FOURTH GOSPEL DENIES JOHN’S
AUTHORSHIP!
THE AUTHOR OF JOHN IN TRADITION
Introduction
Christians believe that Jesus Christ left his message in the care of the twelve apostles. If the four gospels of the New Testament which are the only accounts we have of the alleged life of Jesus are anonymous or cannot be linked firmly to the apostles they cannot be depended on as the word of God. The Church only accepted the gospels as authoritative on the basis that they were thought to be written or commissioned and sanctioned by the apostles. This basis was extremely weak. To listen to the gospels is not to listen to Christ. Scholarship broadly agrees that none of the gospellers wrote from Judea or Galilee or wrote for people in those regions (page 120, Everything You Know About God is Wrong, The Disinformation Guide to Religion, Edited by Russ Kick, The Disinformation Company, New York, 2007). That should disturb people most. The Church seems to want to keep the focus away from this and on the authorship to block the insight that if these books were really God's word God would have made sure they were written among people who witnessed the events and for these people.
There are a number of Bible books that are forgeries. Some people wrote letters as if they were written by Paul or Peter for example. The gospel of John is another. Christians say this is not forgery or deceit for they only wrote what these people would have written anyway. But can a person really write for somebody else? No. Also the ancient world was in unison that this practice was forgery and deceit so see page 172 of Why I Became an Atheist (John Loftus, Prometheus Books, New York, 2008). It is suggested that these writers thought the spirit of Paul or Peter or John was in them inspiring them so they were honest. But the Bible condemns such spiritualism for only God inspires. Also, there is no evidence that they thought that way. Also, the authors had a Jewish background and would have been repulsed at such necromancy. The Jewish religion was sternly opposed to communication with the dead. Passing off a writing as somebody else's work is more likely to be forgery than anything else. The odds are stacked against it being merely pseudonymous as the Christians prefer to call it.
Mark’s Gospel is the simplest and the least elaborate of the gospels
which gives it a deceptive aura of authenticity.
But as Luke said, there were a
lot of gospels. He did not like or trust
them which was why he wrote his own and stealing info from them to do it. So Luke who knew of Mark was not impressed by
that gospel or by whoever wrote it.
Mark must have been sheltered
from the world when it claimed to be the first gospel for it calls itself the
beginning of the gospel. It is the
oldest gospel we have but not necessarily the oldest gospel there is.
Nobody believed that Mark
wrote the gospel maybe until Papias seemingly said it between 120-138 AD. Papias was all Eusebius, who gave us the only history we
have of the Church up to the 300s, had to go on in the early fourth century. Even then the gospel of Mark could be a
revision of the memoirs of the Lord’s sayings which was what Papias was on about.
Papias said that Mark was Peter’s companion (Mark
is thought to be mentioned in 1 Peter) and researched for his book through
Peter (The History of the Church, 2:15; 39:15). The Mark meant may have been John Mark who is
in Acts (
Even Papias never said that Mark wrote our present gospel. He only said that Mark took notes that were not put into order. So whatever Mark wrote was a mess. The current gospel called Mark is very orderly. The gospel could have been revised and altered by anybody. Moreover, it would have been. Ascribing the gospel then to Mark is just a waste of time when any old crank could have been rewriting it after the time of Papias. Papias gives no indication that the messy notes were anything like the gospel of Mark.
Papias would not record that Mark left a messy book if the edited version, the version we have, existed in his time without mentioning the completed version for that was the important one.
Papias said that
reading things out of books is not as helpful as listening to what Peter and
John and the apostles said and hearing it from people who would tell you (The
History of the Church, 39:2). For
some reason he did not trust the books that were available and these books
might include the four gospels or some of them.
He knew they were lies. Papias knew that things are better written down. He was not that stupid and Eusebius wants to
use him while calling him stupid which indicates that he was more confident in
him than one would be led to believe or that he just did not like the things
the man wrote that were unfavourable to the theological climate of Eusebius’
day and that was why he called him stupid.
Papias significantly gives us no indication
that the writings had scriptural authority.
In fact he indicates the opposite.
If Mark had written the gospel
he would have said who he was especially if he was close to Peter so that we
could be confident that the gospel was agreeable with apostolic doctrine. It would have been better if one of the
witnesses had written the first ever gospel rather than one who never
experienced what they experienced.
Gospel writing was not Mark’s job.
It is like getting a bishop to tell the world what to believe when that
is the pope’s job. Whoever the author
was I would not trust him.
He wrote too little for
somebody that knew the apostles and worked with Peter. He did not record Jesus’ clever insights but
just concentrated on stupid parables that often repeated the same moral. It looks like the effort of somebody who was
making it all up. Papias
might explain that Mark only wrote as he heard Peter preach the Jesus
story. But if Mark was so anxious about
Peter’s memories then why did he not get more stories out of him? He would have.
The real Mark would have
remembered to put in the Lord’s prayer and the “Do this in remembrance of me”
after the last supper and he would not have written about John the Baptist
being Elijah in such a way that one would think that Elijah who had ascended
into Heaven had come back or had been reincarnated.
Mark was not an associate of
Peter’s because his Jesus operates only in Galilee and goes to Judea once and
that is to die (page 141, The Jesus Mysteries) which would suggest that
if Mark was using an eyewitness he could only get one person – which is not
good news for believers in the gospel Jesus being historical - and that person
who had rarely been out of Galilee.
Peter resided in
It is stupid to argue that
Mark really wrote the gospel and revealed his authorship for he was too
unimportant for people to attribute it to him otherwise. People forged stuff for Barnabas who was just
as unimportant. If Mark knew the
apostles as Acts says then he was a possible candidate for forgery. And the story of Mark’s connection to Peter
meant that it didn’t matter who was pushing the pen as long as the data was
Peter’s. If the author heard of people
who knew or believed that the apostles never wrote their gospel down he would
have had to use Mark’s name for protection.
Mark gives lots of clues, one
of which is its whitewashing the Romans, that it was
written in
The Peter connection is a lie
for Peter was never in
Mark was a Jew from
The Jesus Papyrus says that if the
consensus that Mark was composed in 70 AD and the rest after that is right the
tags on the gospels would have identified the authors and it is hard to believe
that these tags would have been lies for there were people who knew the truth
(page 55). This argument is pure
speculation for how do the authors know that the gospels were well-enough known
in
Some of the following
information has been acquired from the entry, Mark, Gospel of, in the Biblical
Dictionary and Concordance of the NAB – New American Bible, Catholic
Edition.
People who knew John Mark
would have known that he could and would have written in better Greek and had
people to help him if he was stuck. He
could not even get the past, present and future tenses right. He ran about with Paul on his missionary
journeys so his Greek must have been good (Acts 12). He just wrote the gospel and forgot about it
and trusted nobody to read it or correct it which is a sure indication of a
guilty conscience and that it was issued in a place where there were hardly any
Christians. The author was no a
missionary like Mark for he didn’t know how to get the gospel to a place where
it could be fixed and take off better.
It was written for non-Jews because it explains Jewish terms and
translated Aramaic words into Greek. If
this gospel was thought to have been Mark’s work it would have been taken to
him for correction and for the missing portion unless he was dead but Peter was
allegedly killed in 67-8 AD and Mark was head of the Christians in Alexandria
after that. Mark could have died in 70
AD suggesting the gospel was written after that.
Only a forger would make a
gospel and want nothing more to do with it.
Mark’s gospel should be treated as an anonymous letter should be –
ignored.
This is the gospel that makes
the least claim to having eyewitness verification (page 34, Jesus, the
Evidence) which is very very important because it
was such an important detail that it was unlikely to have been left out by
mistake – it was left out because no witnesses were involved. The author never says he can be checked out
so it is written in a climate that made this possible when there was nobody to
interview to back up his story or one in which nobody was disputing the Jesus
story for it had not been made up yet.
It is the rock the other two gospels are built on so if Mark falls the
other two gospels fall as well. It
stands as evidence that there is no evidence but only gossip. Luke said that he used eyewitnesses and yet
he used this gospel proving he was not telling the truth. Perhaps his gospel largely arises from this
misunderstanding that Mark was eyewitness testimony.
The apostle Matthew did not write the gospel that bears his name.
The oldest testimony that supposedly claims he did write it comes from
Eusebius (Bible Dictionary, page 140) who quoted Papias. But Eusebius stated that Papias
was stupid. This proves that Papias was the only person saying it for if he were not
Eusebius would have referred to somebody he could trust. Papias meant a book
called the Sayings of the Lord which could not have been our present
Gospel of Matthew but would have been the words of Jesus minus the deeds. You would not call a book like Matthew the Sayings
of the Lord when it was stories about Jesus. Catholics were so alarmed at this that they
tried to “explain” that Papias called the Matthew gospel
Sayings of the Lord for he was
writing a commentary on the words of the Lord and was only interested in the
sayings recorded in the gospel. So to
please the Catholics and Christians we are to think that he just called it that
for it was only the writings he cared about.
But the sayings of Jesus often mean nothing or anything when taken out
of their context. Therefore, Papias was not focusing on the sayings only if he had the
full gospel. Some sayings out of it were
all he had and could have had. This is
what he proclaimed to be from Matthew.
It was not our gospel and the gospel was not well-known then.
Tradition says that the gospel meant by Papias was the first one. Until recently, most orthodox Christians held that Matthew was written before the other three which are Mark and Luke and John. Whatever Papias had was not Matthew’s work. The real Matthew would not have said that it was the first but a forger would. The tradition that Matthew was the first has been definitively refuted so what else was Papias wrong about? If Matthew had written the gospel, he would have been remembered a bit better.
Papias declared that the work he attributed to Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek. It is known that this is false for the text gives no hint of being a translation into Greek from Aramaic. Commonsense says the Gospel was written in Greek and then translated into the less common tongue of Aramaic.
If a book emerged from a place
where an apostle was known to be active and looked divinely inspired it would
only have been natural for Christians to suppose that the apostle wrote
it. But objective people need better
grounds than that.
The gospeller wrote as if he was not there
when any of the events he records happened.
A man who wanted to bring people to the faith would say if he were there
for he would want his gospel to be his testimony. He would have written that we were leaving
not that they were leaving meaning the apostles at Matthew 9:32. He is saying that he was not an apostle and
that is stronger evidence than any tradition that says that he was the apostle
Matthew. So, it should be ignored.
If Matthew wrote it one would
expect to read mostly things that are different from the other gospels. But he used Mark. At times he even tried to correct Mark. Mark said that God hardens the heart but
Matthew changed this to say people harden their own. This shows that he either denied that Peter
supervised Mark or that Peter was an authority implying that he was not an
apostle himself.
Matthew was a tax collector –
a legalised and professional liar and thief (Matthew 9:9-13). If he wrote the gospel would he have revealed
that and given no evidence of a change of heart? A liar and a thief cannot make a witness for
God. He writes as if Matthew were a
different person. He had no need to hide
his identity if he was a preacher of the word.
He wrote like a novelist and made no effort to prove that his version
was the truth. The Christians say he had
no need to for the audience who would have heard the gospel read out to them
would have recognised it as the truth but that is speculation – nobody knows
who or if anybody heard the gospel before the time a pack of lies about Jesus
would have got easy acceptance. He would
not downgrade his own experience of the resurrection by concentrating on other
people’s visions and the collective ones.
He does not tell us what his experience taught him or what it was
like. Strange witness!
In the parables, the author
goes into detail about sums of money like somebody that had a lot of dealings
with money might do through habit (The Unauthorized Version, page
128). Is this an indication that Matthew
or Levi the tax collector wrote the book?
It could easily indicate that Zacchaeus or a
banker or the fisherman’s treasurer wrote the book. Most importantly the author is saying that
Jesus not him was the one who was pedantic about sums
of money.
Matthew like Mark and John
would have been dead by the time the gospels were written. The way the supernatural is used to
rationalise any incoherence in the scriptures by Christians will make us
surprised if some of them don’t start claiming that they were raised from the
dead to write the gospels!
Now to the internal evidence that the John
Gospel was not written by the apostle John.
The disciple Jesus loved is
mentioned a few times in this gospel. He
is given no name. The author says that
he is the disciple Jesus loved. He never
names himself.
The apostle John would not
have called himself the disciple Jesus loved for that implies that he was a
favourite and the gospel stresses humility.
Why has John not much in
common with the other three gospels?
Some say that he did not know
these gospels. Others say that he did
know them and that was why he had to be as different as possible from them
which is very unlikely for he never said they should be looked at though he
expressed a wish to write more about Jesus than he did so that people would
know more about him but he had to consider space.
John records the baptism of
Jesus and the cleansing of the Temple and a story of a miraculous catch of fish
(21) that is similar to Luke’s (5) and the multiplication of food and walking
on water all of which are in the other gospels.
If he took them from a gospel of some sort – not necessarily from the ones
we have now - then he was not an eyewitness.
It is too much of a coincidence for them not to have come from the
gospels.
The gospel ends with the
author asserting that he knows that what he says is true and is writing to bear
witness to Jesus Christ. Then why did he
mention that Jesus did many things he did not write about and omit to direct
people to the other gospels where they could get filled in on the rest? He did not know of any other gospels.
He said that the disciples
forgot that Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed and he would raise it up
in three days until Jesus rose (John 2:20) and then he says that Peter and the
beloved disciple believed Jesus was missing from the tomb because they didn’t
understand the scripture saying he would rise.
That is not believable and shows that the author was not a disciple.
John uses a fisherman’s word, opsarion, for the pickled fish Jesus multiplied (Jesus,
page 49) suggesting that he was John the fisherman. But the author knew
John 18 is supposed to say
that the High Priest knew the beloved disciple.
But it only says a disciple and there is no evidence that this was the
beloved disciple. Would the high priest
know a Galilean fisherman?
John 5:31-35, has Jesus saying
that witnessing to himself is useless but John the Baptist witnessed to him
being the revelation and Son of God so John helps make Jesus’ claims plausible. Jesus cites this testimony of John’s so that
we will be saved he says. And then he
says it is not because he accepts human testimony. But the John Gospel is human testimony. It never claims to be divinely inspired
though it does claim to report about a divinely inspired man which is a totally
different thing. (Even if it did claim
to be inspired that would prove nothing for you only have a man’s word for it
that God inspired him. Many think they
were inspired and were wrong.) This
tells us that an apostle did not write the gospel. The author was writing in what he saw as
disobedience to Christ but he did not care.
He let it slip that he was opposed to the historical Jesus or at least
the one the Church said it believed in and wanted the mythical one to take his
place. It is difficult to see why an
apostle would want to do that so he was a hoaxer.
Jesus even says that the
Baptist should be believed not because human testimony is any good but because
Jesus himself knows the Baptist is right.
The gospel recognises that Jesus’ word alone is not enough (John
The Jesus of the gospel made
the mistake of saying that anybody who hears his word will know it is of God
and that is why those who do not believe cannot be saved (John 8:47; 18:37). (The gospeller spouted the same drivel in 1
John 4:6 where he claimed that if anybody will not give Christians a hearing
then that person has no inspiration from God in them and won’t allow it
in.) But philosophically speaking, there
are literally millions of objections to Jesus’ teaching. Nobody can be blamed for rejecting it. The gospel is simply aware of the weakness of
the case for Jesus and resorts to blackmail and the silly theory that God will
show the prospective convert that the gospel is true by some kind of psychic
revelation. The God of Deuteronomy 18
says you have to use your head and test the prophets and make sure every word
is what God would say and that every prophecy has come to pass and not just
depend on an inner light telling you that what you hear is true. Every kind of religionist thinks he hears
that light but every religion contradicts the next. What we glean from this is that the gospel
was not produced by a Jew or former Jew at all.
John would not have said the things the gospel says for they are too
heretical and fanciful and superstitious by Jewish standards. They are too subjective.
John just says that the
beloved disciple saw the empty tomb and never says he saw a risen Jesus. It is interesting how he says that Peter and
the beloved saw the tomb but does not say that the disciples including the
beloved saw the apparitions. He refers
to the disciples as them as if he was not one of them (John
His Jesus trusted nobody not
even believers (John
John would have been a Jew and
well drilled in the Law so he would not have written that Jesus said that the
Jews were evil because they did not believe Moses (John
The Law of Moses required two
witnesses for or against a man and yet Jesus said that he was a witness for
himself and his Father another and that was in obedience to the Law (John
The gospel mentions a disciple
who Jesus loved who was next to him at the last supper and who was told to look
after Mary by Jesus crucified and who saw the blood come out when Jesus’ side
was pierced. Finally, the author says
that he is that same disciple (John
If John wrote John it would
say more about Jesus’ activities in
Ian Wilson observed that the
gospel is geographically accurate regarding the layout of the land before the
destruction of 70 AD (Jesus, The Evidence, page
40). But that would only prove that the
author could have been using a book about the land to construct the gospel
story around. It does not prove that he
was ever in the
The Holy Blood and the Holy
Grail argues that Lazarus of Bethany wrote the fourth gospel because the
gospel stresses how much Jesus loved him and because he disappears from the
story by name after Jesus raised him and because the beloved disciple took Mary
into his home to look after her and Lazarus had a house.
These feeble reasons are
terrible.
First, we are told that Jesus
loved Lazarus a lot but not that he was the disciple Jesus loved. If the disciple was the one raised then why
didn’t he substitute the title the beloved disciple for Lazarus?
The gospel is short and there
would have been no time to write about all the exploits of Lazarus. He was not the only one to disappear and he
did not appear until the middle of the story so why assume there has to be
another reason for his disappearance? If
the small amount of attention indicates the author then John the Apostle would
be a better candidate for the author because he is never mentioned at all. John could have had a house that he never
used in order to travel with Jesus.
Perhaps he rented it at the time Jesus was arrested.
The gospel has two ends
(20:30-31 and 21:24-25) suggesting that no apostle wrote it for somebody
tampered with the book to make a second end and nobody would tamper with a
prophet’s writings to put in final summing up testimonies to the gospel’s
veracity and especially ones that are uncontroversial. Whoever fabricated knew the author was not an
apostle. The forged ending says that the
disciple Jesus loved wrote the gospel.
Christians say that this does not mean it was he who was holding the
pen. But we have to take it literally
here for we have no reason to take it otherwise. You might say that if Pilate said he wrote
the sign over Jesus on the cross that he did not write it personally but commanded
it that is fine for the context allows you to think that Pilate would not go to
that trouble. But
there is no hint here of non-literalism.
John is unquestionably a forgery.
A childish argument that John
wrote the gospel is based on its final chapter where Jesus tells Peter that
what John will do if John is to live forever on earth has nothing to do with
him and the gospel complains that this led to the incorrect idea that John
would never die indicating that John was correcting this misconception. But anybody could correct it. Perhaps John died and the gospel had to
account for that by saying Jesus was misunderstood. Moreover, the real John would have explained
why he let Peter broadcast the error for so long. The real John would have explained why his
all-knowing Jesus did not realise Peter was misinterpreting. The real John would have known that an
anonymous writer could not say Peter misunderstood for anonymous claims are
useless. When a major gospel that says
that Jesus said the spirit of truth would dwell with the apostles and remind
them off all he said meaning help them to interpret as well and then says that
an apostle misled the people then this smacks of serious dishonesty. The apostles were not reliable and this
gospel even says that Peter loved Jesus the best and bragged that he did to
Jesus who approved which does not say much for the rest and stands as proof
that the gospel did not originate with any apostle but with a clumsy
forger. And the gospeller saying he is a
witness to Jesus and he knows his witness is true is as good an admission of
lying as you will ever come across for he is saying, “Take my word for it”,
which is always what liars do. He knows
of no other gospels or living apostles or evidence so that is all he can
say. He is telling us it is enough for
him to know he is telling the truth but it is not for we don’t know. We are not him! His last few words that Jesus did so many
things that the world probably could not hold the books if they were written
down is craziness. Jesus could not have
done that much in the space of three years.
The gospeller then has to be inferring that Jesus was doing strange
things all his life. That would make
more sense. The fact that we have only
heard about a few of them proves that there was no Jesus and that the gospeller
was making his stuff up and was lying about all the existence of all these
stories.
Traditions going back only to the time of Irenaeus
say that John the Apostle produced the anonymous gospel that now bears his name
(Biblical Dictionary and Concordance, John, Gospel of), Irenaeus said that he got this information from Polycarp who was allegedly a disciple of John. Irenaeus stated
that John wrote it in
In the first half of the
second century, the bishop Papias, wrote that if he wanted to know what Jesus’ apostles, and
he names John, taught he had to ask some presbyters to find out! Read Eusebius’ History of the Church (
Papias
said that John and James, his brother, were assassinated by Jews. We have to go to the writings of Philip of
Side in the 400s for that quote (page 220, Putting Away Childish Things). This could only have taken place before the
Jews were crushed in 70 AD for after that they were in enough trouble of their
own to worry about hurting Christians.
The Syrian list of Martyrs of 411 AD tells us that it had been believed
for ages that the apostles John and his brother James had been martyred (page
221, Putting Away Childish Things).
The first person to claim that the fourth
gospel was the apostle John’s work was Theophilus who was bishop of
Many Gnostics admitted they
believed they could make up whatever religious doctrines they liked as long as
they believed the basics of Gnosticism.
Religious fantasy was even surmised to be a sign of having attained
gnosis or mystical anti-rational knowledge.
It was not written by John the Apostle and the way it was accepted
reluctantly and so slowly (page 128, The Canon of Scripture) among true
Christians shows that. Also, the
Gnostics fell madly and deeply in love with the gospel and they liked to keep
their teachings secret so John was kept secret.
It was not written by an apostle for apostles would not pass on a book
to be kept by heretics.
A prologue to the gospel of
John dating from the second century appears to claim that John dictated the
gospel to another John (page 43, Why Believe?). Heaven only knows what the other character
did with what he heard or if the first John even seen the final edition.
Conclusion
The Church depends on late ascriptions and unreliable traditions
to be able to hold that the gospels can be linked with the apostles and be
considered reliable vehicles of the message they had to transmit to people from
Jesus.
WRITINGS CONSULTED
Bible Dictionary
and Concordance, New American Bible, 1970
Early Christian
Writings, Translated by Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin,
Everything You Know About God is Wrong, The Disinformation Guide to Religion, Edited by Russ Kick, The Disinformation Company, New York, 2007
Evidence that
Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha,
Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Evil and the God
of Love, John Hick, Fontana/Fount,
Handbook to the
Controversy with
He Walked Among
Us, Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson,
Jesus – One
Hundred Years Before Christ, Professor Alvar Ellegard, Century,
Jesus and the Four
Gospels, John Drane, Lion, Herts,
1984
Jesus the
Evidence, Ian Wilson, Pan,
JR Harmer, The
Apostolic Fathers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1988 (from 1891
Edition published by Macmillan and Co. London)
New Age Bible
Versions, GA Riplinger,
Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation,
On the True
Doctrine, Celsus, Translated by R Joseph Hoffmann,
The Apostolic
Fathers, B Lightfoot and JR Harmer, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House,
1988, from 1891 Edition published by Macmillan and Co. London
The Bible Fact or
Fantasy, John Drane, Lion,
The Canon of
Scripture, FF Bruce, Chapter House,
The Early Church,
Henry Chadwick Pelican,
The Encyclopaedia
of Unbelief, Volume 1, Gordon Stein, Editor, Prometheus Books,
The First
Christian, Karen Armstrong, Pan Books,
The Gnostic
Gospels, Elaine Pagels, Penguin,
The History of
Christianity, Lions, Herts, 1982
The History of the
Church, Eusebius, Penguin,
The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and
Henry Lincoln, Corgi,
The Jesus Event,
Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba
House,
The Jesus
Mysteries, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Thorsons,
The Jesus Papyrus,
Carsten Peter Thiede and
Matthew D’Ancona,
The Lion Concise
Book of Christian Thought,
The Nag Hammadi Library, Edited by J A Robinson, HarperCollins,
The Newly
Recovered Gospel of St Peter, J Rendle Harris, Hodder and
The Original
Jesus, Tom Wright, Lion,
The Reconstruction
of Belief, Charles Gore DD, John Murray,
The Secret Gospel,
Morton Smith, Aquarian, Harper & Row,
The Strange Case
of the Secret Gospel According to Mark by Shawn Eyer
The Unauthorised
Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
THE WWW
WERE THE APOSTOLIC
FATHERS UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AUTHENTIC AND UNAUTHENTIC BOOKS? GLENN
MILLER
www.christian-thinktank.com/dumdad2.html
THE GOSPEL OF MARCION AND THE GOSPEL OF LUKE COMPARED, CHARLES B WAITE
www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
THE STRANGE CASE
OF THE SECRET GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, SHAWN EYER
www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html
The “Historical”
Jesus by Acharya S
www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm