All four Gospels and Acts were written and/or redacted outside of Judea in Greek by Gentiles. They were written following the Roman conquest of Judea and exile of Jews.

The above statement flies in the face of Gentile Church Tradition but current discoveries in archeology as well as study in textual criticism reveal the truth of such a statement. Oh by the way, the Jewish scholars today also attest to the fact that the evangelists' Gentile orientation and misinformation about Judaism are evident throughout the New Testament; especially the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Their conclusion is simply; the authors' audacious accusations and unconcealed animosity for Jews are manifest and betray a non-Jewish hand in their writing. All of this is woven into the image and portrayal of these Gentile writers of the New Testament in their depiction of Jews in the New Testament. It is in investigating such conflicting portrayals of Jesus and the Jew as found in the New Testament that it is hoped that a clearer picture of Jesus and the events in his life will emerge so that the myths can be separated from the facts.

Tradition says that the Book of Mark, the earliest Gospel, was most likely written in Rome around some time after 70 C.E. during the Jewish War or after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Mark portrayed the Jews (under the name of Pharisees) as bitter foes of Jesus. The author wanted to distance the new faith (Christianity) from the defeated and disliked enemy (Jews). He was particularly keen to do so in the capital of the Empire which had just fought and defeated the Judeans. Mark saw that defeat as punishment for defying Rome (S.G.F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem, p. 204).

Tradition says that the Book of Matthew was composed long after 80 C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt or in Antioch, Syria. Both cities had a history of antagonism to Jews and Judea. Matthew tried to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and that they foretold the supersession of the Jews by the Gentiles. He displayed a tremendous amount of anti-Jewish sentiments in his acrimonious attacks on Jews and in the macabre imprecation he directed at them--an element which is found in no other Gospel. K. Stendahl in the introduction to the second edition of The School of St. Matthew, p. 128, stated that he was the Matthean Gospel as a "Hellenistic phenomenon" and as belonging to a predominantly Gentile community. Yet it carried a Hebrew name as it presumed author. He also included verses, which are contrary to the general message of the book, such as the inviolability of the Law and Jesus' mission being only to the Jews.

Tradition says that the Book of Luke was written long after 85 C.E. in Ephesus or Greece. The same author composed Acts, the earliest history of the Christian Church, which is considered a literary drama of the early Church. Luke had no sympathy for, and even less knowledge of, Jews or Judea. The Book of Luke incorporates much of the same material found in the Book of Matthew and both of them repeat much of the material in Mark's book. Luke's Gospel also shows lapses from the general tenor of the book. He notes that Pharisees warned Jesus of danger and that Jesus distributed swords to his followers.

Traditions says that the Book of John was composed or redacted by after 100 C.E. It may have been started in Judea and reached its later stages and final development in Ephesus, Asia Minor. The author lived at a time when Christianity had already made great inroads on his Gentile environment. He was so removed from the world in which Jesus had lived that he portrayed him as an outsider to Judaism and an enemy of the Jews whom he characterized as satanic. In this Gospel Jesus is presented as a deity.

What I find very disturbing is that will all the Christian writing going on since the early 90 A.D.s the FIRST QUOTE FROM A "NAMED APOSTLE AND HIS GOSPEL" appears ONLY after 180 A.D. which indicates that these writings were NON-APOSTOLIC and the work of Gentile redactors in the names of the apostles...this explains their anti-Jewish content and doctrinal differences


Some scholars insist that Mark and Matthew were Jews despite their palpable antisemitism and the abysmal ignorance of basic Jewish laws and customs which they showed in their writings. But again this is nothing more than the influence of the Roman Catholic Gentile Church traditions speaking. Virtually all scholars agree that Luke was a Gentile. "There is a growing consensus that all three Synoptic Gospels are not only addressed to Gentile Christians but were also written by Gentiles (L. Gaston, Paul and the Torah, p. 108). Opinion is divided about John's religious origins. Some authorities recognize John as having been a Gnostic Gentile before converting to Christianity while others maintain that he was born a Jew. If you ever study Gnosticism and the Gnostic savior you will see the Gnostic influence within the Gospel of John and it's anti-Jewish Messiah for whom he really is. Although the writer of John had more knowledge of Jewish law than any of the Synoptic writers, it was still quite limited and superficial.


A few examples of the evangelists' presentation of Jewish history and teachings provide grounds to doubt that any of them were originally Jews.

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which comprise the Synoptics, record the "Lord's Supper" (Matthew and Mark) or the "Last Supper" (Luke) as having taken place at Passover. If such an event occurred at the time of the holiday, it would have been a highly ritualized meal called a seder or a communal sacrificial meal consumed in kinship groups and quite possibly Temple-centered. Baruch M. Bosker, in his "Was The Last Supper A Passover Seder" in Biblical Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, Summer, 1987, on pp. 24-33, maintains that the "seder" was not instituted until after 70 C.E. At the time of Jesus, the Passover meal followed the animal sacrifice. It was a family or kinship gathering which celebrated the Exodus. If the family were in Jerusalem on a pilgrimage or lived there, the sacrifice would have taken place at the Temple. Otherwise, the family slaughtered it's own lamb or bullock locally where they lived. The ensuing meal was a festive celebration. While Passover may have been observed differently in Temple days than today, there are certain similarities and continuities. It was a family celebration at which matza was eaten with the meat. In either case the festive meal was a celebration of the Exodus from Egypt and liberation from bondage. This historical event is the essence of the holiday. The Passover had particular relevance to Jews then living in Judea under Roman domination and fighting for their independence. This holiday brought out patriotic and nationalistic feelings and a heightened sensitivity to the issue of subjugation to the Romans. Yet no mention was made at the "Last Supper" of the main point of Passover, the commemoration of the struggle for freedom in the New Testament accounts which is strange if written by a Jew and not later by Gentiles who would obviously downplay such a desire for Jewish independence. No wonder we don't see it in the New Testament accounts of this last dinner of Jesus. These Gentile evangelists were not interested in the freedom of Judea. They weren't even interested in the emancipation of their own provinces from Roman rule. These non-Jewish writers betray their nationality by interpreting the holiday and meal to fit their message and by totally omitting any reference to parallels with the Exodus from Egypt and the anticipated deliverance from Rome. Such omission reveal writers with Rome's interests on their minds. Even worse John's version of the meal forms the background to the Christian liturgy and has no connection with Jewish practice whatsoever. Although John does not specifically call it a seder, he inferred it by speaking of preparations for the holiday. All the components of the seder were absent. The Gospels made no reference to the most traditional food associated with Passover and mandated in the Torah: matzot. John (6:4-9) spoke of preparations for the Passover in terms of buying bread, a food which is strictly forbidden during the festival. John even referred to five loaves of barley bread. The seder is a family celebration. Not only were no family members of any of the disciples present, but even the family at whose home they celebrated Passover did not join them. There were no women or children, a highly unlikely way for Jews to commemorate this important holiday in ancient or modern times.

Seeing the above omissions should make you wonder if a Jew wrote any of this let alone added the theological overtones to it which have more in common with Sun Worship than Judaism. The Gospels' treatment of Passover is analogous to a description of an Easter mass in which there is no mention of Jesus' death and resurrection. The evangelists were too far removed from Judaism to know the details of its celebrations or its way of life as practiced by Judaism. Their information was fragmentary and based on hearsay. Their account of the "Last Supper" sounded like a Hellenistic liturgical meal.

Answer for yourself: Besides the omission of traditional Jewish elements associated with this meal would Jesus, the would be Messiah, adopt pagan ideas at this traditional Jewish meal by saying as all the Sun-Gods and Sun-Godmen had said before him: "eat my body and drink my blood?"

That should rock you when the impact of what I just said hits you!

The authors of the Gospels exhibited their ignorance of Judaism in other ways as well. Their ideas about Sabbath laws and traditions also betrayed a lack of familiarity with the religion of Jesus. Jesus' faith healing involved no infringement of Sabbath restrictions. That's right; I said "none!" The writers of the Synoptic Gospels were aware that Saturday was a day of rest from routine work. What they did not know was that Jesus' miracle cures did not violate Sabbath laws as defined in the Mishna and observed by the Pharisees. Jesus' healing would not have aroused their opposition as depicted in the New Testament. Such opposition is a veiled attempt to artificially separate Jesus from Judaism and the Jewish leaders of the faith from Jesus in order to make it seem as if Jesus had license to replace his faith with an new religion of Rome's making and teaching! This is called "Replacement Religion" and such lies about Judaism are the very foundation of it!

Nor did the Gentile evangelists realize that Jesus' disciples were permitted to pick grain on the Sabbath if they were hungry. No Jew would have made this mistake; even a ten year old Jewish child knew this yet we are taught since childhood that these accounts in the New Testament are "inspired, infallible, and inerrant" when all they actually portray is Gentile hatred for the Jews and the Gentile's desire to institute a replacement religion which Rome would ultimately be successful in doing. These Jewish disciples of Jesus were not expected to suffer or starve, especially on that day although adequate preparations for the Sabbath, as indicated in the Torah, would have precluded their need to pick grains and have such a skimpy meal (Ex. 16:22-26).

Still another characteristic of the Gospel writers was their persistent misquotation and misapplication of Hebrew Scriptures. This fact is demonstrated beyond any doubt on many of our ministry's websites. This is hard stuff for a Christian to handle; when he sees the purposeful forgery of his Bible which he has been taught to love since childhood. Such glaring misstatements as claiming that the Torah mandated love of neighbor and hatred of ones's enemy is evidence of how far from Judaism Matthew--"the most Jewish" of the evangelists-was removed. On this website alone I deal with the multiple purposeful misapplication of Scripture by Paul along with his purposeful misquotation and mistranslation of the Hebrew Scriptures when passing them off to unsuspecting non-Jews who were never familiar with these Jewish Hebrew Scriptures in the first place.

Nothing has changed today either...as 2.5 Billion Christians don't know when reading their English Bibles which are the fraudulent passages and which are not

Another bit of evidence which militates against the belief that the Synopticists were Jews is "the fact that none (Mk. 12:30, Mt. 22:37, Lk. 10:27) can reproduce the Shema accurately." This is the most central and fundamental prayer in Judaism and is recited twice daily by observant Jews. The evangelists could not even quote the first two lines correctly. The Hebrew follows and then read how the New Testament writes, who are supposed to be Jews, misquote it!

Deut 6:4-5 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (KJV)

Mark 12:29-30 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (KJV)

Matt 22:37 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (KJV)

Luke 10:27 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. (KJV)

Contradictory statements regarding the Law which were ascribed to Jesus reflect, among other things, the confusion of the authors. They quoted him as insisting that nothing should be changed in the Torah and then they cited him as denying its laws relating to dietary restrictions, Sabbath observance, and divorce. The Gentile evangelists were echoing doctrines Paul had introduced some decades earlier which were at odds with the Judaism of Jesus. They had embraced Paul's teaching without knowing much of anything about Judaism. This is not news today either because 2.5 billion Christians follow Paul more than they follow Jesus and his teachings today. Paul has won due to Rome's clout over the ages and Jesus the Jew has lost!

The evangelists' confusion about Jewish law and tradition is only surpassed by their hostility to Jews. In many instances in life ignorance of a culture is accompanied by hostility to it. The evangelists, alas, were no exception. There is hardly a chapter that is free of gross insults and wild accusations.

The combination of ignorance and enmity toward Judaism make it hard to believe that any of the evangelists was of Jewish origin

Yet this view has persisted down through the centuries. The belief that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were Jews seems to validate Christianity for many Christians and add ammunition to their proselytizing arsenal.

While it is assumed that the author of each Gospel is responsible for the contents of his book, it should be borne in mind that these books have passed through the hands of many Gentile scribes over the centuries who may have made multiple changes or revisions. I challenge you to read good authors like B. Ehrman and The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture which documents such changes make by the monks as false Christology is added to the texts to "make Jesus into God." I challenge you to read this and deny such evidence exits. One only needs to read books by honest New Testament authorities that document such additions and deletions or to look at pictures of Greek New Testament manuscripts which have cursive writing besides the Greek which introduce foreign theological ideas which in later copies and revision get added to the texts and then the "Revelation of God" grows if you get my point! This is not Revelation but Gentile synthesis of Sun Worship with Judaism and out comes this Golden Calf called Gentile Christianity today which has replaced and almost destroyed the true religion and faith of Jesus...Biblical Judaism. These alterations run the gamut between purposeful introduction of Gentile Sun Worship, accidental errors in translation, personal prejudices, or religious and political pressures on the scribes to accommodate Roman theology and wishes. One only need to remember that Constantine after the Council of Nicea ordered the production of 50 Bible which he oversaw; himself a God-emperor where these false christological ideas were introduced among the manuscripts about Jesus the Jew. And all this was 60 or so years before the official canonization of the New Testament no less. It is, of course, impossible to pinpoint all that constitutes editorializing by the transcribers but we know a lot is through critical study and comparison with the Hebrew Scriptures and the religion of Jesus as it existed in the first century. Since the Gospels are accepted as they are now, however, it is necessary to discuss them in terms of their present contents regardless of authorship or glosses (false or misleading interpretations) because the vast majority of 2.5 Billion Christians in the world today accept the New Testament as if it fell from Heaven instead of belched up from the synthesis of Roman Sun Worship and a little Judaism.

Having opened your eyes to the inconsistencies with the authorship of much of the New Testament it is time in the forthcoming articles deal with the first five books of the Christian Scriptures and center on three diverse currents coursing through them: the Jewish, the non-Jewish, and the anti-Jewish depiction of Jesus. Shalom.