Peter Kirby

I have made this 1912 book available online at DidJesusExist.com:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/case/

Enjoy!

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I read the introduction over my lunch hour and this is a very well put exposition of the questions involved in whether Jesus existed, and why the issue is of concern. (I'm not sure if I will agree with the conclusion, but sometimes defining the question is the most important step.)

I tried to find out more about Shirley Jackson Case. He (not a she) was an influential modernist professor at the Chicago School of Divinity who epitomized the socio-historical method.

Peter Kirby

I actually didn't know what I was getting into when I started to transcribe the book, as I read the book as I worked on it. It turned out to be a pleasant read, even in the last couple of chapters where Case leaves the realm of strict history. It is infiniitely better (though this is not difficult) than today's popular apologetics such as Habermas, Strobel, and MacDowell. I found Goguel's book to be more engaging in that he responded to the most modern of the mythicists of his day, Couchoud, in particular on the question of the interpretation of Paul, but Case's volume is not to be missed by anyone who is interested in the subject.

By the way, I am (still) accepting essays pro, con, and neutral for the "Did Jesus Exist?" web site.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Peter, the Gougel link from the Case home page doesn't work.

Amergin

It will take more reading to get some of this together. I am a sceptic about Jesus being real or fictional. The information is to me all second hand and hearsay in nature. We have nothing solid in the way of evidence for Jesus. Most of what we have are scriptures and notations by Roman historians after the fact that a cult indeed existed that followed one Jesus of Nazareth. I don't know that he didn't exist either.

Factors somewhat favouring a real Jesus is the fact that a fair number of people believed he lived within 50 years of his supposed death. Of course that could equally apply to King Arthur, St. George the Dragon slayer, Cu Chulainn, Romulus and Remus, Mithra, Osiris, and Horus. The lack of a burial place with something, a piece of written document by Jesus, or even siblings who have some descendents with genetic markers.

On the con side, we have a biography of Jesus in the four gospels that has very strong parallels in the earlier god-man redeemers like Mithra, Osiris, Horus, and others. We have earlier virgin births, deaths and resurrections. The story is not original. To an outsider looking at all of them for the first time, it would seem like the latest one is a copy.

I suspect that more likely than not, there was a person on whom the mythical Jesus was constructed. As far as the divinity apect, I simply need some evidence beyond simple historicity to convince me of that. Perhaps he was an itinerant preacher/reformer, or perhaps the Jesus Ben Pandira, the sorceror, who was in the Talmud. That Jesus had a mother Miriam (Mary) Magdalene. He was tried for sorcery and stoned to death then hung on a tree.

Paul seems the most likely candidate for merging the earlier virgin born god-men who died and resurrected with the possibly historical Jesus. Paul spent 14 years in Tarsus after a falling out with the Jerusalem Jewish congregation. That was ample time for Paul to be influenced by Mithraic and Sol Invictus cults.

Amergin

Peter Kirby

Hi Amergin,

I often think that it is more important that a person think about a controversial issue than that they reach the "right" conclusion. In that spirit, I want to congratulate you, as well as Gregg. I believe that Gregg is one of the wisest members of our board because he didn't put a false "pride" above truth and thinking, and that is something to be really proud of. Myself, I am constantly learning that the more you know, the more you know you don't.

I am confused about one thing, admittedly without looking deeply into the traditions of these figures . . . who are the known people (or "known" according to mainstream scholarship) who within fifty years were believing in the life of Romulus and Remus, Mithra, Horus, and some of the others you mentioned? The only one I recall something in particular about is Arthur--a contemporary monk recorded the battle of Badon but did not name the British victor; doesn't the next reference come some century after? Thanks.

best,
Peter Kirby