ApostateAbe

The topic of mythical vs. historical Jesus is a popular topic of debate on the Internet, but it is seen as either uninteresting or fringe everywhere else, and there are few published books on the subject. There are some who have published in favor of a mythical Jesus, and you can find their books online. There have been some who have published books against the hypothesis, and they are primarily decades old. The book by Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), takes a few glancing shots against the mythical Jesus position, but not enough. But, there are plenty of books that advocate a particular model of a historical Jesus, without any heed to the position that Jesus never existed, including my favorite Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart Ehrman. The authorship of the gospels is treated in another interesting book by Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk). It is popular, and you can probably find it in any book store (I found my copy on the book shelf of a Fred Meyer). The archaeological or geographical elements of the OT: I don't know of any relevant books on this particular topic, a topic that seems primarily to do with the historical criticism or defense of the OT (I know only of an apologetic book on that topic that I got for Christmas years ago but did not read). A pretty good book on the authorship of the first five books of the OT is Who Wrote the Bible? (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Richard Friedman.

storytime

Misquoting Jesus? Well, if it ain't in the KJV I use for argument sake, then they're misquoting Jesus. It is, after all, the only reliable source of inerrancy. :devil1:

..or so they say.

Considering all the bibles and interpretations thereof, I think it's impossible to misquote Jesus, and he seems to be always open to interpretation, even at the beginning of church history. No one group of Christians could agree on the nature of his being, whether god or man, or both. And the freedom of expression brought about the thousands of Christian denominations wherein all had "the truth".

I think I'd recommend study of the ancient astrologers who followed the "sign" of his coming in the stars. Which I think pre-dates Judaism's picking up that scheme of things.

Craigart14

Ehrman is the chair of religion at UNC Chapel Hill, and he was educated at Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, and Princeton Theological Seminary. He's written a number of books for popular audiences, but he's not a lightweight. One thing he points out is that no manuscripts or commentaries prior to the 11th century contain one of the most famous Biblical stories, that of the woman "taken in adultery." Apparently, it was a late addition. Also, scribes didn't only make mistakes in copying; they sometimes made deliberate changes. In 1708, John Mill collated New Testament mss and found 30,000 variants.

It's an interesting and well researched book, the result of a former fundamentalist (now an agnostic) actually following the evidence where it led.

Craig

andrewcriddle

This is a misunderstanding of what Ehrman says.

The oldest surviving Greek Bible manuscript with the woman "taken in adultery" is Codex Bezae c 500 CE.

Andrew Criddle.

Doug Shaver

I read it last month. He did include a summary of arguments against ahistoricity, and I can't think offhand of any arguments I've seen that weren't on his list. Obviously, an argument for Jesus' historicity would have to elaborate on all of them, but that wasn't the purpose of his book.

From what he did say, I get the impression that Van Voorst thinks it would not be worth his time to write a book-length defense of Jesus' historicity. That is, of course, his call to make. But it gets a little interesting to observe that no scholar anywhere with the relevant expertise thinks it worthwhile to write such a defense.

Let us put aside, for the moment, any concerns about the academic reception such a book might get. It seems to me that a scholarly rigorous but popularly readable defense of historicity, clearly and explicitly avoiding any assumptions that presuppose historicity, would be a commercial success. I find it incredible that nobody who is competent to write such a book has ever thought of that.

PyramidHead

If what you say is true, it's not a misunderstanding but a factual error about the age of its first appearance. By the standards of the earliest manuscripts of John, it certainly is a late addition.

ApostateAbe

I imagine that it would not be a commercial success, except maybe if the target audience is conservative Christians, which is not the sort of book we need. The weird thing about MJ advocacy is that the topic is almost excluded to atheists on the Internet. Nobody I have met face-to-face, when talking about religion, has even heard of the theory that Jesus never existed. I know that Bart Ehrman suggested in a radio interview with the Infidel Guy, after a caller brought up the topic, that he might write a book on the subject, just because he gets so many inquiries about it. But, he never did. I would love to see a good book written on the subject. Maybe I'll pester Professor McGrath into writing such a book (he seems to be one of the few scholars who engage those people).

spamandham

I disagree. I think *everyone* would want to read it, from the most thumpingest of Bible thumpers (how successful is Lee Strobel's crap that 'proves' Jesus was real?) to the most ardent skeptic.

If there's a solid positive case to be made that doesn't beg the question by starting with an assumption of historicity, I'd pay to see it laid out. It might even change my position.

If his blog is any indication of the quality of argument he would make in such a book, it'll sell like hotcakes in church book stores worldwide - perhaps rivaling Lee Strobel's 'work'.

ApostateAbe

It is not easy to write a commercially-successful book of any sort, and the market is already glutted with books about Jesus. The question of the existence of Jesus comes off to most people, religious or not, as a no-brainer, and they think they don't need to spend their money or waste their time learning the subject, the same as the question of the existence of Shakespeare (not that there really is a close comparison).

spamandham

IMHO, you are understating the desperation many (most?) believers hold to support their beliefs with facts and evidence. Most believers are probably not even aware that there is such a thing as a MJ proposition. But if a book told them about that, and then debunked it, they'd buy it nonetheless.