Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[maryhelena]

Steven, if you don't have the book.....

Casey has a whole sub-section on Blogger Carr. Don't know how many pages this would be in the book as I've got the Kindle for PC edition......however, he tells us where you live and gives us your birth date........I can copy and paste it for you if you like......but perhaps you don't want, or need, to have your details all over this thread.....PM me if you would rather.....

[stevencarrwork]

Steven, if you don't have the book.....

Casey has a whole sub-section on Blogger Carr. Don't know how many pages this would be in the book as I've got the Kindle for PC edition......however, he tells us where you live and gives us your birth date........I can copy and paste it for you if you like......but perhaps you don't want, or need, to have your details all over this thread.....PM me if you would rather.....

Wow! Did ex-Professor Casey really do that? Without any contact with me to ask if that was OK? Isn't that a little naughty of him?

I should point out that my blog http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/ has not one single entry saying Jesus did not exist.

[maryhelena]

Steven, if you don't have the book.....

Casey has a whole sub-section on Blogger Carr. Don't know how many pages this would be in the book as I've got the Kindle for PC edition......however, he tells us where you live and gives us your birth date........I can copy and paste it for you if you like......but perhaps you don't want, or need, to have your details all over this thread.....PM me if you would rather.....

Wow! Did ex-Professor Casey really do that? Without any contact with me to ask if that was OK? Isn't that a little naughty of him?

I should point out that my blog http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/ has not one single entry saying Jesus did not exist.

Yes, personal information that was/is totally unnecessary for any scholarly debate on JC. He has done the same with other people as well.......including Neil Godfrey - who is "apparently Australian". Casey has gone after the man instead of playing the ball.....He does not like the message so seeks to take down the messengers....

[hjalti]

Steven, if you don't have the book.....

Casey has a whole sub-section on Blogger Carr. Don't know how many pages this would be in the book as I've got the Kindle for PC edition......however, he tells us where you live and gives us your birth date........I can copy and paste it for you if you like......but perhaps you don't want, or need, to have your details all over this thread.....PM me if you would rather.....

"Author Casey" works in mysterious ways.

[andrewcriddle]

Yes, personal information that was/is totally unnecessary for any scholarly debate on JC. He has done the same with other people as well.......including Neil Godfrey - who is "apparently Australian". Casey has gone after the man instead of playing the ball.....He does not like the message so seeks to take down the messengers....

FWIW Casey provides several pages of information about himself as well.

Andrew Criddle

[maryhelena]

Yes, personal information that was/is totally unnecessary for any scholarly debate on JC. He has done the same with other people as well.......including Neil Godfrey - who is "apparently Australian". Casey has gone after the man instead of playing the ball.....He does not like the message so seeks to take down the messengers....

FWIW Casey provides several pages of information about himself as well.

Andrew Criddle

Not worth much, I'm afraid. It's his book he can tell whatever he wants about himself.

But tell me, what relevance to the debate, to the topic his book is dealing with, i.e. the question of the historicity or non-historicity of the gospel JC, is mention of "Blogger Godfrey" being divorced?? What relevance does this have for any academic qualifications that 'Blogger Godfrey" might have??

[stevencarrwork]

But tell me, what relevance to the debate, to the topic his books is dealing with, i.e. the question of the historicity or non-historicity of the gospel JC, is mention of "Blogger Godfrey" being divorced?? What relevance does this have for any academic qualifications that 'Blogger Godfrey" might have??

According to ex-Professor Casey, Blogger Godfrey is still reacting against bad and bogus fundie 'scholarship' , such as ad hoc attempts to explain that the disciples could hear prayers even though they are supposed to be asleep.

[hjalti]

But tell me, what relevance to the debate, to the topic his books is dealing with, i.e. the question of the historicity or non-historicity of the gospel JC, is mention of "Blogger Godfrey" being divorced?? What relevance does this have for any academic qualifications that 'Blogger Godfrey" might have??

According to ex-Professor Casey, Blogger Godfrey is still reacting against bad and bogus fundie 'scholarship' , such as ad hoc attempts to explain that the disciples could hear prayers even though they are supposed to be asleep.

I would like to discuss the historicity of Jesus' prayer with you in more detail, but first I need to know your marital status.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Just got Maurice Casey's (MC) book E version and read the Introduction. It reminds me of "Mark's" Gospel. All you really need to know is the beginning and ending:

Swine cliff notes on "Mark":

"Nobody receives God's spirit and becomes some body else. No body witnesses resurrection of some body so that every body can witness."

MC's first sentence:

One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist.

This is a Strawman as the position of most of the so-called "Mythicists" MC hammers are merely skeptical about the existence of Jesus. Specifically they assert/question whether the historical evidence for Jesus is as good as commonly presented or thought. Burn strawman, burn! So he has impeached his credibility in the first sentence. Congratulations.

The final three sentences of the introduction are:

I hope this introduction is sufficient to make clear the appalling state of pseudo-scholarship which has dominated the whole notion that Jesus of Nazreth was not a historical figure. The rest of this book is devoted to demonstrating that he was. In Chapter 2, I turn to historical method, which is fundamental to the major mistakes made by mythicists.

Professional introductions, at a minimum, should include the following:

• 1) Identification of the issue/problem
  
  2) Historical background of the discussion
  
  3) Objectives of the book
  
  4) Summary of Methodology to achieve objectives

MC does identify a problem, he's just wrong about it. The specific bloggers he mentions might get a few hundred independent views per month. Meanwhile, Historical Jesus books are on the Best Seller list (and even claim to know what Jesus had for break fast the morning of the resurrection = stauros and trumpets). On a broader scale, the number of Americans who have heard of any of the Mythicists MC mentions may be a small multiple of 10,000 while last time I checked, there were hundreds of millions Christians in the US who generally assume that we have multiple independent first-hand witness to the Gospels and the only issue is whether or not you believe them.

Similarly, MC gives a historical background, but only a relatively recent one, leaving out most of the history of Christianity that would have killed or at least censored anyone for saying Jesus did not exist.

Most important to an Introduction are giving the objectives of the book which is needed to evaluate it. Shaking off all the mud regarding MC's discussion of someone misrepresenting someone misrepresenting someone, the only thing I see for an objective is:

"The rest of this book is devoted to demonstrating that he was [a historical figure]."

I take "demonstrating" to mean "prove". So that tells us the what of his objective(s). As to the how, the closest I can get is his closest sentence "In Chapter 2, I turn to historical method, which is fundamental to the major mistakes made by mythicists." An implication from this is that MC will use "historical method" to demonstrate how Jesus was historical.

MC's introduction has the following flaws by professional standards:

• 1) All the attempts to negatively describe opponents is misplaced in the Introduction and just distracts as an introduction should primarily be a straight-forward and clear communication of the objectives of the book.
  
  2) He is wrong about what he claims is the problem.
  
  3) His historical background is lacking.
  
  4) His objective is insufficiently developed.
  
  5) His methodology is insufficiently identified.

MC's book would be rejected out of hand by any professional organization for lacking a professional quality introduction. Who peer reviewed this book, the historical Jesus? The introduction is so bad it just makes me not want to read the rest of the book.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[maryhelena]

MC's book would be rejected out of hand by any professional organization for lacking a professional quality introduction. Who peer reviewed this book, the historical Jesus? The introduction is so bad it just makes me not want to read the rest of the book.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The book is just a rant against the ahistoricist perspective. Methinks it should not even be dignified with a review......"Blogger Carr" and "Blogger Godfrey" have got under Casey's skin - or possibly more correctly - under the skin of the lady to whom the book is dedicated.

This book is dedicated to Stephanie Louise Fisher, my dearest friend who inspired me and helped me with it from beginning to end.

Casey, Maurice (2014-01-16). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (Kindle Locations 6-7). BLOOMSBURY PUBLISHING. Kindle Edition.