Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[andrewcriddle]

I'm slowly working through Jesus evidence and argument or mythicist myths ? and I'm going to post a few thoughts. NB This is not going to be a proper review, just some of my thoughts.

The first chapter makes the probably valid point that the risk of a new testament scholar losing his or her job for unorthodox views is largely a problem of some American colleges and is for example not an issue in Britain. Most of the chapter provides short accounts of various mythicists and of Casey himself. An issue appears here that runs through the book. It sometimes feels like a blow by blow account of an internet flame war. On pot-kettle grounds I have little sympathy with opponents of Casey who will probably feel insulted. However I'm not sure if Casey was well advised to present things in this way, e.g. with claims that even if Stephanie Fisher was rude to Neil Godfrey he started it.

The second chapter discusses historical method and presents a good case that new testament scholars know as much about historiography as is necessary in their field. IMO the criticisms of new testament scholars on this issue if valid at all are valid for scholars of the Ancient World as a whole. The chapter also presents preliminary evidence for the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic origins of a large part of the Jesus tradition. One could respond that even if some of the tradition does have such an origin, this doesn't make it historical. However modern mythicism (more so than earlier forms) does mostly see the Jesus tradition as having Grrek Hellenistic origins not Jewish Palestinian Aramaic origins.

More to come some time.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

I am really looking forward to this. Yes, mythicists thus far have only developed theories from specifically Greek or pagan traditions because ... they don't have a clue what Judaism is capable of producing.

[Peter Kirby]

Mythicists, mythicists, mythicists.

Boy is this term loaded.

(not good enough for Hoffman, though, who prefers "mythtics" or "mythers")

And here's a point I'd make: if a demonstration of the historicity of Jesus must refer to "modern mythicism," then it's not been demonstrated. People fall way too easily into these very subjective history-of-research traps. For another example, if a demonstration that the Testimonium was inserted whole cloth must depend on the refutation of J.P. Meier and his reconstruction of a Testimonium, then it's not been demonstrated. (Isn't that obvious? Disproving one possibility merely disproves that possibility, not all other possibilities that can be lumped together with it, as, e.g., a Testimonium inserted where there previously was a hostile, maybe even longer, mention of Jesus.)

For those interested in the book but without any inside connections, you can do what I did and pre-order the e-book on Amazon for delivery on Jan 16.

[Rick Sumner]

The second chapter discusses historical method and presents a good case that new testament scholars know as much about historiography as is necessary in their field. IMO the criticisms of new testament scholars on this issue if valid at all are valid for scholars of the Ancient World as a whole.

In the main I'd agree with you, but that doesn't mean the criticisms are invalid, they can be valid against one person or one million just as well. I would also add one important qualifier, the Biblical historian is almost unique in his reluctance to recognize his role as creator of his history. It's not a universal, by any means, a Crossan or a Ben Meyer knows perfectly well what they're doing for example, but they stand out in part because of their willingness to acknowledge the inevitability of eisegesis.

That said, I'll cheerily include most ancient history in my criticisms, I think we know a lot less, and make up a lot more, than is generally acknowledged, though there is in general an increasing tendency to recognize that. It's fair to wonder if that trend will find its way to the study of Christian origins and to encourage its arrival.

[Peter Kirby]

That's largely the trouble. Ancient history tends to be conservative, as it is trying to reconstruct as much as possible with as little as there is. Within ancient history, New Testament scholarship tend to be conservative, as it is largely an unrepentant attempt of believers to understand the historical birth of their own faith tradition. Within that context, the ideological/institutional resources for criticism of the enterprise are few and inevitably fight the overwhelming current of scholarship.

Perhaps what critics need to do is to move the forum from the history department to the philosophy department, given the large number of people who are professing to do history while actually intending to lay the groundwork for faith-based apologetics, which should fall under philosophy of religion. Philosophy, unlike ancient history, is quite comfortable with the concept of skepticism and uncomfortable with damning an idea due to its minority status.

[Adam]

Though Casey's book isn't even "out" yet, Jim West presumes already to declare it the "last word" (my bolding) on debunking MJ. (The formatting was very hard to copy over, sorry for not getting it exactly the same as West's formatting.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/189205535/Casey

The new volume is comprised of these segments: Preface Abbreviations 1. Introduction 2. Historical Method 3. The Date and Reliability of the Canonical Gospels
4. What is Not in the Gospels, or Not in ‘Q’
5. What is Not in the Epistles, Especially Those of Paul 6. What is Written in the Epistles, Especially Those of Paul 7. It All Happened Before, in Egypt, India, or Wherever you Fancy, but there was Nowhere for it to Happen in Israel 8. Conclusions Appendix: Latinisms
The volume is dedicated to the very lovely Stephanie Fisher who contributed to its appearance in numerous ways.

But is it any good? Does it serve a useful purpose? Or does it simply give 'airtime’ to a fringe element of pseudo-‘scholars' who scarcely deserve the recognition they herein receive? In my estimation the answer to the first question is a resounding yes. Casey has an engaging writing style as all who have familiarized themselves with his earlier works will know. He also can turn a phrase. For instance: Blogger Godfrey uses the work of Kelber in an incompetent piece of creative fiction (p. 78). Again … Doherty has taken over Kloppenborg's version of these entirely hypothetical documents [i.e., ‘Q’], so he has drawn dramatic conclusions from the absence of things from documents which did not exist until modern scholars invented them (p. 109). This book is a rip-roaring and irrefutable denunciation of post-modernity’s silliest assertion: that Jesus did not exist and was a myth invented by the church. This brings me to the second question: does this book serve a useful purpose? Again, the answer is yes. It is exceptionally important that scholars not be silent when falsehoods are foisted upon an unsuspecting and uninformed public. Put simply, silence is acceptance. Hence, when Casey speaks out so forthrightly about the folly and foolishness of the mythicists assertions he is doing what scholars must do: teaching.

Finally, does Casey's book simply give airtime to a fringe element of pseudo-scholars who scarcely deserve the recognition they herein receive? This time the answer is an even more resounding No! This book once and for all settles the question of Jesus existence. The pseudo-scholarship of the mythicists is so roundly and soundly defeated precisely because Casey addresses their ideas point by point and line by line and measure by measure. Casey concludes The most important result of this book is that the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs in the fantasy lives of people who used to be Fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications (p. 243). This volume needs to be read by every person interested in the Historical Jesus.

It is one of those unusual volumes of which it can be honestly said, this is the last word necessary on the subject. Case closed.
Casey has closed the case as no one else could, or has. Jim West Quartz Hill School of Theology

[stephan happy huller]

I like Jim West but he suffers from that familiar American presumption (cf. the Drudgereport's frequent chirping with every cold day that 'Global Warming' is disproved) that science leads to a 'settling of things.' All we get is progressively better models for explaining stuff. It would be surprising that a single study could 'settle anything' in any field, let alone an investigation which just started - i.e. whether Jesus was originally conceived as a person of flesh and blood.

[hjalti]

He also can turn a phrase. For instance: Blogger Godfrey uses the work of Kelber in an incompetent piece of creative fiction (p. 78).

"Blogger Godfrey". Seriously? Is the book going to be written in the same style as his blog post on Hoffmann's site?

[beowulf]

Blogger ‘Someone’, has now become an honorific title, like: ‘Cardinal Someone’.

Blog, however, reminds of bog and bug. Some graffiti show these words to be closely related as in: bugging in the bog with a blogger by my side.

I much prefer the original lovely Scottish song: Roaming in the gloaming, with a lassie by my side.

[Blood]

Last I checked, Neil Godfrey's blog had 84 subscribers. If Bible scholars like Casey are that threatened by a blog that's barely known to exist, that, to me, just underscores the insecurity of their position.