his consideration of new presentations of the evidence and perhaps some day return

to the faith I am convinced is true.

Conclusion

After reading your rebuttal, Ms. Murdock, I find myself further disappointed with your claims as

well as the spirit in which you have responded to criticism. For the reasons elaborated on above, I

cannot accept your thesis.

In the beginning of your rebuttal, you ask, “just what are Licona‟s motives in attempting to fob

off this fairytale . . . [of Jesus‟ resurrection], one must wonder.”[69] Since you ask, it is because

after observing the evidence, I do not believe that Jesus‟ resurrection from the dead is a

“fairytale.” Indeed, I believe there is a strong body of evidence in favor of Jesus‟ resurrection as

an event that occurred in space-time, although this is not the place for a discussion on it. Antony

Flew, considered by many to be the most influential living philosophical atheist, commented:

So I think you could argue that it was entirely rational for all these people [i.e., disciples

and Paul] to believe this is so [i.e., Jesus‟ resurrection] and, of course, for Christian

believers now to be . . . rational, to take this as a miraculous thing. But it isn‟t for me. [70]

Flew thinks that, given the belief in the Judeo-Christian God, it was rational for the first

Christians as well as it is rational for Christians of today to believe in Jesus‟ resurrection. Flew

does not believe in the existence of God, so he does not feel compelled to accept Jesus‟

resurrection, although he does not have any opposing theories to account for the data.[71] The oldest kerygma tells of Christ‟s message that eternal salvation from a life filled with

darkness is available to all who come to him for it. This indeed is great news and I am, of course,

interested in everyone learning of it. What they do with the message is up to them. I guess I feel

the same compulsion to tell others what I regard as the truth, just as you seem to feel that same

compulsion. The obvious difference is our view of what is the truth.

[1] See your rebuttal to my paper, “A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's „Refutation of The Christ

Conspiracy,’” (henceforth referred to as “Rebuttal”), p. 2.

[2] Rebuttal, p.2.

[3] Ibid.

[4] In a personal email correspondence dated 12/01/01.

[5] Rebuttal, pp. 3-4.

[6] The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 151-152.

[7] In a personal email correspondence dated 11/28/01.

[8] In a personal telephone conversation dated 11/29/01.

[9] See your rebuttal to my paper, “A Rebuttal to Mike Licona's „Refutation of The Christ

Conspiracy,’” Thenceforth referred to as “Rebuttal”), p. 4.

[10] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume Four

(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), pp. 525-526.

[11] Ibid., p. 526 where Deut 1:2, 6, 19; 4:10, 15 and Exodus 3:1; 17:6; 33:6 are listed as

examples.

[12] Ibid., p. 526. For examples, see Exodus 31:18; 34:29; Deuteronomy 9:8-11; 1 Kings 8:9 and

Exodus 19:18-20:19; Deuteronomy 18:16.

[13] Robert M. Price, “Aquarian Skeptic” in Free Inquiry, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Amherst: The Council

for Secular Humanism, 2001), pp. 66-67.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Rebuttal, p. 5.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., p. 6.

[18] The Christ Conspiracy, pp. 45-46.

[19] Rebuttal, p. 6.

[20] Paper, p. 18.

[21] Rebuttal, p. 7.

[22] The Christ Conspiracy, p. 41.

[23] Paper, p. 10.

[24] In a personal telephone conversation with New Testament exegete, Professor Ronald Sauer

11/ 29/01.

[25] Paper, p. 10.

[26] Rebuttal, p. 7.

[27] Ibid., p. 9.

[28] Ibid., p. 7.

[29] Matthew 26:52.

[30] Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27-28, 35.

[31] In a personal email correspondence with Professor Skip Knoll of Boise State University on

9/10/2001.

[32] The Christ Conspiracy, p. 11.

[33] Ibid., pp. 2-3.

[34] Ibid., p. 3.

[35] New York: Farrar, Straus and Young.

[36] Ibid., p. 117.

[37] Paper, pp. 12-14.

[38] In a personal email correspondence dated 11/26/01.

[39] Rebuttal, p. 7.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Paper, p. 12.

[42] Rebuttal, p. 7.

[43] The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.

[44] Paper, p. 15.

[45] Rebuttal, p. 8.

[46] The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.

[47] James Sabben-Clare. Caesar and Roman Politics 60-50 BC: Source Material in Translation

(London: Bristol Classical Press, 1971).

[48] In “A review by Acharya S of Jesus: God, Man or Myth? by Herb Cutner” you make the

following two statements: “Again, this text, if genuine, would date no earlier than the early

second century, so it is not an „eyewitness account‟ of the existence of Jesus Christ” and “In any

event, these „references,‟ even if genuine and/or referring to Christ, are nothing more than

hearsay long after the fact.” In your book, The Christ Conspiracy (p. 51), you write, “the

historian Tacitus did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after

„the Savior‟s‟ alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his

immediate followers, they would be secondhand and long after the alleged events.”

[49] Paper, p. 15.

[50] The Christ Conspiracy, p. 51.

[51] John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume One (New York:

Doubleday, 1991), p. 90.

[52] www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm

[53] Paper, p. 7. Justin‟s First Apology, ch. 66.

[54] www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm.

[55] Paper, p. 7.

[56] Rebuttal, p. 8.

[57] Paper, p. 6.

[58] Rebuttal, p. 9 or The Christ Conspiracy, p. 109.

[59] Ibid., p. 5.

[60] Ibid., pp. 5-6.

[61] Ibid., p. 13.

[62] Ibid., p. 6.

[63] Ibid., p. 5.

[64] Ibid.

[65] See this current paper, pp. 10-11.

[66] Ibid., pp. 11-12.

[67] Rebuttal, p. 10.

[68] Free Inquiry, Summer 2001, p. 67.

[69] Rebuttal, p. 1.

[70] John Ankerburg Show: Habermas-Flew Debate, p. 20.

[71] During this debate with Habermas, Flew initially proposed grief hallucinations on the part of

the disciples and a conversion disorder for Paul in order to account for their beliefs that they had

experienced an encounter with the risen Jesus. When Habermas answered these opposing

theories, Flew abandoned both of them.