Note: This is going to be one long post! If you want the quick synopsis, skip down to the "Conclusion" heading. Alternatively, you can read this (shorter but less in-depth) examination that someone else wrote, and which I wish I had discovered before writing this blog post. Still, it's a more cursory look, so hopefully this more in-depth blog post will still be useful.
I happened to stumble across an essay by a Tony Bushby named "The Forged Origins of the New Testament." This was originally published in Nexus Magazine, an Australian magazine that is apparently full of conspiracy theories, but copies of this essay can be found online. But our examination is not the magazine itself, but the essay. Though as we shall see, the magazine should feel thoroughly ashamed for publishing this essay.
At first glance to someone unfamiliar with the subjects it discusses, it appears persuasive due to its high number of professional-looking references cited. The problem is that these references are filled with errors, as will be demonstrated.
Ordinarily I would leave it alone, as it seems fairly obscure nowadays, but as I have seen some people repost it (or the "information" in it) elsewhere, and it does not seem like there are many who have examined its claims. Perhaps that's because many of it is so silly, but not everyone is necessarily aware of that. As a result, I wanted to go through it and examine them all because of just how many errors are in it, especially in its citations. Indeed, some of these quotes are repeated elsewhere online despite the fact that almost all of them are thoroughly inaccurate. So perhaps someone, when trying to find information on those quotes, will stumble across this and will be able to benefit from my work.
The primary goal of this blog post is to examine his various citations and see if they hold up. Along the way, if necessary, I will also comment on some of his arguments, though I may skip over some claims of his that he leaves unsourced. As we shall see, he is quite unreliable when giving a source, so there is even less credence to anything he asserts without a source.
On the examined quotes, we will note which category it falls into:
NO CITATION: No citation is given. I will not be assigning this
to every time he asserts something without citation, merely the ones I
think it is most relevant to respond to and where there really should be a citation. Actually, most of these
"No Citation" cases I will note are actually provably wrong.
FALSE CITATION: The quote is not found where it is claimed to be.
CITED WORK CANNOT BE FOUND: Outside of Bushby's writings and those who are simply copying his citations, I have not been able to find any evidence this work exists.
MISREPRESENTED CITATION: The quote is there, but is being taken out of context.
UNRELIABLE CITATION: A citation is made to a work that cannot be considered a reliable source of history.
UNCLEAR CITATION: The citation is too vague to be able to verify, such as simply pointing to a lengthy work but without giving any information as to where in the work it is.
UNVERIFIED CITATION: I was unable to obtain a copy of the work in order to check it.
ACCURATE CITATION: Correctly quoting from a source without misrepresenting it, with the source having at least some degree of reliability. (this doesn't confirm the accuracy of the information, but shows it is at least worthy of consideration, unlike the above)
Originally the "Cited Work Cannot Be Found" category was simply another part of the False Citation category, but I decided that it is theoretically possible that these might be some extremely obscure book rather than being outright false. While I expect these citations are simply made-up, I do wish to distinguish them from the cases where it's definitely a false citation, rather than ones that are only almost certainly false.
Now we shall begin.
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. One thing you will notice when it cites the Catholic Encyclopedia is that, rather than tell us the name of the article, his essay will simply give a volume and page number. Certainly, that is better than nothing, but why not give us the article title as well? The contents of the Catholic Encyclopedia are available online (here and here) and thus including the article name would allow someone to go over there to check more easily. And Bushby's article is from 2007, by which time these works were available online in this format (or at least the first link). I say this because just looking it up by article is easier than finding it by volume/page number.
Anyway, one may see the quote here or here. The former is easier to read but the latter does show it on its original "pages."
The problem is, Bushby has cut out portions of the quote (and changed the punctuation, but that is less important). Here is the full thing, with the omitted portions underlined:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origin of Christianity and its earliest developments are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures and various sub-Apostolic writings, the authenticity of which we must to a large extent take for granted here, as the much less grounds we take for granted the authenticity of "Cæsar" when dealing with early Gaul, and of "Tacitus" when studying growth of the Roman Empire."
As we can see, it is saying we take them for "granted" in the same way we take for "granted" accuracy concerning the life of Caesar or accuracy of the historian Tacitus regarding the Roman Empire. The Catholic Encyclopedia article then goes on to outline brief arguments as to why we should take them as authentic. In other words, from the get-go we have a quote taken out of context, and he also cuts out the mention of the "various sub-Apostolic writings" for no apparent reason.
The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface)
FALSE CITATION. Looking at the preface here and here, I do not see this quote.
admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. Well, technically the page 137 is false, as the quote is not there (see for yourself). But the quote is in the second pages given (655-6). However, when examined in context (it occurs in the upper portion of the left-most column), this is saying that the titles of the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era," not that the Gospels themselves do not. Or more accurately, that the titles were not actually written on them in the first century. I am not fully convinced that the titles do not go back to then (the Encyclopedia itself says that the titles "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day" meaning it is still possible it goes back that far), but in any event that is besides the point. The quote has been presented incorrectly as referring to the Gospels when it only referred to their titles.
In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. First, the quote is not where he claims it is (pages 656-7 of volume 6). It is actually found in volume 8, on page 439 (it can also be viewed here). And it is referring specifically to the Gospel of John. It is saying that the earliest extant manuscripts of the Gospel of John do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD. It is not referring to the full New Testament.
For that matter, the claim that they do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD is now inaccurate! The Catholic Encyclopedia was composed in the early 20th century, which means that it lacks information on manuscripts discovered subsequently. Since then, a number of manuscripts of John have been discovered from well before the fourth century. For example, Papyrus 75 is from the third century and includes large portions of John, and Papyrus 52 is a portion of John from the second century. Papyrus 66 is a mostly complete copy of the Gospel of John and dates to the second or third century. This inaccuracy is not the fault of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which cannot be blamed for being unaware of manuscripts not yet discovered--but it is the fault of Bushby, who cited it without bothering to look up if anything had changed in the meantime. So not only is this claim out of date, he doesn't even get the out-of-date claim right!
This one is especially problematic because he then follows this up with the statement "There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time." This claim is a major thesis of The Forged Origins of the New Testament. The problem is, as I just pointed out, we have physical copies of the books of the New Testament that predate the fourth century (multiple manuscripts of the Gospel of John alone!). That immediately disproves Bushby's claim that the Gospels were only written in the fourth century, because we have physical evidence of their existence beforehand. Bushby's claim that there were no manuscripts prior to the fourth century comes from him taking an out-of-date source and misrepresenting that source on top of that (rather ironic he engages in such major misrepresentation when talking about what he deems "the greatest misrepresentation of all time"). In fact, this simple fact alone utterly demolishes the majority of his article. But for the sake of completeness I will continue to assess the validity (or more commonly the lack thereof) of his citations.
The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).
FALSE CITATION. Volume XIV is available here, and we can see that it is the "Sylvester I" article that is there (it also has the end of "Syllabus" and start of "Sylvester II" but those are not relevant). However, the article on Sylvester I, available here, says nothing to support Bushby's convention (nor does it use the word "Church Fathers" in the article).
They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467).
FALSE CITATION. The citation here is somewhat confusing, as the only word he actually provides as a quote is "maddened." However, that is also enough to prove it wrong, as the word "maddened" is found nowhere in Life of Constantine (available here).
Could this be due to a different translation? Well, if that is the case, then Bushby gives no indication as to what translation he is using, which is odd given how clear he is about the St. Ambrose cite.
Speaking of the St. Ambrose cite, if you pull out Volume IV and turn to page 467 (available here), we find a work not by Ambrose, but by Augustine, and one that has nothing to do with Constantine in any way--it is an argument regarding baptism. While the Eusebius citation could perhaps qualify as "Unclear" the Ambrose citation makes this quite definitely a False citation.
The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. First, Oskar Seyffert died in 1906. Perhaps the 1995 refers to a re-publishing, but a quick look did not find a 1995 edition. In any event, what is on page 544-5? An entry on rhetoric. The phrase "peculiar type of oratory" is there on page 545 (middle of left column), but this is utterly unrelated to Constantine or Christianity, referring to things that happened in the first century B.C.
Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:
"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)
FALSE CITATION. The citations, Book I and Book III are found here and here respectively. Now, the first is Book 1, p. LXVII, and the "p. LXVII" presumably refers to Chapter 67. But we find none of these quotes there--this cannot even be ascribed to a differing English translation, as the subject matter is completely different (it is comparing Greek mythology unfavorably to Christianity). The same is true for Book 3, Chapter 44. Once again we have a false quote.
Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. 1 Corinthians 8:5 is referring to how the pagans believed in many gods (8:4 and 8:6 contrast this with Christianity, which believes in only one God). Galatians 1:6 refers only to a specific heretical group that was apparently causing problems among the Galatians. If his point is that there were Christian groups who had some disagreements with each other, then certainly, that is true for any religion. But this was discussing events in the first century, not the fourth, and for that matter the disagreements in doctrine were unrelated to the things he's going to claim they were about. Ultimately, it is irrelevant to his thesis of how Christianity was supposedly invented in the fourth century.
Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. The work is not cited, but the work that Optatus of Milevis is known for is called Against the Donatists. One may read 1:15 here (scroll down to see it). But the Donatist controversy was not at all about attributes of God, let alone "various gods." The disagreement between the Donatists and Catholics was whether the clergy had to be without sin for their sacraments to be effective. This had nothing to do with attributes of God.
The smooth generalisation, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol.iii, p.299, passim).
FALSE CITATION. Looking at page 299 of Volume 3,
we find nothing related to Constantine. Perhaps this is because it is
not the "Pecci ed"--but I cannot find evidence of this edition
outside of quotes offered by Bushby. Any search online for Catholic Encyclopedia and Pecci either turns up other writings by Bushby, people simply repeating Bushby's citation of the "Pecci edition", or Catholic Encyclopedia articles that happen to mention someone named Pecci (e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Leo XIII mentions his father was Lodovico Pecci). A search for these quotes ("embraced the Christian religion" or "official toleration") in the Catholic Encyclopedia does not find these quotes, at least not used in the sense they are presented. While in other cases I could not find evidence the cited work existed I let off with a "Cited Work Cannot Be Found", I do not believe that an alternate version of something like the Catholic Encyclopedia could escape notice. As a result of all this, I will rule this "Pecci ed." to be a hoax, and count it as a false citation.
Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are "entirely legendary" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. And now we switch back to the "Farley" edition, which at least seems to exist. This refers to an article on Pope Sylvester (it can be viewed in the context of the rest of the Encyclopedia here). The words "baptism" and "entirely legendary" are found, but not "conversion." But the statement of his baptism being entirely legendary does not mean that the idea Constantine was baptized was legendary, but that a specific account of it was legendary--and it says nothing about his conversion being legendary. The quote has not only been misrepresented, it hasn't even been quoted correctly if we do set aside context! As for the claim that there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time, no source is given for that.
Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge" and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim).
ACCURATE CITATION. "Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition" presumably refers to the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Page 576 can be found here though you may need to check it out to be able to read it. For the first time so far, we not only have a quote that is neither false nor misrepresented! Unfortunately for Bushby, this is a claim that is not particularly controversial or important to his thesis.
According to Eusebeius (260–339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of foundation" and needed official stabilisation (ibid.).
UNCLEAR CITATION (probably false). As noted earlier, the lack of indication as to what translation of Life of Constantine is being used makes it impossible to check for certain on this, as he only gives page numbers. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series translation, however, does not include these quotes anywhere in it.
The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry).
FALSE CITATION. The Catholic Dictionary by Addis and Arnold exists, but there is no Council of Nicaea entry, only a general entry for "Council" which does not include the quote. See for yourself. Perhaps it is alluding to its entry for Nicene Councils, but the quotes are not found there either. A search for a number of phrases in the alleged quote turn up nothing.
Their writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).
FALSE CITATION. Okay, this time he does actually specify it's the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers series translation of Life of Constantine. But this quote is found nowhere in that.
It should be noted, incidentally, that his representations of the Council of Nicaea are completely false. Nicaea was called because of the Arian Controversy, a conflict between the bishops Arius and Athanasius and their followers. While both agreed that Jesus was divine, they had disagreements on exactly what Jesus's relationship with the Father was. I won't get into the theological details here, but the bottom line is that none of this had anything to do with other gods and saviors as Bushby claims.
Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 ( Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792),
FALSE CITATION. Volume 1, page 792 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia can be found here. The page in question has absolutely nothing to do with what Bushby is talking about.
and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).
FALSE CITATION. First, Louis Dupin was not a bishop--I don't think he was even a priest.
Still, he wrote a lot of works, some on history. Now, none of Dupin's books translate out literally to "Ecclesiastical History". The one that comes the closest is "Histoire ecclesiastique du dix-septieme siecle" (Ecclesiastical History of the Seventeenth Century) but this cannot be it; not only is it unlikely a book about the 17th century would say much about Nicaea in the fourth, it was first published in 1714, so it is too late to be the one referred to by Bushby. Further, one can see page 598 of the first volume of the work here (the metadata incorrectly claims it was from 1970 but if you look at the cover you will see it says "M DCC XIV" which is 1714) and it appears to say nothing about Nicaea.
What would seem to be in mind is rather "Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques" (New Library of Ecclesiastical Authors) which had its first volume published in 1686. Indeed, I believe this and "De Antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina dissertationes historicae" are the only works Dupin had published in 1686, so it would have to be one of them. However, this is found on page 598 of neither of them! "De Antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina dissertationes historicae" ends on page 592, short of the required page length (see here).
However, "Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques", while having a page 598, does not seem to have anything relevant there either. You can look at it here and even with my lackluster French abilities, I can see there is no mention of Nicaea (which would be Nicée in French), Osius, or palaces. It instead seems to be about letters attributed to early popes
So, of the two works published by Dupin in 1686, neither one says this or anything at all about Nicaea on page 598.
Bushby's specific claim here is not particularly controversial ultimately, and of little importance to his arguments. Nevertheless, his cited source does not appear to back him up at all. And he very specifically says 1686, so unless he made an error there this should not be an issue of me looking at a wrong edition.
In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
CITED WORK CANNOT BE FOUND. This one is a bit of a complicated matter. To explain quickly, the citation itself ("Secrets of the Christian Fathers") appears to not exist. That is why it gets that label. However, even if the work did exist, we run into the additional problem that Bushby's statement above is inaccurate. Sabinus did appear to say something like this, but we have no exact quote from him (only a description of his statement), and Bushby's claim that he was in attendance is false. Now I will explain the reasons for these deductions in detail.
Let us begin with the source offered, Secrets of the Christian Fathers. I can find no evidence this work actually exists. Search for it and you will find a few quotes supposedly from it, like this one... but no evidence the book itself exists. WorldCat, Archive.org, Google Books... it is available on none of them. Until such time as someone can demonstrate proof of its existence outside of people copy and pasting supposed citations from it, I will conclude this is a fraudulent work. This person also tried to find it (though this was in reference to a different "quote" from it) and concluded the same thing as me, that it could not be found and was almost certainly a hoax.
I considered the possibility that perhaps it was a work in another language with the title translated into English, but a search for Sergerus is no more useful. Sergerus finds no matches on archive.org, and searching for Sergerus on WorldCat turns up a few Latin works, but they are by Joannes Theophilus Sergerus and Jo Gottlieb Sergerus, which are obviously incorrect due to having the wrong initials. Even the possibility that this was a typo, and it was supposed to be J.T. Sergerus or J.G. Sergerus seems to be out, as the works are not (when translated into English) "Secrets of the Christian Fathers." The publication dates are wrong anyway.
Is it possible that this is just some really rare book and that's why it doesn't show up on a service like WorldCat or the Internet in general? That seems unlikely. This was supposedly written by a bishop, and one would expect that would result in it being more common. Furthermore, if it is such a rare book that one cannot find a trace of it, the onus should be on Bushby to explain where and how he accessed it. Given the performance we have seen by Bushby so far--and will continue to see throughout this examination--I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.
But is the claim itself correct? Well, as far as I can tell, our knowledge of what Sabinus said about the Council
of Nicaea comes not from actual quotes by Sabinus, but rather a later
historian remarking on Sabinus's (now lost) work. In Book 1, Chapter 8
of Socrates Scholasticus's Church History, he states in the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers translation:
"With this end also in view, that if any one should condemn as erroneous the faith professed at this council of Nicæa, we might be unaffected by it, and put no confidence in Sabinus the Macedonian, who calls all those who were convened there ignoramuses and simpletons. For this Sabinus, who was bishop of the Macedonians at Heraclea in Thrace, having made a collection of the decrees published by various Synods of bishops, has treated those who composed the Nicene Council in particular with contempt and derision; not perceiving that he thereby charges Eusebius himself with ignorance, who made a like confession after the closest scrutiny. And in fact some things he has willfully passed over, others he has perverted, and on all he has put a construction favorable to his own views. Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a trustworthy witness, and praises the emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrines: but he still brands the faith which was declared at Nicæa, as having been set forth by ignorant persons, and such as had no intelligence in the matter. And thus he voluntarily contemns the words of a man whom he himself pronounces a wise and true witness: for Eusebius declares, that of the ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod, some were eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their life; and that the emperor himself being present, leading all into unanimity, established unity of judgment, and agreement of opinion among them."
Thus we have a summary of what Sabinus said, but no direct quotes. The quote offered does match the summary, but it is not a quote by Sabinus that we know of. Thus it is inaccurate to offer it as such.
But at least it seems to reflect Sabinus's beliefs. However, as far as I can tell, Sabinus was not (as Bushby claims) an attendance at Nicaea--I don't think he was even alive then--which would make that claim false.
Lastly, the question is whether we should take Sabinus as accurate. As noted, he was not in attendance so he would not have firsthand information. Additionally, Sabinus (as noted by Socrates) was a Macedonian, meaning a follower of the bishop Macedonius I of Constantinople, an Arian. But Arians were the ones who lost at the Council of Nicaea. So all we have here is a non-eyewitness who disagreed with the Council's conclusion. This has little value in proving anything about the intellectual level of those at Nicaea.
Thus, Bushby cites a non-existent source to give a false quote (it does seem to be a reasonable summary of Sabinus's thoughts, but still not an actual quote) and claims that he was at Nicaea despite the strong proof against. Taken together, this warrants a False.
This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737–1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791).
UNCLEAR CITATION (probably false). Now, a copy of An Apology for Christianity can be found here. However, no page number is cited. A search for the words "set", "gibbering", and "idiots" shows nothing. Now, the search function isn't perfect. But I am not going to read through a 200+ work just to try to find a quote that he did not provide a proper source for--and, based on my experience so far, probably is not there anyway. As for Theological Tracts, volume 2 can be found here, but again no page number is cited. The focus of volume 2 appears not to be councils anyway, but concerning the canon of the New Testament.
From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronised the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.)
UNCLEAR CITATION (probably false). Again, using the computerized search turns up nothing.
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. The quote is from here. But, as is the pattern so far, this quote is taken thoroughly out of context. What is being referred to here is the precise date Easter is to be celebrated. What is noted is that while a decision was made regarding the date to celebrate Easter, this was not in the canons. This is not related to what Bushby is going on about.
However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).
ACCURATE CITATION. An accurate quote for once. It is found here. Interesting how his only verified and accurate quotes so far have been about uncontroversial things.
There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.).
FALSE CITATION. The same problems discussed previously in regards to Dupin's Ecclesiastical History apply here as well.
It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity , op. cit.).
UNCLEAR CITATION (probably false). Again, no page number is cited, but a computerized search does not find this quote.
By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels")
FALSE CITATION. There is no "Gospel and Gospels" article, though there is a "Gospel" article. I see no mention of "wild texts" in it, however.
circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of
Eastern and Western gods and goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal,
Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo,
Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus,
Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn,
Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes (God's Book of Eskra, anon.,
ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).
UNRELIABLE CITATION. The quote is found in that work, and can be read here. But what is this God's Book of Eskra? If you are unaware of what that is, it is a book in "Oahspe: A New Bible", which was published in 1882. Oahspe is the divine book of "Faithism" and was a lengthy work written by a dentist named John Ballou Newbrough (which makes the mention of "anon." confusing), who claimed that it was all divinely dictated to him--that he would sit in front of a typewriter and would type it out without even knowing what he was writing until he had finished.
Is Tony Bushby a believer in Faithism? I do not know. But unless one is a Faithist, this can hardly be counted as a historical source, as its claims of accuracy depend entirely on whether or not you believe it was in fact a divine dictation. No actual historical source I know of supports the claim made.
Julius Caesar was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54–68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37–68), was immortalised on his coins as the "Saviour of mankind" (ibid.).
UNCLEAR CITATION (probably false). This book is found here, but no page number is cited in order to look it up. A computerized search for various words or phrases in these quotes does not turn up anything resembling the quotes given by Bushby. But, again, it is at least possible the search function isn't finding them--though it is very unlikely--so I will only mark this as an "Unclear Citation" rather than a False one.
"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).
UNRELIABLE CITATION. Another Book of Eskra reference. As noted before, this is useless as a historical source. I am further confused as to what it means by a "translation" given that the work was in English to begin with.
At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).
FALSE CITATION. This is nowhere to be found in Historia Ecclesiastica. It is, however, from God's Book of Eskra (I think that may be true of some other quotes he uses). Did Bushby--or if he's simply copying these quotes uncritically from another source, the author of that source--realize it would look bad if he cited the Book of Eskra too much, so he pretended it was from a different source to disguise it?
Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618).
UNCLEAR CITATION (probably false). The only "Acta Councilii Nicaeni" I can find is this thing, which is not only in Greek (a language I currently lack competence in), but is hard-to-read handwritten Greek so it is well beyond my ability to decipher. Furthermore, it is over 200 pages and impossible to look through to verify the quote as a result. It should further be noted that it is given the year "1580" rather than 1618.
Someone here ("Michael") suggests that "Acta Concilii Nicaeni" is simply a Latin translation of the canons of the Council of Nicaea. If so, one can read an English translation here of the canons; as can be easily seen, nothing of that sort is listed there.
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organise the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)
UNRELIABLE CITATION. We have already discussed the problems with the Book of Eskra.
"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.).
FALSE CITATION. These quotes are not found in Life of Constantine. I labeled this one as False rather than Unclear because even accepting the possibility of a different translation, I can find nothing of this sort in Book 4 of Life of Constantine.
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. These quotes are correct, sort of. They can be found here. They are somewhat paraphrased, but this may be due to a different translation. However, all that is stated is that fifty Bibles were produced... all of the previous claims of them being written at or after the Council of Nicaea (rather than simply being copies of already-existing texts) was made up by Bushby.
They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.
NO CITATION. Not a quote or citation, but this is so erroneous I felt the need to respond. Apparently, Bushby is unaware of the various quotations of and references to the New Testament by the early Christians... and even if he wants to claim those are unreliable because our earliest manuscripts of them post-date the Council of Nicaea, we have manuscripts of the New Testament itself that predate Nicaea (a few of which have already been mentioned). This fact utterly destroys his thesis that they were written at or after the Council of Nicaea, and he never addresses this point. Oh, and naturally, no citation is made for this absurd claim of his.
With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Saviour God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonising in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.).
FALSE CITATION. Again, I can find nothing like these quotes in Book 3 of Life of Constantine.
Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).
CITED WORK CANNOT BE FOUND. Once again, Secrets of the Christian Fathers does not appear to exist.
The Second Council of Nicaea in 786–87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as "a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains" (History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. Milman did not write History of the Christian Church. He did, however, write "History of Christianity" a multi-volume set. Naturally, Bushby provides no page number or volume. Still, thanks to searching through the text, I was able to find the first (but not the second) quote here. The problem, outside of the fact that it only has the first quote and not the second, is that the "synod of fools and madmen" being referred to is not Nicaea, but a completely unrelated council, the Council of Hieria (the source refers to it as the "Council of Constantinople" but it is better known as the Council of Hieria).
Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave "legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire" (Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. Okay, compared to others this was a relatively small and benign misrepresentation, but it is still one. Now, a revised version of the work can be found here and the quote is there (albeit on a different page than the original, revised version after all). I did manage to get a physical copy of the first edition of the work, which is what's being quoted, and it looks about the same as the linked copy, at least in regards to the section being quoted from. That brings us to a problem. Bushby quotes it as saying he gave Christianity "legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire." The actual work says he gave Christianity "legal status as a religion of the Roman Empire." Christianity did not become the religion of the empire until after Constantine. During Constantine's time, it was simply legally recognized among other religions, which had the effect of ending persecutions and granting various legal rights.
I'll be fair and say that this was a swap of only one word. But that one swap does change the meaning.
Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. This work is here (oddly, he does not give the author, only the publisher's name, which initially confused me). However, this quote is found on a different page than 161. Beyond that, there are a few problems with this citation. First, this is from 1910--a rather old and outdated source. But even if it absolutely correct on everything, it says "it was probably only self-interest which led him at first to adopt Christianity." (emphases added) So Bushby has taken a "probably" and turned it into a certainty and ignored the qualifier that the self-interest was only "at first." Not only that, it says nothing about Constantine creating Christianity, as Bushby claims here.
Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).
FALSE CITATION. The person cited here is Edmond Bordeaux Szekely. It was not easy to get a copy of this book, for the record. I had to put in an Outerlibrary Loan Request and the loaning library had a requirement that I could not actually check out the book, but could only peruse it in the library.
Still, it is plausible it was not called Christianity until then... not because the religion didn't exist, but because the word didn't yet exist in that form in the English language; prior to that, it likely existed in some similar but slightly different form, sort of like how the word is "Cristianismo" in Spanish.
Also, Szekely is not a particularly reliable source either, but I will save that for a later examination of a quote from him.
Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122).
FALSE CITATION. Once again the apparently fictional Pecci edition is cited. The "Farley edition" does exist (although it seems to just be the regular Catholic Encyclopedia), however, so we can examine that. Anyway, the page is here. This is an entry on Forgery... but it says nothing of the New Testament (or as Bushby for some reason refers to them as, "New Testimonies"). The word "interpolations" is also nowhere to be found.
For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).
CITED WORK CANNOT BE FOUND. As noted above, there is no real evidence that "Secrets of the Christian Fathers" actually exists.
Even if it did, this is clearly a false statement. We have full copies of the New Testament that predate 397 AD such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Oddly, Bushby will spend much time discussing Codex Sinaiticus, which makes this claim of his all the more befuddling. As for the general claim that the New Testament simply restructured claims about Apollonius of Tyana, see here.
The Latinised name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin- English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul.
UNVERIFIED CITATION (but probably false). As this requires the previous reference to be true to mean anything, whether or not this source is accurate or not is irrelevant. Still, is it true or not? Well, no page number is cited. I looked up Apollonius and there was no entry (see here). Unfortunately, the second volume, which would let us look up Paulus, is not available on archive.org, and even the first volume is from a year other than 1880. There is a shortened version ("for the use of junior students") that is available here that lets us look Paulus up, however, and it says nothing about Apollonius when we look up Paulus. It is, however, possible that this was found in the second volume of an 1880 printing and was omitted in the shortened version. So while we can't count this one completely counted out, it appears unlikely--and is irrelevant even if it is true.
CITED WORK CANNOT BE FOUND. No work of this name appears on WorldCat, and searches for it online only turn up people repeating this claim from this essay. I wondered if perhaps this was an English translation of a name in another language (though if that was the case, Bushby should have specified), but there is nothing from 1842 with "Bembo" in the title on WorldCat either. I did find one person who was trying to figure it out speculate that maybe this was what was in view, but even that is from 1538 (and in non-searchable Latin). Most likely, however, that was giving Bushby too much credit. Aside from Bushby's essay, there is no evidence this work exists, let alone that this quote is found in it and refers to the epistles.
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. This statement is there, as can be seen here or here... but is about a specific collection of the epistles of St. Ignatius! It is thoroughly dishonest to take this quote about a different writer's letters entirely (and only a specific collection of copies of their letters) and act as if it is from St. Paul!
UNVERIFIED CITATION (probably false). Here we have "Vol. 4-5" but I am not sure if Volume 5 is included in this after all, as I do not see a real division in the document. Nor is there a mention of Jerome. Of course, this could just be another false cite. But just in case, I granted it mercy and will only label it as "probably" false. In any event, it would be odd for Jerome to say such a thing when he assisted in the Latin Vulgate bible, which included Acts.
However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759) .
During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid–sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library).
UNVERIFIED CITATION. Living in the US, I hardly have access to the British Library. A search on Worldcat indicates that while it can be found in other libraries, all of those libraries are in Britain. So it cannot be checked by me. But we do know that, whether it was stated by Tischendorf or not, this information is in error. Vaticanus is dated to the fourth century, not the mid-sixth century. Perhaps Tischendorf did give that date, but Tischendorf lived in the 19th century, and we have access to more data now. In any event, Bushby's claim that it is dated to the mid-sixth century is incorrect.
I will be skipping over most of the things between this and the heading "Forgery in the Gospels" because it is not particularly important whether the claims made are true or not (and most of its citations are things I am unable to verify due to lacking access to them). I'll just make a few notes starting with this:
In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that "...without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God".
You might notice something, which is that Bushby doesn't actually address any of Burgon's arguments. This isn't to say Burgon is right, just that Bushby doesn't interact with these arguments at all. As we will see, Bushby's arguments are poor even if Sinaiticus is the single most reliable manuscript, but it's odd that he'll note Burgon's arguments against the Sinaiticus, but won't actually address any of them. In fact, Bushby appears to get confused. First he makes this remark:
Before I summarise its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing.
But then in the next paragraph he says:
Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions.
So it is not a reliable guide to New Testament study due to superabundant errors, but serious study of Christian origins must emanate from it? Bushby makes a statement and then in the next paragraph turns around and makes an argument that requires his statement in the last paragraph to be false!
After that, we get to the important stuff starting with the new heading "Forgery in the Gospels".
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified.
NO CITATION. But even if this number is correct, it means little. Virtually all of these "editorial alterations" are minor and amount to copyist errors. Even the "larger" ones have no actual impact on the core tenets of the Christian faith. If one counts any difference--even a single character being different--as a "change" then yes, you may be able to get to a high number. But again, that means nothing--Bushby has to demonstrate the changes (if they do add up to as high as he claims) actually matter. To be fair, he does try, but not very well.
Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.
There is not really a citation to check here, but I wished to make a comment. Contrary to his claim, none of these three are considered "Gospels" as none are biographies of Jesus's life. I also have no idea where the claim that the Shepherd of Hermas was written "by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius" comes from. It is odd that, after giving citation after citation after citation (even if almost all are inaccurate), he will drop claims like this with no source whatsoever. A search for these names indicates they are mentioned in the Gospel of Nicodemus, a totally different work. But in any event, this is not really "of importance"--so what if it included some other works? Even if not considered canonical, these works are still considered important and useful. The Church of England rejected the deuterocanonical books as not being canonical, but they still included them in the King James Version because they were viewed as being useful. (much later editions of the King James Version dropped them, possibly to save money on paper)
However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions. One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying: "The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour".
ACCURATE CITATION. This quote is actually true. However, this was also from 1899, making it a rather old source and out of date, though I hesitate to claim that the source was necessarily "unreliable." For anyone wondering, most of the arguments it gives for this are answered here. Still, I will count it as an "Accurate Citation" in that people have made that remark, even if I believe that remark to be in error. It is odd, though, that he says that "the Church divulges" it when the Encyclopaedia Biblica was not written by any church.
Further, he claims this is something not written in "that old Bible" (the Sinaiticus). But the Sinaiticus does mention the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke--those are included in it. Perhaps he is referring to how it is not mentioned in Mark or John, but that's true of all bibles.
It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was "the first Gospel written" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today.
FALSE CITATION. "The first Gospel written" is not found on that page (see here). Granted, modern scholars mostly do believe Mark was the first written, but that does not change the fact that this quote is not found in his source (not on page 657 or anywhere else in this volume of the Catholic Encyclopedia, as far as I can tell), nor does it offer any support for his silly contention that Eusebius was the writer of Mark, which is disproved by manuscripts of Mark pre-dating Eusebius, such as Papyrus 45 (which in addition to Mark, also includes portions of Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts).
The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).
UNVERIFIED CITATION (probably unreliable). Bushby is citing himself here; as this whole blog post is one big explanation as to why Bushby is unreliable, it wouldn't be wrong for me to simply label this an "Unreliable Citation." But, it still seems wrong to do so if I have been unable to examine it myself, so he gets "Unverified." Certainly, I'm certainly not going to pay money to get a copy of this book, which will cost (at least where I live) about $100 to get. That said, this idea--that Matthew and Luke used Mark and John came last--is not a particularly controversial one anyway. And of course, it still doesn't actually do anything to support Bushby's argument of Eusebius making them.
Following this is the one of the few arguments Bushby offers that is anything close to coherent, so I will go through it and respond to its points.
Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles.
As noted, Vaticanus is of about the same time, possibly a little earlier, as Sinaiticus. But this "completely different" amounts to only small differences except for the ending, which we'll get to shortly.
It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total).
Bushby is confusing as to what he is referring to. He says "all ancient Bibles" lack them but those are mentioned in early manuscripts. As noted before, the Sinaiticus includes them in Matthew and Luke, for example.
Or by "ancient Bibles" does he refer specifically to Mark, meaning he's using the claim that things mentioned in Luke/Matthew but not Mark are later creations? As well known as it is, the virgin birth is hardly critical to the core of the Christian faith--that's the Resurrection. And Mark's lack of the virgin birth is explored in our earlier link (here it is again). As for the lack of lineages, those not being in Mark does not mean they are false, as it could have been not included for any number of reasons (any biography has to cut some things out). In any event, it is of secondary importance in the grand scheme of things.
Finally, while Sinaiticus does not refer to Jesus as the "son of God" in Mark 1:1, Vaticanus does (so much for that "all early bibles" claim). Most likely, it was left off by accident in Sinaiticus, because (as noted by the NET Bible's footnote for that passage, currently footnote #3 for Mark 1) the sequence repeats a particular Greek symbol an inordinate amount of times which could lead to confusion on the part of the scribe. In any event, the phrase is used elsewhere in Mark, even in the Sinaiticus.
So if Bushby is making the argument that ancient bibles lack Matthew and Luke, he is wrong because the Sinaiticus and earlier manuscripts do include them. If he is simply referring only to Mark, while Mark may lack some things that are mentioned in the other Gospels (which may have been a reason they were written, in order to add the information that Mark did not include) Bushby is only listing things of secondary importance (and in the case of "son of God" Bushby ignores other manuscripts). In other words, while Mark may not include some things of lesser importance, it includes all the most critical information. Bushby, however, seems to feel he has something in regards to Mark's ending:
The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).
What he is referring to with Lazarus is unclear, as the raising of Lazarus is not mentioned outside of John. What is conflicting?
ACCURATE CITATION. However, while the quote is accurate (and for the sake of argument we will accept the assertion that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition), there are several problems with this argument, and I will try to be brief. Even without Mark 16:9-20 and the other Gospels, we still have the account of the women going to the tomb, Jesus not being there, an angel telling them he has risen and to go and see him in Galilee, and they leave. So even if it doesn't go into detail about meeting him, it certainly established a Resurrection occurred. Furthermore, Paul's letters, which probably predate Mark, refer to a resurrection and appearances (most notably in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). So this argument of Bushby's is essentially a non-entity.
One may ask why Mark would end his Gospel in such a way, however. Some discussion of that can be found here.
A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity ( Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 5:17).
ACCURATE CITATION (sort of). Page 792 of the Volume 12 of the Catholic Encyclopedia does discuss the importance of the Resurrection. However, Bushby ignores the various arguments it notes in favor of its historicity. In any event, the importance of the Resurrection is not controversial.
The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons").
ACCURATE CITATION for the Encyclopedia Biblica quotes, though it should be volume 2 for all of them. Though for the reasons given above, even if the conclusion of Mark is a later addition, it means little.
FALSE CITATION for the Catholic Encyclopedia claim. There is no "Evidence of its Spuriousness" heading that I see on the applicable pages, and a search for that phrase turns up nothing.
I will note his claim of:
Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.
It's almost like there are three other Gospels that do describe post-Resurrection appearances that can be used as a basis without any need for this alleged forgery. Of course, even without the longer ending of Mark or even any of the other Gospels, everything up until that point in Mark is sufficient to establish the idea of a Resurrection, with Paul's letters being extra. An argument that this was added later is simply insufficient to prove that the idea of a Resurrection only arose after the composition of Mark.
As for the second citation, I am not sure what it is supposed to be. It merely says "p. 1080" without telling me what volume it is in. As for the third (Volume 12, page 407), that is here. It states "Chapter 21 is considered by many scholars to be an addition by the disciples of John, but still in the spirit of the author." This moves it from the author to his disciples, but again this would fall within the first or early second century, not the sixth century.
Setting aside the references, Bushby's claim that it is a "sixth-century forgery" is blatantly incorrect. Even if John 21 was added later--and note that to my knowledge, there is not actually any early manuscript that actually stops at the end of John 20--it certainly wasn't added in the sixth century! Portions of John 21 are found in Papyrus 66 (second/third century) and Papyrus 109 (third century). It is true those portions are fragmentary, but the fact they include portions of John 21 demonstrate John 21 was in existence well before the 5th century. Even if one insists it must be the full chapter, then Bushby is still wrong because the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which came before the sixth century, do include John 21. It is surprising that, despite holding up the Codex Sinaiticus as a critical witness to the early Bible, he seems thoroughly unaware of what is actually in it.
FALSE CITATION. Before examining the citation, two things should be noted. First, that "10,000 more words" claim is false. It's simply not true. But as to the more specific claim of it missing "and was carried up to heaven"? Whether or not that was in there in Luke does not matter for the purpose of theology, because the author of Luke mentions it in Acts.
Now let us examine the citation. The article can be found here. The problem is that nothing of what Bushby just stated seems to be in the article, which is discussing several Matthew passages, and not saying anything about the Luke passage in question (for the record, be careful relying on Conybeare's analysis of those Matthew passages anyway, as it is out of date and aspects have come under criticism). So we have another false citation.
Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totalling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51–18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said: "The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences" (Catholic Encyclopedia , Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).
FALSE CITATION. Once again the mysterious and apparently nonexistent Pecci edition is noted.
That said, for once something similar to this quote actually can be found in the actual Catholic Encyclopedia. But it's in volume 9 in an article concerning lights and the passages in question are not biblical but from the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus. One may view the article here or if you want to see it in context go here and scroll to page 245. I almost put this as a Misrepresented Citation, but the misquoting (it actually says "The rhetorical character of such passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences") and inaccurate attribution pushed it into False Citation. In any event, it's a thoroughly inaccurate representation.
Furthermore, this does nothing to support his claim of Luke 9:51-18:14 being one big insertion in the 15th century, which is blatantly false anyway. The Codex Sinaiticus, which he's been holding up as his basis, includes those verses. Manuscripts that are even earlier than the Codex Sinaiticus include them. These are from more than a millennium before the 15th century in which it was supposedly added. There is absolutely no support for this claim of his that Luke 9:51-18:14 is some kind of later insertion, let alone one from the 15th century.
Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today's versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarised from other Gospels.
NO CITATION. Well, maybe the source he gives after the next sentence (which is unverified) is supposed to be the source for this, but this is so blatantly inaccurate I'm not going to give him the benefit of that doubt. The earliest manuscript we have for Luke, I believe, is Papyrus 75, which includes the applicable sections (it is somewhat fragmentary, as can be seen in the link, but we retain enough to know that we have the applicable sections). Even if we insist on it needing to be fully complete without fragments, Codex Sinaiticus includes those sections.
Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit)
UNVERIFIED CITATION. The source cannot be checked by me, as noted. But as to the claim that "three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century," I am perplexed as to what he is talking about. Luke 22:20 and 44-45 are missing in some manuscripts, but this hardly amounts to "three paragraphs" (unless one is taking a really loose definition of that phrase), and for that matter appear in manuscripts prior to the 15th century, e.g. Codex Bezae. Not that it makes particular difference either way, given the relative unimportance of these verses.
Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545–63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).
In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.
NO CITATION. Ordinarily I would not bother with this as there is no citation, but here he offers the phrase in question marks as if it was quoted from something. But no source for this is given! The Index Expurgatorius was aimed at contemporary works, so who was the one who stated that the purpose of the Index Expurgatorius was to change passages of the early Church Fathers?
When Vatican archivists came across "genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index" (Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328).
UNCLEAR CITATIONS/CITED WORK CANNOT BE FOUND. We have already discussed The Vatican Censors as apparently being a made-up work. As for the "Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus", it appears to be a reference to the work "An exact reprint of the Roman Index expurgatorius" by Richard Gibbings. The quote in question is found in neither it nor "Literary Policy of the Church of Rome", at least as far as I can tell. Searching does not turn it up, but again the search isn't perfect. Of course, he provides no page to check--the only page provided is for The Vatican Censors, which again appears to not exist. Also, I cannot help but notice that these books are both from the first half of the 19th century; surely there are more up-to-date books on these subjects he could be citing?
Also, I wish to mention that we possess copies of the church fathers from before the 16th century, and thus any supposed changes that occurred as a result of this would be caught anyway.
This Church record provides researchers with "grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public" (The Propaganda Press of Rome , Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182).
CITED WORK CANNOT BE FOUND. Outside of Bushby's citation here, I cannot find any indication that this "The Propaganda Press of Rome" work exists.
Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: "Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released".
UNCLEAR CITATION. No page number or even volume is cited here, so it is not possible to look it up. A search for "1198" in each of the four volumes, however, turns up nothing.
It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. The mention of the Secret Archives is true, sort of (an easier-to-read version can be found here). The problem is that this is being misrepresented. Yes, the "Vatican Secret Archives" were established in 1198, but not to suppress earlier Church history--the point was to set up archives to preserve Church history. This claim of suppressing earlier records is not supported, at least not by the source.
Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died. In a chapter titled "The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication", he said this (in part):
"The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history ... her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries."
(How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)
UNRELIABLE CITATION. As noted in the previous citation, this work is by Edmond Bordeaux Szekely. Unlike Bushby's previous citation of this work, this quote is in fact found in the work. Now its accuracy and how much it proves must be considered.
As noted, as I was only able to read it in the library, my examination of the book was not in depth and did involve skimming. But from what I can see, it is very high on speculation, asserting that the origins of Christianity are made up and that the works of the church fathers are from later dates and were forged in order to try to make the gospels look better. It is highly reminiscent of Bushby's essay, although instead of providing sources that turn out to be false, it provides virtually no sources at all (and most of those that it actually does provide are extremely vague to the point it is impossible to look them up).
Edmond Bordeaux Szekely has two main claims to fame. The first is him advocating a vegetarian and raw food diet. The second is his claim of discovering the "Essene Gospel of John" (also known as the "Essene Gospel of Peace") that he supposedly translated into English, but various contradictions in his accounts of it, a lack of actual proof of his claims, and other factors have caused it to be dismissed as a forgery by scholars. While I don't like to give my readers "homework", I should note that Chapter 12 of "Strange Tales About Jesus: A Survey of Unfamiliar Gospels" (pages 81-92) by Per Beskow offers a critique of it, going into more depth about the charges I listed. For those unable to get a copy of the book, some of the information on it is quoted on Szekely's Wikipedia page. Thus, Szekely is highly questionable as a source, given that the evidence seems quite strong he outright made up a gospel and tried to pass it off as genuine.
So ultimately, the only authority for this claim is Szekely himself. This already makes it questionable. But it is worse because Szekely, as we have just seen, is not trustworthy. This is therefore an Unreliable Source.
Supporting Professor Bordeaux's findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, "Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account " (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759).
UNCLEAR CITATION. The supposed quote from the Encyclopédie is cannot be verified because there is no page number or article cited. Again, this is a 17-volume work--further, even searching is not possible because it is in French and the quotes given (assuming they are accurate) is in an English translation and thus we do not know exactly what to search for.
Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. It is true that the phrase "New Learning" is found in those sources (see here and here). The problem is that this "New Learning" has nothing to do with something Sixtus V introduced into Catholicism--it is a reference to Humanism. Bushby has taken a random phrase, wrenched it from its context, and then claimed it meant something totally different.
Further, the citations say nothing about Pope Sixtus V, let alone him writing a new Bible. What I expect this is in reference to is the fact that Pope Sixtus V put together a new edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible. But this hardly qualifies as "writing a new Bible."
The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot's Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758–69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.
UNCLEAR CITATION. Again, where this is "found" is not stated. The claim that Clement XIII ordered all volumes to be destroyed is a bit exaggerated as well. It was added to the Index of Forbidden Books but that was not really a command to destroy them (outside of papal territories)--governments were free to do so if they wanted to, but it was not required. Perhaps Clement XIII actually did go and ask for them to be destroyed, but if so Bushby doesn't give specific proof of such.
"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. You might have guessed even from what he did quote, but this is in reference to the four Gospels, not the full New Testament.
Even worse, it has been misquoted. The first part (everything up to "evangelists themselves") is properly quoted, but the second part, which comes later, is not. The original text is here and a more readable version is here (the Greek text is transliterated, however). What it actually says is:
"The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."
In his quote, he removed "The first four historical books of the New Testament" and replaced it with "They [the New Testament collection]." Not only is the bracketed text dishonest, the word "they" is nowhere to be found in the text!
Further, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not even saying that the gospels were not written by those attributed to them, merely that it is unlikely the names were written on the manuscripts originally. They could have left their names off but, later on, people thought it should be actually written on the text and thus it was included as the title, perhaps to help differentiate them. But whatever one thinks of the authorship of the Gospels, the fact remains that the "quote" represented is inaccurate and misleading.
The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656).
MISREPRESENTED CITATION. Confusingly, the first quote is from the second source listed here, and the second quote is from the first source. We will begin with the first one. Yet again, context is being withheld. Here is the actual quote:
"Many authors have taken it to mean not "written by", but "drawn up according to the conception of", Matthew, Mark, etc. In their eyes, the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship, but to state the authority guaranteeing what is related, in about the same way as "the Gospel according to the Hebrews", or "the Gospel according to the Egyptians", does not mean the Gospel written by the Hebrews or the Egyptians, but that peculiar form of Gospel which either the Hebrews or the Egyptians had accepted."
As we see, it is not being "maintained" that they were not intended to indicate authorship, it is simply noting that some authors claim such a thing. Furthermore, contrary to what Bushby subsequently asserts, this does not remove the gospels as having a connection to the evangelists that they are named after, but could be interpreted to mean the gospel was "drawn up according to the conception of" that person. I actually recommend you look at the original text of the article for a more in-depth explanation than the misrepresentation that Bushby produces. The point is, Bushby has once again misrepresented a quote.
As for "the headings... were affixed to them" that is from here and again is referring only to whether those titles were included by the authors originally or not. it is not a statement one way or the other as to whether or not the work was written by the person it is named after. (for the record, even if it wasn't, it isn't that critical--the accuracy of the Gospels is not fully dependable as to whether it was literally Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John who wrote them).
After that we get more quotes from Tischendorf:
"...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)
CITED WORK CANNOT BE FOUND. A search for "Alterations to the Sinai Bible" at the British Library turns up nothing. Nor is it found in a search on WorldCat. A general search online only turns up people offering this quote. It appears fake.
After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern- day editions have "been altered in many places" and are "not to be accepted as true" ( When Were Our Gospels Written? , Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).
MISREPRESENTED/FALSE CITATION. One may find the work here. There are two quotes here, one misrepresented, the other false. The first ("been altered in many places") is misrepresented. Search for the phrase "been altered in many cases" and you will find it... but it is referring to the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, not anything in the New Testament. Meanwhile, I do not find the phrase "not to be accepted as true" anywhere in the document.
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions".
UNCLEAR CITATION. "15,000 pages of critical notes" is overly vague. Exactly what document was this in? What was its name? And where in the document was this stated?
This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18- 26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271–213 BC) are in the New Testament.
UNCLEAR CITATION. What in the Mahabharata do these line up with? Where are these portions of the Mahabharata that the New Testament takes "verbatim"? He does not give us any information on this... and thus I see no reason to give this claim credence, certainly not enough to look through all 200,000-ish lines of the Mahabharata just to try to verify something that Bushby couldn't be bothered to give support for himself. The same applies for Aratus of Sicyon. He then goes on to claim:
Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331–232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343–291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.
FALSE CITATION. Again, exactly what these statements that were copied, and where they are in the works, is unstated. Normally this would have earned an "Unclear Citation", but Hymn to Zeus is short enough to examine. Here is "Hymn to Zeus." What, exactly, is there that is also in the New Testament? I see nothing.
The only connection I have been able to find from these works is that 1 Corinthians 15:33 seems to take its statement "Bad company corrupts good character" from Menander. But this is not one of the Gospels, is only one brief quote, and it is entirely possible that that this was just some common saying that happened to be in the play... or that it was popularized by the play and came into common usage as a result. It certainly is not 207 words.
So without him providing specifics, this is all, once again, just unsubstantiated assertions that somewhere in these works we can find stuff from the New Testament. I might as well say that Tony Bushby's essay is just taken from an episode of Gunsmoke. Hey, it's just as substantiated as his claims!
After that he gives claims about Jesus Christ being a copy of Mithra and other pagan deities:
Tischendorf's conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux's Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.
Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism—a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.
NO CITATION. As is typical for people who make these sorts of assertions, he cites no actual sources for any of this. Anyway, this nonsense is debunked here and I have already discussed the false Easter/Ishtar connection in a previous post.
If you are looking at a text version of Bushby's work (which is how it is usually posted) it will not include images, but in the original publication Bushby throws in an image of Pope Pius II "wearing a papal version of the Mithraic cap." I may as well respond to that part. As far as I can tell the supposed "Mithraic cap" is just a Phrygian cap (one may see some visual examples of it here--yes, I know it's Wikipedia but it does give a useful overview and some pictures). As you can see, it looks quite different from the pope's hat that Bushby shows.
Christianity is an adaptation of Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees, some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis), Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism.
NO CITATION. No source is given for this--perhaps this is supposed to be a summary of what he wrote before, but as we have seen he has not actually proven any of this. Also, he gives no proof whatsoever for the claim Revelation was originally "The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis", a work that does not seem to be real.
It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.
NO CITATION. What! What about all of Gospel manuscripts? Or the writings of the church fathers? Or the references of non-Christians? (see some here).
Certainly, the objection that if the "spectacular" events of Jesus's life happened we should see more documentation of it from contemporary sources is something you will often see skeptics claim. I think there are problems with that argument (see here and here for some examples), but it at least makes some sense. But they rarely will claim that there was no reference all the way into the fourth century, as Bushby does here, because it's such an insane claim.
After this, Bushby goes back to providing sources... but once again, misquotes or misrepresents everything.
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)
UNCLEAR CITATION. No page number is cited, so I had to try to do a computerized search on archive.org. I chose multiple editions but could find this in none of them.
This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)
MISREPRESENTED CITATION (probably). I add "probably" because he doesn't say where in the 80+ page document this is. I found something similar which may be what is being referred to, though:
"We must also frankly admit that we have no other source of information with respect to the life of Jesus than the sacred writings."
(this is found on page 34 of the Eighth Edition in English, near the start of the "Ecclesiastical Testimony" chapter)
The actual source says "than the sacred writings" (referring to the Gospels) whereas Bushby's supposed quote writes "ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century." If this is the quote being referred to, which seems quite probable, then Bushby has altered it to try to make his point better. Another problem with Bushby's quote is that Tischendorf then goes on to argue why the Gospels can be considered reliable, and Bushby does not interact with Tischendorf's arguments at all.
There is something odd, however. This is cited as "Codex Sinaiticus" as the title, and I did find something with that name (full title was "Codex sinaiticus, the ancient Biblical manuscript now in the British museum"). However, this seems to have been identical to the earlier "When were our gospels written?" document. Perhaps it simply had its title changed and they are the same document. Either way, Bushby is as usual not reliable in this quotation.
There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence: the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit.).
UNCLEAR CITATION (probably false). We have already noted the issues with the letters of Bembo and how it is not really possible to look up to verify this. However, the original source for this quote of Leo X calling Jesus a fable appears to actually be a satirical work about popes; see here for information on that.
At the end of the article there is a note of other things that Bushby has written. Given the absurdities we have seen above, there is probably little point in saying anything about them; however, I will note that the magazine that published the essay under examination also published another essay by Tony Bushby entitled "The Criminal History of the Papacy" that some have passed around. Sufficient to demonstrate that that essay is about as worthless as the above is the fact that there, too, he cites the "Pecci ed." of the Catholic Encyclopedia, complete with quotes not found in the actual Catholic Encyclopedia. Also again, he offers quotes from "Secrets of the Christian Fathers" by "Bishop" Sergerus. As demonstrated earlier in this blog post, both of these are works he appears to have made up entirely. It adds new errors as well, such as offering a quote from the 1877 work "The Cradle of Christ", a work Bushby claims was written by the Catholic Bishop Frotheringham. The work's title is actually "The Cradle of the Christ" and more importantly, it is actually written by Unitarian clergyman Octavius Frothingham. Bushby further gives no page number for the quote, but based on searching an online version of the work, it does not even include the quote Bushby offers. We see the exact same kinds of problems that we saw in The Forged Origins of the New Testament.
And that is the end of it. Let us move onto our conclusion.
CONCLUSION
-Bushby repeatedly cites books that do not seem to exist at all, such as "Secrets of the Christian Fathers", supposedly by J.W. Sergerus. No real evidence can be found of this book's existence.
-Bushby cites as historical fact claims made in "God's Book of Eskra", a work written by a 19th century dentist who claimed God dictated it to him.
-Bushby will misrepresent quotes to ludicrous degrees, such as taking a quote about a collection of the writings of St. Ignatius and claiming it refers to the letters of St. Paul or claiming a comment about the "Acts of Pilate" was concerning the New Testament.
-Bushby repeatedly gives quotes that are straight-up false; they don't exist where he claims they do. For example, he gives supposed quotes from Origen's "Against Celsus" but the sections he points to don't have them at all.
-He makes claims that are provably false, like the declaration that Luke 9:51-18:14 is a 15th century insertion despite the fact that they appear, as far as I am aware, in every copy of Luke we have.
-He will make citations so vague it is impossible to verify them, such as offering supposed quotes from a 17-volume French work without saying where in that work it's from.
This is, as indicated in our recent blog post on Lloyd deMause, evidence of how a bunch of impressive-looking footnotes doesn't prove that much, and why it is a good idea to try to verify them if possible. But while there were deficiencies in deMause's footnotes, they are nothing compared to that of Bushby.
There is one last question, however, that I have puzzled over. Was Bushby being intentionally dishonest with this? Certainly, if he was the originator of these quotes, he was being quite dishonest, given that he made up works and misrepresented so many things. But there are people who will see a quote and share it without looking it up themselves due to assuming it was correctly cited. It could be that Bushby simply saw all these various quotes somewhere else and made use of them, not bothering to confirm them or see if they were reliable sources.
On the other hand, all of the other times I've seen these sources be cited seem to have come after Bushby, meaning they're just following his lead. Perhaps he simply copied them off of offline sources. But honestly, there's so many of these misrepresented or just plain false citations that it's difficult to believe Bushby was just copying from others. And even if he was, he takes considerable blame for not verifying these citations. So whether or not he was intentionally dishonest or not is really just a matter of curiosity. In truth, I would not be surprised if he was just trolling people with his writings, to see how much absurdity he could pack into it and still be taken seriously. Whatever the reason, he has thoroughly disgraced himself with these inexcusable errors.
As our examination has shown, Bushby should not be taken seriously. The magazine that published this should not be taken seriously either. And anyone who tries to point to this essay as proof of anything, or uses its erroneous claims, should not be taken seriously.
Bushby has had several other writings. I do not plan to be doing an examination of them. Quite frankly, if this blog post is insufficient to prove to you that Bushby is without credibility, examining more of his works is unlikely to do any more; however, what I have seen of those other works indicates he is about as bad in those as he is in this. I will note, however, that there is a critique of "The Bible Fraud" (probably his best-known writing) available here for anyone who is interested.
Not everyone has the time or effort to look through things as much as I did, so hopefully this examination will be of use to someone who happened to read Bushby's essay (or someone else using claims from it) and stumbled across this while searching for information on it. Hopefully this has been of use to you!
No comments:
Post a Comment