Maurice's "...Mythicist Myths"

[Adam]

Maurice Casey came out before his death with Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2014 [aside to Ben Smith--in my notes it reads "204]) xi, 272 Paper $34.95.
This is his notorious work that aims primarily at Earl Doherty as if a real person and even more dismissively against Blogger Godfrey (http://vridar.org) and Blogger Carr (update: now //stevencarrwork.blogspot.com), though the review seems prepared without knowledge of Casey's death) as "hobbyists". Casey broadens his ridicule to include all other mythicists as beginning as Fundamentalists and continuing to reason as such.
" 'It belongs to 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 that any of them have adequate professional qualifications.' (p. 243)"
My own readings of Vridar (Godfrey) would not be so uncharitable--but do I confuse him with Vinzent or others who are perhaps slightly better? I've even gotten useful stuff (inadvertently) from Steven Carr.

Reviewed by Nathan LaMontage pp. 757-758 in the October 2015 Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

[outhouse]

here is legions review who used to frequent here.

This is not Maurice Casey's first book on the historicity of Jesus intended for a non-specialist audience. His 2010 Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching was a decent review of the evidence as well as an accessible yet fairly comprehensive case for Casey's own view. Yet such books are not new: while few scholars who write about the historical Jesus bother addressing what they deem long shown, still there are several sources that deliberately start with the question of why historians agree Jesus was a historical person.

The same cannot be said for books that address the most well-known authors who argue that there was no historical Jesus, a viewpoint known as mythicism. Only one other book that I am aware of (Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?) is so devoted to addressing the errors, flaws, and other problems that are found strewn across the internet and in several books written almost without exception by amateurs. Unlike Ehrman, whose title suggests a focus not found in the book, Casey delivers what he promises: a critique of mythicist arguments. Yet he still manages to provide the reader with both a concise yet valuable introduction to historiography as well as a survey of historical Jesus scholarship. His incorporation of such a treatment into his criticism of mythicism is a masterful contrast.

The book is an easier read than is the best of those by mythicists, yet Casey does not attempt to sensationalize or over-simplify. He writes with clarity, precision, and somehow still manages not to provide the reader with a comprehensive treatment in a comparably short work and without overly-technical prose. Though not without problems, Casey's book fills a much needed gap between the popular mythicist sources and the perspective(s) of specialists.

[Ben C. Smith]

...aside to Ben Smith--in my notes it reads "204"....

I may have to set Early Christian Studies aside for a while and concentrate on Adamic Note Studies, at least until I feel I have a grasp on the field.

[robert j]

... This is his notorious work that aims primarily at Earl Doherty as if a real person and even more dismissively against ...

Doherty --- Neither God Nor Man?

[neilgodfrey]

Casey's partner, carer and student, Stephanie Fisher, often spoke with me via comments on my blog Vridar about this book being in preparation. She informed me that she was collecting posts and comments and other stuff for Casey to read for his book and the book is very much what I expected it to be (only worse) from those discussions. The book is an attack on anyone who upset Casey personally and Stephanie in particular in the course of Casey's publications and Stephanie's hostile appearances in various blogs, especially Vridar. Casey is so livid that he even includes anti-mythicists among his mythicists -- no matter, they crossed him with bad reviews of his work, and others were American (a negative trait except for the exceptional few in Casey's eyes). I recognize several phrases throughout the book as coming from Stephanie herself in her blog comments -- leading me to think that Casey himself let Stephanie's own ravings sometimes go unedited (e.g. Mary being "preggers"). That such a book was ever published by a scholarly publisher is a disgrace -- it is unscholarly, vindictive, slanderous, full of falsehoods, absurdities. It speaks volumes about how publishing works within the guild.

[Ben C. Smith]

I recognize several phrases throughout the book as coming from Stephanie herself in her blog comments -- leading me to think that Casey himself let Stephanie's own ravings sometimes go unedited (e.g. Mary being "preggers").

The very word "preggers" makes my skin crawl. (Also faring poorly: "veggies" for vegetables and "sammies" for sandwiches.) My desire to read this book, already low, has now somehow fallen even lower.

[Adam]

Yes, "Neither God nor Man" is in the title.
I have no idea what I meant by:
"at Earl Doherty as if a real person", but I was aiming to say that the review presented Doherty as at least respectable enough to have written a book, as compared to Godfrey and Carr as below the pale, mere editors of blogs (and thus not "real people"?).
Carrier, the disciple of Doherty, published too late for Casey to mention (or at least not as among the big three).
I suppose he held off firing at Wells because Wells moderated his views. Wells wrote several books (or the same book many times, I haven't read any).

[neilgodfrey]

I suppose he held off firing at Wells because Wells moderated his views. Wells wrote several books (or the same book many times, I haven't read any).

For Casey Wells was a well-bred English scholar and therefore deserved respect. On page 25 he wrote:

Wells was born in London in 1926. He studied at the universities of London
and Bern, and obtained degrees in German, philosophy and natural science.
He taught German at the University of London from 1949 onwards, and
became Professor of German at Birkbeck College, University of London,
in 1968. He was a genuinely learned professor of German, and his major
works included Goethe and the Development of Science, 1750-1900
(Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1978).

As a student of German culture, Wells naturally took an interest in the
Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. He was also naturally familiar with the
work of radical Christian scholars in Germany, such as Bultmann. When he
became an emeritus professor, he became gradually more and more learned
in other New Testament scholarship. He was convinced that there was no
historical jesus, and wrote more than one book to this effect. More recently,
he modified his views, especially in the light of relatively recent work on
what many scholars call 'Q'. I discuss his work from time to time, because
he has become more and more influential as the view that jesus did not exist
has become more common.

I couldn't take the book seriously when I first read it but after seeing honorable scholars praising it as "well-researched" and a worthy read (of these scholars Hoffmann, West and Crossley were all close friends of both Casey and Stephanie) I did post a few comments: http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews ... sey-jesus/

Tim Widowfield also posted a response to another of Casey's swipe something I wrote: http://vridar.org/2014/02/24/maurice-ca ... f-silence/

[Ulan]

I recognize several phrases throughout the book as coming from Stephanie herself in her blog comments -- leading me to think that Casey himself let Stephanie's own ravings sometimes go unedited (e.g. Mary being "preggers").

The very word "preggers" makes my skin crawl. (Also faring poorly: "veggies" for vegetables and "sammies" for sandwiches.) My desire to read this book, already low, has now somehow fallen even lower.

Heh. My own suspicion was that Casey didn't really have any input regarding this book anymore, due to the state of his health, except allowing the use of his name for the work of someone else.

[andrewcriddle]

FWIW there is an appallingly long thread about Maurice Casey's book
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=365

Andrew Criddle