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
