Update October 31, 2007: You are viewing the classic article style where all research relating to one article is
posted on one page. If you wish to read this article like a book (this will offer faster page loads for those with
slow internet connections), please click here.
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:
1) Introduction
3) Introductory Material
4) Chapter by Chapter Synopsis
5) Conclusion

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 our research.

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 records.

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 bathing).

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:
  1. The Gospels clearly state Jesus was a Galilean. This was actually Judas Khrestus.
  2. Galilean became an ambiguous term meaning either a person from Galilee or a symbolic term for a
    Christian.
  3. The Romans named the region of Northern Galilee Gaulantius (originally Gaul-anti-us, today Golan
    Heights).
  4. 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:
  1. The Roman name for Gaul was Gallia
  2. The plural form of Gallia is Gallicans, which is linguistically similar to Galileans.
  3. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. Matthew 26:73. Bushby points out that this verse mentions the Galileans having a peculiar accent.
    Dialects, anyone?
  3. John 4:45. This verse mentions the Galileans welcoming Jesus at His arrival. That's nice.
  4. 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:
  1. Basilides was an Egyptian Gnostic- not a traditional church father as Bushby presents him to be.
  2. Basilides words are preserved In Irenaeus' Against Heresies where the bishop is refuting Basilides'
    absurdities.
  3. The quote does not contain the name Khrestus as Bushby claims.
  4. 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:

Justin Martyr
  • 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.

Minucius Felix
  • 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