My Comprehensive bibliography of Christ Myth Literature in Academia

[Secret Alias]

1. Ishodad of Merv in his Commentary on the Gospels says, in effect, that Peter told Mark to write his gospel as a historical narrative because there were pre-existent traditions which viewed Jesus as a supernatural being.
2. Ishodad was not a mythicist.
3. It was not "unreasonable" living in the East where Marcionism was entrenched until at least the sixth or seventh centuries to posit the existence of a first century "mythicist" community.
It's the Mark Goodacre approach to early Christianity. Ignoring the existence of weaker, more gentle, abused traditions and favoring the favored positions. I don't get your "undercover" work to disprove the existence of Christians who believed in a supernatural Jesus from the first century. Maybe it goes back to your admission earlier this week that your interests in early Christianity are limited to proving and disproving certain positions rather than a tout comprendre.

There were first century Christians who thought Jesus was a supernatural being. Engaging in this nitpicking of "scholarly literature on mythicism" won't detract from that.

[Secret Alias]

I think that "personalizing" arguments, while common in scholarly literature, are a distraction from truth-seeking. Who cares if Gary Goldberg or this or that mythicist makes good or bad arguments in favor of this or that position. There were likely first century Christians who believed in a supernatural Jesus descending from heaven at the start of their gospel. Find something else to waste your time on making everything come down to what this or that scholar or this or that scholarly argument wrote in relatively recent times. Every Church Father living at a time when documents and traditions which have since disappeared from the earth and history were still extant and influential acknowledged that the apostles were active came into contact with communities of Christians who believed in a supernatural Jesus. There is no question about this. Irenaeus imagines John writing against these people etc etc. Is there evidence for these first century communities today? No. Why? Because the traditions you champion wiped them out and purged history of their literature. That's not a crazy point of view. The Samaritans, the Karaites, the Mandaeans are all examples of ancient communities who hold marginalized views which at one time were more influential and even authoritative. There are other more worthwhile endeavors in life than making war against the truth. There is no value in any of this.

[Secret Alias]

Of what value is attacking contemporary mythicists without acknowledging that there were likely first century Christians who believed that Jesus was supernatural? If you are critiquing modern mythicist approaches ok. But then you research is limited to modernity rather than antiquity. You should at least acknowledge that there were first century communities who held views closely aligned with modern mythicism. Whether or not modern mythicism is worthy of condemnation, the results of your research has no value or relevance to the study of ancient history.

I take it for granted that you have, as you already confessed little or no interest in the big picture of early Christianity. So go on through a rolodex of modern mythicists and demonstrate what they do or don't believe. I will always remind you that even the Church Fathers acknowledged the existence of what you work so hard to deny.

[Peter Kirby]

Maybe it goes back to your admission earlier this week that your interests in early Christianity are limited to proving and disproving certain positions rather than a tout comprendre.

I take it for granted that you have, as you already confessed little or no interest in the big picture of early Christianity.

I haven't found the statement you're claiming to have found. The first appearance of this "big picture" phrase in that thread is from you. It's not subsequently "confessed."

Who thinks like this? You're not interested in the big picture. Just getting published? How thoroughly modern of you.

The study of ancient history.

Yeah can't say you've demonstrated "big picture" energy on this forum.

Huller's indignation that I don't care about his "big picture" is mostly just funny to me.

I will not tolerate more people being driven out from the forum because of you.

Drive only one person from the forum yet another.

As moderator, I find that there is a pattern of harassment towards Olson and towards Hansen here.

I am giving you a 7-day suspension.

[StephenGoranson]

Though, to be honest, I have not yet got around to inspecting this bibliography by Hansen--but, given that no person has the final word on history--it is a contribution that I welcome.

[Giuseppe]

I don't like the reference to a presumed anti-Semitism in Bob Price's Judaizing Jesus.

Bob Price has made it clear what he means with this term "judaizing" (essentially, the continuation in modern times of what the enemies of Marcion did against Marcion). It is essential to understand why Jesus was euhemerized, in the scenario proposed by Bob Price and, even before the latter, by Jean Magne.

Objectively, Chrissy could reserve for a different context her attack against Bob Price. Possibly in a private discussion between her and the prof. Allowing to the latter to defend himself from a such bad accusation.

As a secondary note, I think that even David Skrbina is not an anti-Semitic (but he is not a mythicist).

[dbz]

Earl Doherty's books are not being included.

Earl Doherty published:

• "The Jesus Puzzle: Part One: A Conspiracy of Silence". Humanist in Canada. 114: 20–24. Autumn 1995.

On 11 May 1996, Doherty posted The Jesus Puzzle articles—that had been previously published by Humanist in Canada—on his website:

• "The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?". magi.com/~oblio/jesus

Per the reaction and response to his Jesus Puzzle website and Humanist in Canada articles, Doherty published:

• "The Jesus Puzzle: Postscript". Humanist in Canada. 117: 20–23, 38. Summer 1996.

---

Bibliography:

• • "The Jesus Puzzle: Part One: A Conspiracy of Silence". Humanist in Canada. 114: 20–24. Autumn 1995. Archived from the original on 1 September 1999.
  • "The Jesus Puzzle: Part Two: Who was Christ Jesus?". Humanist in Canada. 115: 10–14, 31. Winter 1995–1996.
  • "The Jesus Puzzle: Part Three: The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth". Humanist in Canada. 116: 24–30, 38. Spring 1996.
  • "The Jesus Puzzle: Postscript". Humanist in Canada. 117: 20–23, 38. Summer 1996.
  • "The Jesus Puzzle: The Second Century: What the Christian apologists of the second century present us with". Humanist in Canada. 120. Spring 1997.
  • "Book Review: Burton L. Mack - Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth". Humanist in Canada. 120: 12–13. Spring 1997. Archived from the original on 17 August 2000.
• "The Jesus Puzzle: Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins". Journal of Higher Criticism. 4 (2): 68–102. Fall 1997.

N.B. Most (if not all) previously published material+website material were incorporated into the 1999 manuscript The Jesus Puzzle.

• The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? - Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus. Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications. 2005 [First published 1999]. ISBN 9780968925911. 4th print [1st print Ottawa: Canadian Humanist Publications].
• "Was There No Historical Jesus?". Internet Infidels Newsletter. April 1999.
• Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications. 2001. ISBN 0-9689259-0-1.
• Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus. Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications. 2009. ISBN 978-0-9689259-2-8. New edition, Revised and Expanded, Originally published under the title: The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? - Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
• The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest. Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications 2012
• Doherty, Earl (2021) [First published c. 1999]. "A Sacrifice in Heaven: The Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews". In Loftus, John W.; Price, Robert M. (eds.). Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. Hypatia Press. ISBN 978-1839191589.

---

Carrier's review was presented on the website: Secular Web of Internet Infidels

• Carrier, Richard (2002). "Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity". Secular Web. Internet Infidels.

Carrier, in 2008, received a $20,000 grant to research the historicity of Jesus. And published:

• Carrier, Richard (2012). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-560-6.
• Carrier, Richard (2012). "Bayes' Theorem and the Modern Historian: Proving History Requires Improving Methods" [PDF] The Bible and Interpretation.
• Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-909697-35-5.
• Carrier, Richard (2014). "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?". The Bible and Interpretation.
• Carrier, Richard (2020). Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ. Pitchstone Publishing. ISBN 978-1-63431-208-0.
• Carrier, Richard (2020). "Jesus from Outer Space?". The Bible and Interpretation.

[Peter Kirby]

I am generally not going to include publications in Price's Journal of Higher Criticism unless it is volume 12 or prior, because those were the only ones backed by an academic institution.

Volume 9... looks like my JHC article makes the cut!

It doesn't really have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus though.

[Giuseppe]

I don't think equating Bob's idea of "judaizing" to anti-Marcionite literature is either apt nor does it exempt him when Marcion was explicitly anti-Judaism

Klinghardt could title his opus magnum Judaizing *Ev and you could with equal "rights" accuse him of 'anti-Semitism'.

Even if that is what the authors of the canonical gospels did in the K's reconstruction.

Think only about Luke 2:22-23:

When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”

It is a my right to call "Luke" a Judaizer. It is a my right to define who thinks (only a name: Ken Olson) that those verses preceded *Ev a modern Judaizer too. Where is the offence, of grace?