The Greatest Story NEVER Told: The Truth About the “Jesus” Myth and the Historical Figures Behind It

בשם יהוה אל עולם

In the Name of the LORD, God of the World…

Sefer Ha’Berashit (Genesis) 21:33

Dedicated to my love and my wife Trisha Naziri (1996-2022)

Rest in Power and Return to us soon, im yirtzeh Ha’Shem

“The Kingdom of the Father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stabbed it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could physically carry through with the deed. Then he killed the powerful man…” – The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 98

In this work Dr. Micah Ben David Naziri presents indisputable proof that there is no single “Historical Jesus.” Instead, there is the “historical creation of the character of Jesus.” This character is based upon quasi-historical events that the original author and creator of this “Gospel” myth, wished to embed and encapsulate within the story he had to tell. These events emanated not only from the author’s own life, but from that of his revolutionary forerunner (and possibly elder brother) Shim`on ben Yosef, as well as – eventually – from his own son, Menachem ben Yehudah. In short, this work proves the identity of the historical figure(s) behind the “Jesus” myth. Full stop. The evidence laid out herein demonstrates who composed the original “Gospel” myth, what historical events, and figures inspired them in doing so, why they did this – what they sought to accomplish by doing this – and how “fan fiction” of what would become this “cult classic,” of sorts, came to supplant the original tale and its intentional symbolism and allegory.

The primary scholarly argument for the historicity of “Jesus” remains that no Jewish community would claim that their rabbi was the Messiah, and then willingly claim that he was crucified,[1] unless such a claim was so widely-attested,[2] that it could not be disowned and instead had to be explained. This makes a lot of sense, but unfortunately it assumes a lot. First of all, it assumes exactly what it says, that no Jewish community in the First century would have accepted someone as Messiah if they were crucified. But this requires us to ignore the Talmudic and Essenic views of the “dual Messiahs” of Ben Yosef and Ben David, which were very much discussed in First century Judea. It also requires us to ignore the fact that the Chazon Gavriel tablet, discovered in the year 2000, evidences that a Messiah “Ben Yosef” had in fact come and been killed in approximately 4 B.C.E. (apparently Shim`on Ben Yosef), following the death of Herod. Whatever may or may not have happened with a “Jesus Movement” later, we can be sure that they knew about this death by decapitation, and the fact that the Essenic “Chazon” still seemed to view this man as a Messiah figure who would “in three days, rise” – apparently, in spirit.[3]

The argument advanced herein is that in three days he did rise, in the movement of one Judah the Galilean, the co-founder of the Zealot Movement, who I identify as one and the same as “Judas Thomas” the “twin” of “Jesus” in the Gospel narrative. That Gospel narrative was originated and intended as a revolutionary oral myth, created by this revolutionary figure, and spread by his companions, which took on a life of its own once it was appropriated by Gentiles – including Paul, who I believe this community saw as the “Antichrist” (1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:2–3; 2 John 1:7) the “False Prophet” (Revelation 13:11–18) also, “Balaam son of Beor” (Revelation 2:14) and “the Beast who came up out of the Earth” (Revelation 13:11–18; 19:20; 20:10), as well as other similar, less-than-flattering designations.

This work contends further that Judah the Galilean worked within the context of both Phariseeism and Essenism (along with his group’s co-founder, “Zadok the Pharisee”), and the Essenic offshoot of the North African “Therapeutae” sect, which modern scholarship has associated with at least a “Theraveda” Buddhist influence, from regional proselytism of the same. As such, apparently syncretic and pluralistic in his approach – with revolution, rather than Jewish orthodoxy as his primary goal – Judah the Galilean seems to have synthesized this Essenic idea of a “suffering servant” Messiah “son of Yosef” with the universal Buddhist idea the “Buddha nature” and “Buddha within” us all. For him, the “Good News” or “Proclamation” was that the Messiah had come “in the flesh” (a pun, as the term for “Gospel” or “Basar” – בשר – literally meant both things, as we will discuss in detail within Chapter 7), could not be killed because he was not limited to one singular individual, and could be embodied inter-generationally, or even by an entire movement.

This work is intended first and foremost for the average person. It is not intended for theologians and academics to bicker over, though given enough time and discussion, this will certainly happen. Until then, the purpose of this work is to reason with the reader. To do this, I not only thoroughly document every claim and argument advanced herein, but I interweave both personal and sociological anecdotes to illustrate the topics being discussed and to describe precedents for what I am contending happened two millennia ago in the Land of Judea and Israel. As such, much of this book maintains a fairly conversational tone.

This work demonstrates that the author combined historical incidences and individuals involved in messianic revolts from 4 B.C.E. until the eve of the Jewish Revolt of 66 C.E., in an ever-evolving narrative of an “Eternal Messiah” figure who first “resurrected” from the death of Shim`on son Yosef, in the personage and revolution of the “Gospel” originator, Judah the Galilean – Yehudah Ha’Galili – and finally in the crucifixion of his own sons Ya`qov and Shim`on, followed by the messianic leadership of yet another son, Menachem – the “Comforter” – who orchestrated the Jewish Revolt against Rome.

It demonstrates further that the “Gospel” was composed intentionally as a myth – teaching truths through story-telling – rather than as a history book. It furthermore demonstrates that this was the same conclusion arrived at by Muhammad (d. 632 CE) in Late Antiquity, who orated carefully-worded statements about, and attributions to, “`Isa,” so as to state the facts about this character and concept without outrightly contradicting the faith and presumptions of those who were not yet ready to discover the history behind the story. Establishing the Gospel story as intentionally myth, I will literarily analyze the work and the apparent intentions and elements composed by the originator of the story.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Here we see the Criterion of Embarrassment. The Historical-Critical criteria of determining probable historicity of any given historical source or claim will be discussed throughout this book and outlined in Chapter 2.

[2] The Criterion of Wide Attestation

[3] Don’t worry, these claims will all be summarized in the pages that follow, and cited with copious documentation, followed by in depth analysis in each of the chapters to come.

HOW TO GET AN ADVANCED COPY:

To obtain a preliminary draft of the chapters completed thus far, DONATE ANYTHING to:

CASHAPP: $MicahNaziri
VENMO: Micah-Naziri
PAYPAL: [email protected]