Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?

by Maurice Casey

Did Jesus exist? In recent years there has been a massive upsurge in public discussion of the view that Jesus did not exist. This view first found a voice in the 19th century, when Christian views were no longer taken for granted. Some way into the 20th century, this school of thought was largely thought to have been utterly refuted by the results of respectable critical scholarship (from both secular and religious scholars). Now, many unprofessional scholars and bloggers ('mythicists'), are gaining an increasingly large following for a view many think to be unsupportable. It is starting to influence the academy, more than that it is starting to influence the views of the public about a crucial historical figure. Maurice Casey, one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation takes the 'mythicists' to task in this landmark publication. Casey argues neither from a religious respective, nor from that of a committed atheist. Rather he seeks to provide a clear view of what can be said about Jesus, and of what can't.

Genres: History

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 16, 2014

Reviews

[Shane Hill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid expose of the mythicist crowd by a Non Christian.....

[Frans Pollux · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let op: wetenschappelijke uitgave, alleen interessant als je wel eens wat over dit thema leest. Geen 'instapper'

[Bassel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Let me begin by saying, I'm not a mythicist, but I also did something that casey clearly hasn't done which is that I actually read the peer reviewed mythicist literature Like richard carriers OHJ so I understand what it claims. First, casey starts by saying that mythicists want to date the gospels as late as possible, this is a lie. Carrier or lataster (the only 2 with peer reviewed books arguing against historicity) agree on the mainstream dating of the gospels. Actually its Casey who wants to date the Gospels as early as possible and goes against mainstream scholarship and dates then way earlier than scholars do. Then he begins relying on hypothetical sources that don't even exist. The book is a huge strawman that attacks the most amateur arguments posed by reddit atheists and fails to deliver what it promised

[Joel Pearson · Rating 2 out of 5]

A disjointed meandering mess that needs to be redone in an organised fashion with all the irrelevant asides excised.
It is in desperate need of an actual argument for the affirmative position in a logically structured way.
At least an attempt was made, but it's clear why this was only a pop culture book and not up to academic standards.