Christ Conspiracy_ The Greatest Story Ever Sold - Acharya S [26]
The Gospel of Matthew (180 CE)
Although it was claimed by later Christian writers to be a "translation" of a manuscript written in Hebrew by the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew did not exist prior to the end of the second century and was originally written in Greek. As Waite says:
The Greek Gospel of Matthew was a subsequent production, and either originally appeared in the Greek language, or was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, with extensive changes and additions. There is reason to believe it to have been an original compilation, based upon the Oracles of Christ, but containing, in whole, or in part, a number of other manuscripts.25
The gospel of Matthew is particularly noteworthy in that it contains the interpolation at 16:17-19 not found in either Mark or Luke that gives authority to the Roman Church: To wit, the statement by Jesus that Peter is the rock upon which the church is to be built and the keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The appearance of this gospel determining Roman dominance corresponds to the violent schism of 180-190 between the branches of the Church over the celebration of Easter.
It is clear that the canonical gospels are of a late date, forged long after the alleged time of their purported authors. Such they are, and, as Doane says, "In these four spurious Gospels . . . we have the only history of Jesus of Nazareth."26
The Narrative
Even knowing this fact of falsity, some believers will claim the gospels are nonetheless inspired by the omnipotent God and represent an infallible representation of the life of "the Lord." Far from being "infallible," these spurious gospels contradict each other in numerous places. As noted by Otto Schmiedel, considered one of the greatest authorities on the "life of Jesus": "If John possesses the genuine tradition about the life of Jesus, that of the first three Evangelists (the Synoptists) is untenable. If the Synoptists are right, the Fourth Gospel must be rejected as a historical source."27
In fact, as Wheless says:
The so-called "canonical" books of the New Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions of text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more "variant readings," as is well known and admitted.28
In regard to these "variant readings," Waite states:
Of the 150,000 variant readings which Griesbach found in the manuscripts of the New Testament, probably 149,500 were additions and interpolations.29
In this mess, the gospels' pretended authors, the apostles, give conflicting histories and genealogies. The birthdate of Jesus is depicted as having occurred at different times, in Matthew about two years before and in Luke more than nine years after Herod's death. Jesus's birth and childhood are not mentioned in Mark, and although he is claimed in Matthew and Luke to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is also traced through Joseph to the house of David, so that he may "fulfill prophecy." Furthermore, the genealogies presented in Luke and Matthew are irreconcilable. In fact, as Wheless says, "Both genealogies are false and forged lists of mostly fictitious names."30 A number of the names, in reality, are not "patriarchs" but older gods.
Regarding the contradictory chronology found in the NT, ben Yehoshua states:
The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before 12 April 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus to 6-4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptised by John soon after John had started baptising