Though it is not my intention to single out individual authors for criticism, occasionally such a travesty of
scholarship comes along that warrants such a review. The Bible Fraud was brought to my attention by a friend
and former Christian who suggested I take the time to consider its "eye-opening" content. Not wanting to
ignore evidence that had the potential to challenge my core beliefs, I purchased the book in order to evaluate
its material. The following is my review.
The outline we will be following for this discussion is as follows:
3) Introductory Material
4) Chapter by Chapter Synopsis
Plot Summary: Tony Bushby takes the reader on a wild ride of conspiracy and corruption in an effort to reveal the "true origins" of
Christianity. The main premise of The Bible Fraud is the allegation that "the Jesus of the Gospels" was actually based on the lives of royal
twins, Rabbi Jesus and Judas Khrestus.
During my first leisurely read-through of The Bible Fraud, I immediately began to notice some serious errors but offered Bushby the benefit of
the doubt in believing he may have simply cited other authors who previously presented erroneous material. However, once I began to
investigate his claims, I was left to conclude his many errors were no accident. Unfortunately for us wishing to investigate Bushby's claims, we
are told many of his sources are "preserved in rare archival manuscripts and difficult-to-find ancient reference books." On several occasions,
he makes vague references to phantom evidence such as "ancient documents" or "inscriptions" without offering the name or location of such
evidence. Though this creates many dead-ends in our investigation, Bushby does reference several verifiable sources on which we will focus
COVER: A Pope's Confession
Alleged Quote: "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." - Pope Leo X (1513-1521)
Bushby cites the infamous Pope Leo X quote on the cover of The Bible Fraud as well as a few other times throughout his book. Because we
have already debunked the quote on this page, I will summarize our conclusions here. The quote's true origin is a satirical work by the 16th
century playwright, John Bale. Bale wrote many parodies in which he openly expressed his disdain of papal abuse. One such work, known as
The Pageant of the Popes, is the actual source of this quote:
"For on a time when a cardinal Bembus did move a question out of the Gospel, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: All
ages can testify enough how profitable that fable of Christ hath been to us and our company." (Pageant of the Popes Page 179)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, which openly admits to Leo's questionable practices, even comes to his defense by stating this quote does not come
from him: "His piety cannot truly be described as deep or spiritual, but that does not justify the continued repetition of his alleged remark...
John Bale, the apostate English Carmelite, the first to give currency to these words in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was not even a
contemporary of Leo." Catholic Encyclopedia
PAGE 11: Did Nostradamus Foresee The Bible Fraud?
"O vast Rome, your ruin draws near. Not of your walls but of your blood and substance. One sharp in letters makes so horrible a mark. His
sharp point goes all the way to the quick." -Nostradamus Quatrain X.65
This isn't necessarily an error inasmuch as it's just ridiculous and arrogant. Though I personally pay little attention to the Nostradamus
predictions, the church seems to be doing quite well in the wake of Bushby's not-so horrible a mark.
PAGE 12: No Arguments
Many people may find themselves at odds with certain conclusions reached within this book. Therefore the author publisher and associates of
this publication will not engage in written religious argument with readers who hold a different opinion from those expressed here.
In my opinion, this disclaimer shows Bushby's role as an agenda pusher instead of a truth searcher. To me, this "no argument" clause basically
translates into "I know my research is bogus so please don't bother."
PAGE 18: The Chronicles and The Myvyean Manuscript
Bushby refers to various ancient documents that were destroyed by early churchmen in an effort to conceal information concerning
Christianity. Two particular documents he mentions are The Chronicles and The Myvyean Manuscript. In a review of The Bible Fraud posted
here, a researcher wrote the British Library to confirm the existence of the documents. I decided to first write to the British Museum as this is
where Bushby claims the documents are kept. This is the response I received:
"Thank you for your email. I cannot find any reference to this manuscript within our catalogue. I would now advise you to contact the British
Library. Our original library collections, the departments of books and manuscripts of the British Museum, became part of the British Library in
1973. Our current libraries are mainly specialist collections reflecting the object collections in the British Museum. The material you seek would
now be at the British Library in St Pancras."
I then wrote the British Library and, to my surprise, received an almost verbatim response of the author in the above link:
"I am afraid that I can find no reference to such a manuscript in our collections. We receive many similar enquiries relating to subject matter
such as this and I have to say many of them are hoaxes or refer to non-existent manuscripts. It just does not seem to be here."
However, I did notice something peculiar. By Bushby's own admission he began his research for The Bible Fraud around the late 80's/early
90's. Yet I was told such collections were transferred out of the British Museum (which Bushby claims owned the documents) in 1973. Bushby
also vaguely references "first century coins" which "clearly and positively" establish the historicity of The Chronicles. As the reader can see in
my main site links, I am a coin dealer. After researching these elusive coins, I could find no such reference to them in any of my catalogs or
PAGE 19: The Sir Francis Bacon Conspiracy
Bushby claims "original documents" in the Records Office of the British Museum mention Bacon's involvement in the translation of the King
James Bible. "They" reveal Bacon personally selecting the staff of translators and participating in the undertaking in which he would later
"encrypt" secret messages into the Bible. Instead of dwelling on the irrelevant and generally unaccepted allegations, I'll just say that even if
we are to believe such speculation, this only brings the King James Bible into question- not the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which
Bacon never had access to.
PAGES 29-33: Jesus: Son of Panthera & Stada
"Ben Stada was Ben Panthera, Rabbi Chisda said. Thus the husband was Stada, the lover Panthera. Another said the husband was Paphos ben
Jehuda. Stada was his mother... And she was unfaithful to her husband."
In an attempt to show Jesus being an illegitimate child, Bushby claims various Talmudic passages which mention a certain Ben (son of) Stada
and Ben Panthera are actually references to Jesus. A better translation of the above passage is as follows:
"Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. [No,] the
husband was Pappos b. Judah. His mother was Stada. [No,] his mother was Miriam the hairdresser. It is as we say in Pumbeditha: This one has
been unfaithful to ('turned away from' [satath da]) her husband." (See: Shabbath 104b footnote 19)
Though some scholars believe this passage is a reference to Jesus (the hairdresser is linguistically similar to Magdalene), Mary Magdalene was
not His mother nor was His stepfather Pappos Ben Judah. Most importantly, Pappos Ben Judah is a figure mentioned in other Talmudic
passages (Mechilta Beshalach Vayehi 6 and Berachot 61 b). Because the Talmud mentions Judah being killed by the Romans in 134 A.D., there
is no way he could be associated with Jesus (See: Pappos Ben Judah). To reinforce his theory, Bushby even references the Gospel of Luke:
"This story [Mary's rape by Panthera] was supported in the Gospel of Luke, with the description of the departure of Joseph and Mary from their
home prior to the birth." However, this is not so. Luke specifically states the couple left Nazareth to partake in the census ordered by Quirinus!
(See: Luke 2:1-7)
PAGES 34-35: The Lineage of Mary
Bushby now connects Mary to the Herodian line to later associate "Rabbi Jesus" and "Judas Khrestus" with royal heritage. These are some of
the connections Bushby makes:
- Prince Joseph, son of Herod the Great, was the Joseph of Arimathea mentioned in the Gospels.
- Mariamne I, wife of Herod the Great, is the grandmother of Mary of the Gospels.
- The Mary of the Gospels, Stada (mentioned above), and Mariamne of the Herodian family are one and the same.
Bushby doesn't elaborate as to how he came to such conclusions but it seems to me he did so due to the similarity of the names. If you own a
copy of The Bible Fraud, you will notice Bushby provides the alleged lineage of Jesus in the first few pages of his book. In order to debunk
Bushby's theories, check out the actual Herodian dynasty shown here and here.
PAGES 36-41: The Roman father of Rabbi Jesus and Judas Khrestus
"Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9 A.D. Was transferred to service in Rhineland [Germany]."
The above inscription was discovered on an ancient German headstone. Though Bushby believes this headstone was created well after the life
of Panthera, he alleges the headstone contains a hidden message with the use of the word Abdes:
"[Augustus was] inclined towards phonetic spelling... When Augustus wrote in cipher he simply substituted the next letter of the alphabet for
the one required, except he wrote AA for X. By applying both of these rules to the word Abdes on the German headstone a hidden code is thus
revealed. Abdes = ab-des = Bc-des = BC days. The person or person who created the headstone cipher could have only done so after the
Sixth Century when the Julian calender was first instituted."
Bushby believes the inscription was created to reveal a "special message" that Panthera had previously traveled to Germany in 9 B.C. (not 9 A.
D. as the headstone suggests). Bushby is trying to show that Panthera and Mariamne Herod (Mary) were contemporaries of one another, were
connected to each other through Emperor Augustus, and that Mariamne Herod met Tiberius when he returned to Rome and was either raped
by or had an affair with him. However, my question is if this particular code was used by Augustus yet the headstone was made post-6th
century A.D., what do either of these things have to do with one another? And who does Bushby claim this Tiberius Panthera, archer of Sidon,
was? The Emperor Tiberius!
In summary, the Talmudic passage is not a reference to Jesus (the timing is off by over a century), Bushby's depiction of Mary's lineage goes
against the grain of historical consensus, and the headstone connection falls apart under scrutiny.
PAGES 45-46: Pope Leo X Reveals a Papal Secret
Bushby claims Pope Leo X confessed various secrets to his homosexual lover, Michelangelo, who later passed them on to Leonardo DaVinci.
Again, we are presented with the false Pope Leo X quote. Bushby speculates that if the pope would make such a confession then it would
certainly be possible for him to confess other secrets to his lover. Later, these "secrets" would be encoded into the works of both artists in an
effort to expose "the Rabbi Jesus and Judas Khrestus secret." Of course, the quote is bogus so Bushby's speculative connection falls apart.
PAGES 46-47: Twins Depicted in Renaissance Artwork
We are offered two illustrations by Michelangelo depicting Mary with two boys (shown here and here). Notice one of the titles even states
Madonna and Child with John the Baptist. Bushby then references the work La Belle Jardiniere by Raphael (seen here). Notice Jesus is the
child with the halo while John the Baptist is the one wearing the camel-hair garment described in Matthew 3:4. Bushby also claims the fifth
figure from Jesus' right in The Last Supper is actually Judas the twin. An extremely high resolution copy may be found here (you will need to
click the image for a larger view). This figure is paler, thinner, and more effeminate looking than Jesus. Furthermore, art historians record this
individual as being James the Less.
PAGES 47-49: The Berenger Sauniere Fiasco
As told in the fictional work The Da Vinci Code, Bushby embarrasses himself when he uses the Berenger Sauniere legend as historical evidence
to confirm his twin conspiracy. The reader will notice Bushby seems to understand this is based on legend due to his frequent use of the
phrase, "it was said..." The legend basically states during the remodeling of his church, Sauniere discovered ancient parchments concealed
inside a hollow column which contained "incontrovertible proof" that the crucifixion was a hoax. Church officials then allegedly paid Sauniere
great sums of money to keep his secret. However, it turns out the "hollow" column was not hollow and is currently on display in a
Rennes-le-Chateau museum. Berenger never did obtain "great wealth" and certainly did not come to his fortune from accepting bribes. He was
forced to resign after being involved in various scandalous activities including mass trafficking. Instead of dwelling on an urban legend, here
are some links to authors who explain the long-since-debunked myth. See: here, here, and here.
PAGE 51: Dead Sea Scroll Scholars
Bushby begins this chapter by referring to the highly controversial figures, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh (See: here) which should
immediately set off warning bells to those that are familiar with their works. These individual are known for their unfounded and erroneous
claims concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. More warning bells sound off when he references the work of Robert Eisenman who Bushby claims
"provided the now-accepted and spectacular connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls, and James, the Gospel brother of Judas and Jesus." In
truth, the scrolls contain no mention of Jesus, James, John the Baptist or Christianity as most of the scrolls have been shown to predate
Christianity. Nor is Eisenman's work generally accepted by the scholarly community. To see a few reviews concerning these authors, check out
the articles here and here.
PAGE 53: St. Epiphanius & The 'Men of Yesu'
Bushby claims the early church father, Epiphanius, referred to the Essenes as Men of Yesu and that the term Yesu was part of the Druid trinity.
However, Bushby does not tell us where these statements are found in the writings of Epiphanius nor could I find them once I looked for
myself. Bushby then claims Epiphanius said the "Men of Yesu were sometimes called Yasseans after Jesus of the Gospels." Of course, no such
statement is found in the works of Epiphanius and again, Bushby never states where these alleged remarks are found. He then goes on to
claim the connection between Jesus and the Essenes was "documented church fact during the very earliest years of recorded Christian
History." Again, no sources are provided but I did find one reference to the sect in Eusebius' Preparation for the Gospel Book IX, Chapter III
(See: here). However, the reader can see the sect is in no way connected to Jesus. Eusebius is only documenting the Essenic way of life.
PAGES 53-54: The Essenes and Druids
Bushby presents several completely superficial correlations between the Druids and the Essenes:
- Both believed in an after life (virtually all religions do)
- Both taught the existence of a supreme being (virtually all religions do)
- Both had sacred books, hymns, and prayers (virtually all religions do)
- Both taught a system of rewards and punishment in the afterlife (virtually all religions do)
Bushby comes to the conclusion that "the remarkable coincidences between the chief features of the Druidic and Essenic fraternities can be
accounted for only by referring them to the same origin." Of course, anyone can see these similarities are very shallow (and their vast
differences far outweigh such coincidences. See: here and here).
PAGES 55-56: Paul and John the Baptist: Essene Leaders
Bushby makes quite a few far-fetched statements in order to connect Paul and John the Baptist to the Essenes. He quotes Luke 1:80 and states
"from this Gospel information, John the Baptist is now generally recognised, like Paul, as an Essene." However, this simply is not so and is in
no way "generally recognised" by historians or Biblical scholars. Bushby then quotes Hebrews 8:7 as evidence Paul was associated with the
Essenes. Yet, these verses are so vague, it would be impossible to accept them as definite references to the Essenes. Furthermore, Bushby
focuses on the fact the Essenes were known for wearing white robes but ignores the passages which describe John the Baptist as wearing
camel-hair (brown) clothing. Furthermore, the significance behind John's baptism (cleansing of sin) dramatically differs from the Essenes (ritual
PAGES 56-57: John the Baptist: A Messiah Figure
Bushby points to the "conspiracy" that some believed John the Baptist was a messiah figure- but even the Bible testifies to this (See: Luke 3:
15-16). The New Testament was very forthcoming in mentioning other Messiah figures (like Simon the Magician. See: Acts 8:9-24) or those
who were believed to be the Messiah by the people (such as John). Bushby also claims figures such as Origen and Epiphanius "clearly recorded
that John the Baptist was a 'Krist' figure but made no reference to Jesus himself attaining that status." Yet this is obviously false. Check out this
one sample from Origen's writings. Origen wrote volumes professing Jesus (not John) as the Christ. Chapter 14 mentions John the Baptist
representing the Old Covenant (So much for Bushby's Essene "New Covenant" theory). As for Epiphanius, he also clearly professes Jesus as
the Messiah- not John (See: here, Chapter 35).
PAGE 64: Jesus: A Drunkard and Glutton
Bushby claims he has made the clergy "squirm" by pointing out Biblical references where Jesus confesses to being a drunkard and a glutton.
However, let's examine the two references in Matthew and Luke to see what was really said:
"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is
a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners." Matthew 11:18-19 and Luke 7:33-34
Bushby claims Jesus "frankly admitted He was a glutton and a drunkard," much to the church's embarrassment. But Jesus said no such thing-
He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Jews who accused John of being possessed for fasting and refusing to drink wine. Yet, these same
people accuse Jesus of being a "drunkard and glutton" because He drank wine and dined with sinners. Jesus is not admitting to these
accusations but pointing out the hypocrisy in what others said.
PAGES 66-69: Judas Khrestus Gospel References
Throughout the next few pages, Bushby presents more verses which he feels allude to two separate Christ figures:
- Luke 14:26 and Luke 12:51. These verses mention Jesus telling us to "hate" our family and His intent to bring war, not peace. Here is
an article by another author who offers an explanation for those who find this a problem.
- John 2:15. This verse describes Jesus driving out the money changers in the temple. But is Jesus not allowed to be disgusted with
wickedness? See my explanation here under "Theological Conflicts" concerning God's dual nature.
- John 10:20. This verse contains the accusation of those who said Jesus was insane and possessed. However the context shows the Jews
being divided by Jesus' claim of being the Son of God. The context (shown here) also tells us many accepted Jesus' testimony. All
Bushby is doing is quoting the opinions of the naysayers.
- Mark 4:38-39. Bushby absurdly uses this verse to accuse Jesus of being "peeved when awakened from sleep." However Jesus doesn't
appear to be "peeved" but authoritative in commanding the wind and waves to cease.
Bushby goes on to mention other passages such as Jesus cursing the fig tree, the healing of a deaf man, Jesus' warning about divorce, and the
"apostle Jesus loved" (which Bushby claims is a reference to a homosexual relationship with John). Bushby also claims this medieval fresco
gave rise to the rumor of John engaging in oral sex with Jesus.
PAGES 75-76: Galileans, Galilee, and Gaul
In an effort to connect Jesus to the Celtic Druids, Bushby offers us a string of forced logic:
- The Gospels clearly state Jesus was a Galilean. This was actually Judas Khrestus.
- Galilean became an ambiguous term meaning either a person from Galilee or a symbolic term for a Christian.
- The Romans named the region of Northern Galilee Gaulantius (originally Gaul-anti-us, today Golan Heights).
- Objects often received their names from descriptive sources therefore Gaul-anti-us was a composite name signifying a place originally
populated by Gauls.
I'll stop here so I can explain a few things. Galilee is derived from the Hebrew word galil which means circle. Galilee existed prior to Roman
occupation and is mentioned in the Old Testament book of Isaiah (written about 700 B.C. See: Isaiah 9:1). The area was originally named for
the Hebrew tribes that had founded the city (Zebulun and Naphtali). Though Bushby's statement that the Romans called the region of Galilee
Gaulantius is absolutely correct, his line of speculative reasoning goes against the facts of history. The Gauls were never said to have inhabited
Galilee. The area has been inhabited by numerous people including the Assyrians, the Persians, the Hebrews, and various others but never the
Gauls. (See: here, and here)
But we are not out of the woods yet- Bushby throws us a few more curve balls:
- The Roman name for Gaul was Gallia
- The plural form of Gallia is Gallicans, which is linguistically similar to Galileans.
- Thus the Galileans, Celts, Gauls, and the Druids of Britain all had ties to each other.
I have some problems with Bushby's logic. The fact that Gallicans is "linguistically similar" to Galileans is not proof. Countless words are
"linguistically similar" to one another yet have nothing essential in common. Once again, Bushby presents more evidence-by-speculation.
PAGES 76-77: Judas Khrestus: The Galilean Zealot
Bushby now (mis)quotes Scripture to "confirm" Judas Khrestus as being an anti-Roman warmonger:
- Luke 22:57, 22:59, and 23:6. To associate Judas Khrestus with the Galilean Zealots, Bushby mentions three references in Luke.
However the first verse doesn't have anything to do with Galileans, the second verse is a reference to Peter, and the third verse simply
mentions Pilate asking Jesus if He was a Galilean. Regardless, even though these verses are irrelevant, the New Testament does make
it clear in other passages that Jesus was associated with Galilee. However, this has nothing to do with Bushby's theory that it was
because "Judas Khrestus" was a Galilean Zealot.
- Matthew 26:73. Bushby points out that this verse mentions the Galileans having a peculiar accent. Dialects, anyone?
- John 4:45. This verse mentions the Galileans welcoming Jesus at His arrival. That's nice.
- Luke 23:5. Bushby claims this passage is said by Pontius Pilate. But the context of Luke 23 tells us the Jews who were against Jesus
said this. Furthermore, the reason why Pilate asked Jesus if He was a Galilean was to ensure the matter was within his jurisdiction (not
to ask Jesus if He was a Galilean rebel). It was not, so Jesus was sent to Herod.
Bushby then makes an odd statement: "But it was Judas Khrestus, not the Gospel Jesus Christ nor Rabbi Jesus, 'who began his ministry in
Galilee and from whence he drew his apostles.'" Bushby's source for this is The Catholic Encyclopedia. Though his other references to the
Catholic Encyclopedia contain the volume, year, and page number, Bushby's footnote to this claim simply states Catholic Encyclopedia. And for
those not familiar with the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is extremely voluminous!
PAGES 81-82: Khrestus in Early Roman Records
Bushby claims Tacitus mentions the name Khrestus in his writings (we discuss this passage in depth here). However, Tacitus does not use the
word Khrestus. The original Latin of Tacitus' Annals may be seen here. Tacitus specifically uses the word Christus which is simply Latin for
Christ. Another passage we are offered comes from Suetonius. Again, we have discussed the quote in depth here. The original Latin may be
seen here. The word used is not Khrestus, but Chresto.
PAGES 82-83: Khrestus In Rome
Bushby tells us that Khrestus went to Rome along with his Galilean rebels in an effort to challenge his father, Emperor Tiberius. Bushby quotes
Luke as saying Jesus "started in Galilee" and then traveled "all the way here" to Rome. But what does the context Luke 23:5 actually say? That
Jesus was being questioned by Pilate in Judea! I suppose that's why Bushby only quoted fragments of Luke 23:5 instead of citing the entire
verse (and sneaking in the word Rome).
PAGES 84-87: The Crucifixion Substitute of Khrestus
After Judas Khrestus was arrested on charges of treason, Bushby claims he appealed to an "age old tradition" that allowed a substitute to
accept punishment in his place. Evidence of this tradition is found in "an ancient Babylonian clay tablet." "The priests" allowed royal
descendants to have a substitute "meet his destiny" in their place. But what is the name of this tablet? Where is it kept? What is the context of
"meet his destiny?" Who were these priests? Bushby provides no references.
PAGES 88-89: The Crucifixion of the Substitute, Simon of Cyrene
Bushby claims the early "presbyter" Basilides documented the "crucifixion hoax" in his work A True History:
"Hence he did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was forced to bear his cross for him, and it was he who was ignorantly and
erroneously crucified, so that he was taken for Khrestus. While Khrestus for his part... stood by, laughing at them. Therefore people who know
these things have been set free from the ruler that crafted the world. One should not acknowledge the man that was crucified (Simon of
Cyrene) but rather the one who came in the form of a man, was thought to have been crucified, was named Khrestus."
But let's examine the actual words as preserved in the work of Irenaeus (provided here):
"But the father...sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him... He
appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but
Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead. So that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be
thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at
them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus
ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know
these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified,
but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus..."
A few important facts must be noted which are omitted by Bushby:
- Basilides was an Egyptian Gnostic- not a traditional church father as Bushby presents him to be.
- Basilides words are preserved In Irenaeus' Against Heresies where the bishop is refuting Basilides' absurdities.
- The quote does not contain the name Khrestus as Bushby claims.
- The actual quote is filled with Gnostic/mystical undertones (such as Jesus and Simon trading forms and Jesus' invisibility!). It is not a
record of historical events as Bushby makes it appear.
PAGES 93-94: The Pagan Origins of the Term "Christian"
Bushby claims the term Christian was originally a pagan term. However, the word Christian comes from the Greek Christianos which refers to
a servant and follower of Christ (Anointed One). It appears three times in the New Testament (See: here). Bushby then alleges the context of
Acts 11:26 suggests "outsiders applied the name disrespectfully to a particular body of people." It does? My Bible says no such thing. It states
the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch (vs. 26) and that they converted a great number of people (vs. 21). Apparently they
weren't thought of too badly! (See: Acts 11 context)
PAGES 94-96: The Christian Criminals
In an effort to prove early Christian involvement in detestable rituals, Bushby terribly misquotes the early church fathers:
- Bushby claims Justin Martyr said: They met in secret to eat human flesh and once the lamps had been upset, to participate in
incestuous intercourse. -I Apology 26:7
- Justin Martyr actually said: And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds- the upsetting of the lamp, promiscuous
intercourse, and eating human flesh- we know not. But we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least
on account of their opinions. I Apology XXVI
- Conclusion: Justin Martyr isn't even talking about the Christians but pagan practices. Justin admits he does not know if the allegations
are true but points out the injustice that Christians are put to death solely for being Christians while those who engage in detestable
pagan practices are acceptable to the government.
- Bushby claims Felix said: "The names of brother and sister hallow fornication as incest. Their foolish superstition makes a boast of
crime. A condemned criminal is the object of their veneration. Finally there is infant murder, cannibalism, and the banquet with
incestuous intercourse." Octavius IX
- What was actually said (But not by Felix- he is documenting claims against Christians by the pagan, Octavius): "They call one
another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become
incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes...I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that
basest of creatures...I know not whether these things are false...Thirstily--O horror!--they lick up [the infant's] blood, eagerly
they divide its limbs..." Octavius IX.
- What Felix said: "And of the incestuous banqueting, the plotting of demons has falsely devised an enormous fable against us...that
before inquiring into the truth it might turn men away from us by the terror of an abominable charge. It was thus your own Fronto
acted in this respect: he did not produce testimony, as one who alleged a charge, but he scattered reproaches as a rhetorician.
(XXXI) But how unjust it is, to form a judgment on things unknown and unexamined, as you do! Believe us ourselves when
penitent, for we also were the same as you, and formerly, while yet blind and obtuse, thought the same things as you: that the
Christians worshipped monsters, devoured infants, mingled in incestuous banquets. And we did not perceive that such fables as these
were always set afloat by those (newsmongers), and were never either inquired into nor proved. (XXVIII)
- Conclusion: Felix is not endorsing, confirming, or documenting these acts but is refuting the false accusations. Felix even admits to
having believed these things uncritically prior to his conversion. He points out such accusations were based on rumor and that no one
even bothered to investigate the claims. Anyone remember the Salem Witch Trials?
PAGES 100-101: The Wives of Rabbi Jesus
No conspiracy theory regarding Jesus would be complete without claiming Jesus was married. But Bushby doesn't stop there. He alleges Jesus
had several wives. He rationalizes since Jesus was referred to as Rabbi, and because rabbis were allowed to marry, then it would have been
"within the Law" for Rabbi Jesus to have had "several wives." But how is this proof? Bushby then names a few particulars including Princess
Cypros (Herod's granddaughter) and Mary Magdalene. Unfortunately for us wishing to investigate the claims concerning Princess Cypros, we
are told, "to determine when, where, and how they met is now almost impossible to establish. There was no documentary church evidence
available to assist in providing more detail on this marriage nor should we expect to find it..." Instead, the evidence Bushby provides is the
Herodian family tree (which we have already debunked). As for Mary Magdalene, Bushby cites various New Testament and apocryphal
references which confirm Jesus' and Mary's closeness. Again, how is this proof? Closeness does not conclusively prove sexual intimacy.
PAGES 102-102: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Catholic church teaches the concept of Mary's perpetual virginity (but in my opinion this is not supported by the Gospels so I do agree with
Bushby on this point). However Bushby claims artists often depicted Mary with seven children. As an example, we are shown The Virgin and
Child Surrounded by Angels by Jean Fouquet (which Bushby incorrectly calls The Virgin Surrounded by Red Angels). (Shown: here). I count
nine angels. I'm guessing Bushby referred to the painting by the wrong title in order to reinforce his theory as there are six red angels in the
painting (making Jesus the "7th" child).
PAGES 103-104: Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany
Bushby offers us another long-winded linguistics game (like in the Gaul/Galilean episode shown above) in order to prove the two Marys were
one and the same (thus showing Jesus' biological relation to Mary Magdalene). Instead of boring the reader to death by citing Bushby's line of
reasoning, both sides of this argument are explained quite nicely in this article. In a nutshell, Bushby brings all the above points together in
order to show Rabbi Jesus and his brothers intermarrying with their sisters. This is done to support Jesus' ties to the British Druids and various
PAGE 108: The New Name of Rabbi Jesus
Bushby claims "from information available" Jesus was given the name Cunobeline after His marriage to Mary Magdalene. What is this
"information?" The Shakespearean character Cymbeline! If you own a copy of The Bible Fraud, take the time to pay attention to the wording
Bushby uses to make these connections: maybe, possibly, could be, etc. In other words, no hard evidence is provided to support any of this.
PAGES 115-117: Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline: The Druid King of Britain
Bushby now associates Rabbi Jesus with various druid orders in which He became "twice born." Bushby claims the Gospel writers even attest
to this by quoting John 3:3. Using more speculative terminology such as "maybe," Bushby claims Rabbi Jesus succeeded King Tenvantius on
the British throne. Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline now becomes known as Bran the Blessed, a character from British mythology (a fact of which
Bushby seems totally unaware)! (See: here).
Chapters 10 and 11 are very brief (a few pages in length) and somewhat irrelevant. Their purpose is to basically lay the historical groundwork
by explaining the volatile situation between Britain and Rome at the time. Bushby doesn't really make any allegations concerning Christianity
but is preparing us for the next few chapters. If anyone has any questions concerning these brief chapters please let me know. Otherwise,
there is no point in dwelling on them.
Chapter 12 also focuses on historical aspects but Bushby does make some strange claims regarding a British palace in Rome where many of
the apostles, Rabbi Jesus, and even Paul came and went as they pleased. Of course no evidence is presented to support this- not even a
single footnote. Bushby makes vague statements like "other characters were recorded as living in the Palace" but never cites any references
or historical documents to verify this. The only relevance this chapter has to Christianity is Bushby's skepticism on the authorship of the
Pauline Epistles (Bushby only uses one pre-19th century source for his claims, by the way). Since I plan on discussing the dating and
authorship of each book of the Bible in the near future, I will skip over this for now, but if anyone has a question, feel free to contact me.
In the previous chapters, the Panthera twins have been associated with the Essenes, the Druids, the Gauls, and various royal ancestors.
Bushby now turns our attention to the Egyptian mysteries in which he claims Rabbi Jesus became initiated. Again, instead of presenting hard
evidence to validate his claims, Bushby uses more conjecture. He alleges Jesus' acceptance into the Egyptian and Masonic mysteries was
"probable" due to his earlier association with the Druids and Essenes.
PAGES 143-144: Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline, the Magician
Bushby cites various authors in order to show Jesus' involvement in the Egyptian mysteries. We'll focus on Justin Martyr's statements as this is
the author Bushby uses the most:
- Alleged Reference: "They even ventured to call him a magician and a deceiver of the people." -Dialogue With Trypho. The context of
this remark may be found here. In its full context, Justin mentions the miraculous works Jesus performed such as healing the sick and
raising the dead. However, the skeptics of the day could not accept the legitimacy of His power so they dismissed it as the work of a
- Alleged Reference: Bushby claims Justin attests to the fact that Jesus "acquired a great knowledge in magical arts with the high priests
of Egypt." Though he does not cite the actual words of Justin, Bushby does provide the reference from where the accusation is
supposedly found: First Apology XXXVI. I located the work in question and this chapter says nothing of the kind. It refers to the
prophecies regarding the Messiah (See: here, chapter 36).
Other various authors include the pagan Celsus, the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, and St. Austin c. 380 (who?- I can find no mention of an
individual by this name living around 380 A.D.). Regardless, there is no conspiracy as even the Bible and the early church fathers mention the
Jews accusing Jesus of such things.
PAGE 150: Rabbi Jesus' Mystical Skin Markings
In another attempt to associate Jesus with the Egyptian Mysteries, Bushby cites this passage from the Talmud:
"He who scratches on the skin in the fashion of writing is guilty, but he who marks on the skin in the fashion of writing is exempt from
punishment. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: But has not Jesus brought magic out of Egypt in this way? They answered him: On account of one fool
we do not ruin a multitude of reasonable men"
However, the actual passage (See: here) does not state Jesus but Ben Stada- and we have already shown this to not be a reference to Jesus.
I refer the reader to this article which discusses various Talmudic passages that allegedly refer to Jesus. Bushby then cites another bogus
Talmudic passage to reinforce the allegation that Jesus stole a Torah scroll from the temple:
"Though shalt not have a son or disciple who burns his food publicly like Jesus the Nazarene." -Babylonian Sanhedrin 103a
But let's see what the actual passage says: "Thou wilt not have a son or a disciple who publicly burns his food."
Babylonian Sanhedrin 103a. As we can see, the words Jesus the Nazarene are not included in the text.
PAGES 153-154: The Stoning at Lud
The Jewish leaders are now in "hot pursuit" of Jesus who has escaped to Britain after absconding with the sacred Torah scrolls. The following
references are used by Bushby to reinforce the story of Jesus' stoning at Lud:
- Alleged Quote: "ye stoned him."
- Bushby's Interpretation: "Tertullian spoke of the stoning of Rabbi Jesus not as the invention of an enemy, but simply as a genuine piece
of accepted church history."
- Actual Quote: "Ye stoned him not." An Answer to the Jews XI Bushby omits the very important little word, "not."
- Full Context: "On account of the works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths." On one hand, I must come to
Bushby's defense and explain the full context does seem to imply that Jesus was stoned due to His work on the Sabbath (a sin
according to Jewish law). However, Bushby claims this was not the "invention of an enemy" but "a genuine piece of accepted church
history." But this is not so. When we look at the text carefully, we can see this is exactly what the statement is. The text in question is in
quotes, showing Tertullian was not confirming this account!
- Alleged Quote: "...And to bring him forward to the tribunal and stone him. And thus they have done to Jesus at Lud, and they hanged
him on the day before Passover."
- Actual Quote: "It is our duty and seemly for us, the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to the Beth din, and have him
stoned." Tractate Sanhedrin 67a
- Footnote (See: full context here): "In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this important passage: 'And this they did to
Ben Stada in Lydda and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: 'The husband was Stada, the
paramour Pandira. But was nor the husband Pappos b. Judah? His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of
woman's hair? (megaddela neshayia) As they say in Pumbeditha, This woman has turned away from her husband (committed
adultery).' [Some identify] this Ben Stada with Jesus of Nazareth...This hypothesis, however, involves the disregard of the Talmudic
data, for Pappos b. Judah lived a century after Jesus...Derenbourg rightly denies the identity of Ben Stada with Jesus, and regards him
simply as a false prophet executed during the second century at Lydda."
- Summary: Internal Talmudic evidence proves this passage to not be a reference to Jesus. Also, Lod/Ludd/Lydda is an actual city in
Israel (See: here) but Bushby claims this was a location in ancient Britain.
PAGE 155: The Parchments of Sauniere
Once again, Bushby refers us to the Sauniere parchments, using more speculative terms:
- "It was probable that the parchments that stunned [Sauniere and his associates] contained this information."
- "It was also probable that it was Sauniere who created the [Tiberius Panthera] headstone in Germany" (WHAT!?!)
- "It was said the scrolls provided evidence that the crucifixion was a fraud and Rabbi Jesus was still alive in 45 A.D." By who?
- "According to a Jewish legend, three boatloads of Jews arrived in Arles circa 53 A.D. and the theory proposed is that this group was
pursuing Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline."
PAGE 157: James Herod
In this brief two-paged chapter, Bushby's offers the claim that "James Herod," the brother of Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus, also escaped
persecution by fleeing to Britain. Bushby's source for this is The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland by Michael J. A. Stewart. I am not familiar with
this modern work but I know this allegation definitely goes against the grain of early historians (such as Josephus and Hegesippus) who clearly
describe James' death as taking place in Jerusalem.
PAGES 160-162: Sir Francis Bacon
Bringing us back to the nonsense mentioned earlier in this article, Bushby claims "Sir Francis Bacon and the Mystery schools knew the full
story of Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline's royal family adventures." Bushby then points out the number 33 was often used by Bacon in his encryptions.
Here are some examples that Bacon allegedly placed into the King James Bible:
- The Temple of Solomon stood for 33 years in pristine splendor (Not so- the temple stood for approximately 500 years before its
destruction by the Babylonians. Second, the Bible states it stood unused [pristine splendor?] for 13 years).
- King David ruled over Jerusalem for 33 years. (But his total reign lasted 40 years. See: I Kings 2:10)
- Jesus Christ was crucified at the age of 33 (Bushby gets one right).
Regardless, we have already mentioned the theory of Bacon encoding the King James Bible as being irrelevant. Earlier manuscripts that were
never in Bacon's possession contain the same information.
Note: The purpose of this chapter is to basically discredit the writings of the early church fathers. Though we will show most of Bushby's claims
to be false or distorted from their original context, it certainly makes one wonder why Bushby (who accuses these writings of being unreliable)
would reference them so many times as evidence to confirm his theories!
PAGE 165: Bishops vs. Presbyters
Bushby claims the church fathers were not called bishops until the 3rd century (he claims they were only known as presbyters). Allegedly, this
title was later attributed to them in order to glorify their position. However, the term bishop is frequently found in the works of early church
fathers such as Ignatius (~ 110 A.D. See: here), Polycartes (~ 190 A.D. See: here), and Irenaeus (~180 A.D. See: here) as well as many
PAGE 168: Eusebius: A Liar?
Alleged Quote: "It is an act of virtue to deceive and lie when by such means the interests of the church might be promoted."
This quote has been proven to be spurious as it appears nowhere within the works of Eusebius (See: our article here).
PAGES 171-172: Jerome: A Liar?
Bushby references various quoted fragments allegedly said by Jerome but does not quote any of his original works. Bushby also states that
Jerome accused St. Paul of being a liar but I can find no evidence of this. The passage referring to Paul by Jerome may be found here under
PAGE 172: St. Augustine: A Thief and Sexual Deviant?
In Augustine's work, Confessions, he explains the various acts he engaged in before his conversion to Christianity (hence, the title of his
work). Augustine exposes his vulnerable side by frankly admitting one of the things he found difficult after becoming a Christian was curbing
his sexual appetite. Basically, this entire work relays his Pre-Christian lifestyle in order to encourage other converts who were having a hard
time adjusting from paganism and the various acts that were once acceptable. However, in a distortion of context, Bushby claims Augustine
admitted he "lusted to thieve and did it." Though these words are not a direct quote, the context of this passage may be found here in chapters
8 and 9.
PAGES 172-173: Miscellaneous Quotes
Because the following quotes are not referenced from the original works of the authors in question (and because I could not find the quotes
once I researched the original works myself), I will list them as spurious unless someone can prove otherwise:
- "[Hippo Augustine] believed that Christ (Krist) resided in the sun. Many other church presbyters of the same time taught the sun was
Jesus Christ 'driving his chariot across the sky.'" (Bushby offers no footnote for this allegation).
- "The Bishop of Troy was one who confessed to this belief and also said he had always secretly prayed to Jesus Christ in the sun."
(Bushby refers to a second-hand source)
- "St. Augustine said, 'I was already bishop of Hippo when I went into Ethiopia with some servants of Christ... In this country we saw men
and women without heads, who had two great eyes in their breasts. And in countries still more southly, we saw people who had but one
eye in their foreheads.'" (Again, Bushby does not cite an original work of Augustine)
Note: The list of quotes continue with Bushby citing sources ranging from pseudographical and apocryphal texts, to second-hand and non
referenced sources. However, if you feel I have skipped over something important, please let me know and I will respond to your inquiry (Or
check out our discussion on Christian misquotes here to see if it answers your question).
PAGE 182: No External Evidence
Bushby cites a certain author as saying, "We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ
other than the presbyters' writings." I will take this opportunity to disagree and point the reader to our discussion here regarding extra-Biblical
evidence which mentions Jesus Christ.
PAGES 185-186: Marcion the Heretic
Though I might be misunderstanding Bushby's allegation, he seems to imply the earliest Christian manuscripts somehow fell into the hands of
Marcion, in which the original Gospel accounts became distorted. Bushby's reference for this is Tertullian (an author he just accused of being
unreliable in the previous chapter!) in his work Against Marcion, Book V. However, Tertullian does not seem to imply that Marcion obtained the
original documents but altered the copies in his possession in order to create his semi-gnostic gospels. But once again, I may have incorrectly
interpreted Bushby's comments.
PAGES 186-187: The Tampering of the Gospel of Matthew
Bushby contradicts himself by stating the Gospel of Matthew was altered in the 3rd century, with various information later being added into the
text. Bushby claims this forgery was loudly protested by Marcion. However my question is, if these additions occurred in the 3rd century, but
Marcion lived during the 2nd century, how is this possible?
PAGES 188-189: The Gospel of John
Alleged Quote: "It [John] has been severely edited, as its closing words make clear. And there is evidence of heavy tampering in the earliest
manuscripts, obviously glosses and so forth, as well as sheer muddle. Thus Chapter Five should follow Chapter Six and the final chapter is
clearly an addition." - Encyclopedia Britannica, ed. IX vol. 10 page 783.
I was immediately suspicious of this quote being that it is found in an encyclopedia (known to report "just the facts" and not speculative
opinion). Sure enough on page 783 in volume 10 there is an article on Greece. Giving Bushby the benefit of the doubt, I also looked up The
Gospel of John, The Gospels, and New Testament. Then, just to be sure, I electronically searched the encyclopedia to see if these words
appear anywhere within the text. The result: this quote simply does not exist.
Bushby then quotes a few church fathers who allegedly admit to the Gospel of John being altered such as Bishop Callistus and Eusebius.
However, once again, Bushby only cites out-dated second-hand sources- not the authors' original works.
PAGE 190: The New Testament Canon
Alleged Quote: "No New Testament canon, except a partial and unauthorised one existed until the latter half of the Second Century AD, that is,
till the idea of a universal church began to be entertained... One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the
collection assumed a form that carried with it the idea of holy and inspired." - Encyclopedia Britannica, Ed. IX, vol. 5 pages 7-8
We are offered another bogus encyclopedia quote. The article found on the pages in question concern Guillen De Castro Y Bellvis, a Spanish
dramatist of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Gospels are not mentioned at all. Again, just to be sure, I looked up articles where this quote
might be found such as Canon, Canonization, and The Gospels. I then performed another electronic search to see if this quote appeared
anywhere within this edition (it does not).
In this chapter, Bushby echoes the long-since debunked theory that the stories of Jesus were plagiarized from pagan beliefs. We examine this
topic in depth on this page where we reference the actual religious texts of the individuals in question.
PAGE 194: Other Virgin Births
Bushby offers us a list of other figures who were said to be born of virgins. However, none of the figures were said to be born of virgins and I
encourage anyone to provide evidence from an original religious text to prove me wrong. We'll briefly list how the figures were actually
believed to have come into existence:
- Hercules: Zeus impregnated Hercules' married mother the old fashioned way- through sex.
- Perseus: Like Hercules, Perseus was born from the union of dead-beat-dad Zeus and his mother- through sex.
- Buddha: Buddha's mother, married to Buddha's father for twenty years, was supernaturally impregnated by a white elephant. There
is no mention of a virgin birth within the Buddhist texts.
- Horus: Horus was born from Isis who resurrected her deceased husband, Osiris, and became pregnant from his semen.
- Quetzalcoatl: An ancient God of Mexico was said to have been the son of the goddess, Coatlicue, who had previously given birth on
several occasions as she was said to be the "mother of all existence."
- Mithras: Mithras was never said to have been "born" but to have emerged as an adult out of solid rock.
PAGE 196-197: Other Crucifixions
The fact that Bushby uses the proven-erroneous work The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves is painfully obvious. Though we
have already discussed this matter on this page, I'll give a brief run-down here:
- Osiris: Said to have been tricked by his enemy, Set, who sealed him into a chest.
- Bel: Often associated with Zeus, was never said to have died.
- Attis: Bled to death after castrating himself.
- Tammuz: Killed by demons sent by Ishtar after she discovered him on her throne.
- Dionysus: Killed as an infant by Titans who devoured everything but his heart.
- Krishna: Accidentally shot by a hunter's arrow while meditating in the woods.
- Esus: Often associated with Mars and Mercury, was never said to have experienced death.
- Indra: Swallowed alive by a great serpent but was later rescued by the gods.
- Bali: Was forced down bodily into the underworld.
- Iao: I can find no mention of Iao experiencing death.
- Alcestis: Agreed to die in the place of her husband after he struck a deal with the Gods. The gods took pity on her and reunited her
with her husband. She was described as being in bed when she died.
- Quetzalcoatl: Either committed suicide or was incinerated by the gods for having sex with a priestess.
- Wittoba: See: here
- Prometheus: Was condemned to have his liver eaten by an eagle.
- Quirinus: Associated with the mythical Romulus, was never said to have died.
- Mithras: Never said to have died.
PAGE 197: The Crucified Orpheus
Bushby presents a picture of the "Crucified Orpheus" which depicts a figure on a cross. Bushby claims this relic predates Christianity by more
than 400 years. However, this artifact has been proven by scholars to be a 4th century A.D. forgery.
PAGES 197-199: Parallels between Jesus and Pagan Figures
Though Bushby mentions other figures, he focuses his attention on parallels between Jesus and Krishna. It must be noted that although
Bushby quotes exactly where the "copy" can be found in the Bible, he never shows where the "original" is found within the Hindu texts (in our
article here, we dispel this allegation once and for all by citing the Hindu scriptures):
- Krishna means Christ in Sanskrit. Actually, Krishna means Black in Sanskrit as Krishna was believed to have dark skin.
- Krishna was born from a virgin. Actually, Krishna was the 7th of 8 children born to a married couple.
- Krishna was visited by wisemen who were guided by a star. There is no mention of this in any Hindu text. We are told Krishna was born
in a prison where his parents were being held captive by a king who planned to kill Krishna once he was born. It's unlikely such visitors
would arrive only to alert the captors to Krishna's presence.
- An evil king issued a decree to kill all infant males. This is not so. We are told the wicked King Kamsa only targeted the siblings of
Krishna due to a prophecy foretelling his demise. He never issued a decree to kill all infant males.
- Krishna's parents fled to Mathura to protect Krishna. They never fled anywhere- they were imprisoned by Kamsa. Bushby claims Jesus'
parents also fled to such a place but the Gospels make it clear they fled to Egypt.
- Krishna atoned for mankind's sins. Not so- Krishna never held such a purpose. He was strictly seen as an earthly "warrior savior" who
saved the people from the tyrannical reign of Kamsa.
- Krishna was crucified and is often depicted as being pierced with arrows. Krishna was never said to have been crucified. He was
accidentally shot by the hunter, Jara, who mistook him for a deer.
- Krishna, after his death, descended into hell for three days. The Hindu texts make it clear Krishna immediately returned to life and
ascended into his own "inconceivable region" (Nirvana).
PAGE 206: Emperor Constantine
In an allegation which contradicts known history, Bushby claims Constantine was born in Britain. Though he did travel to Britain later in his life,
it is clearly recorded that he was born near modern Yugoslavia. Regardless, Bushby provides no evidence for his ultimate conclusion: that
Constantine was a descendant of Rabbi Jesus.
PAGE 210-211: Confusion of Dual Nature
We are told the early church bishops "argued constantly about the dual nature of Jesus Christ, a concept they couldn't understand because
they were unaware that their writings now embraced two separate life stories." If this is true, then this pretty much dismisses Bushby's whole
premise that the life of the twins was purposely concealed by these authors. Second, I feel we have sufficiently debunked every piece of
evidence Bushby has offered to confirm the existence of the twins. Bushby then claims this rift is what caused Constantine to order the
development of a canon. However, the actual reason for creating the canon had nothing to do with the confusion over "the twins." After the
onset of Christianity, bogus manuscripts began to circulate and were being passed around as authentic. In order to avoid this and to keep the
heretical texts from holding the same importance as the true texts, a council was formed. There was no conspiracy to "hide" or "conceal"
anything as the apocryphal, pseudographical, and gnostic texts are readily available to anyone who has an interest in them.
PAGE 213-215: The Deification of "The Twins"
Again, I have a problem with Bushby's account of history. He claims that under Constantine, Christianity became finalized as a religion.
Though it is true Christianity was legalized under Constantine, Jesus was recognized as a deity for centuries before Constantine's lifetime.
Just because Christianity was now considered legal, it was not new. Thus, Bushby's long-winded explanation of the Roman process of
deification is meaningless. However he goes on to say, "Constantine 'officially' decreed divine honors on the twins whose two separate names
had now, by a show of bishops hands, been combined as one entity." Pretty impressive considering Bushby just admitted in the previous pages
these individuals were unaware of the existence of the "Jesus twins."
PAGES 218-219: The Royal Bloodline of Constantine.
We are again brought back to Bushby's theory of Constantine's biological relation to Jesus. Bushby claims it was "probable" that Constantine
deified "the twins" in order to protect his family lineage. "The records" reveal all of this. Of course, probable does not mean definite, the twins
never existed, and a vague reference to the records just doesn't cut it.
PAGE 219: The Forgery of Eusebius
Bushby accuses Eusebius of forging the Testimonium Flavianum into the works of Josephus. Bushby claims the passage has definitely been
"exposed as a priesthood forgery" but there is no conclusive evidence to prove this. Though it is unlikely the passage is entirely genuine,
pointing the finger at Eusebius is based solely on speculation. To view our discussion of this passage, see here (under Jewish sources). Also,
check out this article and this article submitted by a reader (Thanks David!).
Alleged quote: "It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment."
This is another bogus quote we discuss in our article on this page. Though this quote does appear in the later works of Eusebius, it appears as
a chapter summary which was later added into the text. The content of the passage in question contains a quoted dialogue from Plato's work
The Laws in which Plato and Cleinias are discussing the concept of lying for the sake of religion. Eusebius neither condones or orders the act of
PAGES 219-220: Origen on Josephus
Bushby claims the Christian author "admitted [to] adding to the Jewish historian's works." Bushby cites a bogus reference to Origen's Contra
Celsus because such a chapter does not exist. The chapters of Book I (cited by Bushby) only go up to 71 but Bushby cites this admission as
coming from chapter 100. The two references in Origen's works that do mention Josephus contain nothing in regards to him altering the text
(See: book II and book IV).
PAGES 220-221: Constantine and Pagan Tradition
Bushby continues with more Pagan practices that were adopted by Christianity during the reign of Constantine. Rather than dwelling on this,
the point is such rituals and mergers (like Christmas trees, Easter eggs, December 25th, etc.) were instituted centuries after the onset of
Christianity and were never taught by Jesus or the original apostles.
We can conclude that Bushby simply has not proven his case. The majority of his evidence is based on speculation, linguistic games, bogus
references, and terribly misquoted sources. Bushby has not sufficiently provided any kind of sound proof that should cause us to dismiss
known history and accept his claims. A pope never admitted to Christ being a fable, the Jesus twins never existed, and Christianity was not
based on pagan myths.