Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

If the Earliest Gospel wanted to talk about a Jesus crucified by an anonymous earthly Roman hegemon, if John the Baptist didn't even appear in the incipit, then I may consider this story as a mere, innocent allegory.

The problems enter when I see the arrogant claim of well two chronological markers:

• John the Baptist (assuming the authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus);

• the mention of Pilate.

It is evident that, by mentioning by name both the Baptizer and the Roman hegemon, the evangelist wanted to fix Jesus in the real History.

By doing so, the innocence of the original story, if it was there, is lost forever.

The Gospel becomes a Lie.