How To Get Rid of Jesus: Prove He Didn't Exist! A popular question posed by Christians today asks, "WWJD?" - which stands for, "What Would Jesus Do?" For more and more Skeptics of Christianity, however, the answer to this question is, "JDNE" - which stands for, "Jesus did not exist!" In this volume, edited by prominent Internet apologist James Patrick Holding, a team of Christian authors provide a series of essays giving detailed answers to those who argue for the "Christ myth." Though rejected by mainstream scholars, this theory continues to grow in popularity among popular writers and Internet antagonists. The need for Christians to be ready to give an answer to it will only become more urgent. "Here's a clear and compelling rebuttal to fallacious claims that keep resurfacing in books and on the Internet. It's well-researched, expertly presented, and ultimately convincing." - Lee Strobel, author, The Case for the Real Jesus
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful
By F. Maddalena
I have read some of the previous reviews (amd replies) and much, maybe too much has already been said and debated.
First I want to clarify something.
There are three types of works in science (using in a very a broad meaning here) and especially regarding the figure of Jesus:
1- The scholarly work. This usually comes out in forms of articles in peer-reviewed journals that are mostly unavailable to the general public otherwise it comes in the form of books that target the specialist in the area or in the form of conference proceedings.
2- The amateurish work. This can be good at times, but there is usually a big difference in depth and skill. Most of these works are self-published rubbish.
Works from people Acharya S, Sitchin, Richard Carrier, Doherty, Richard Dawkins and other are the worst kind of this category regarding the historicity of Jesus. They are text written by amateurs or people mostly ignorant of the field. They are both amateurs and make outrageous claims only to fail to give good arguments for them and, more often than not, full of gross mistakes.
True scholars largely ignore such works, since they are comparable to people who publish why Einstein is wrong without even knowing what a metric tensor is.
Usually, if a scholar bothers to pay attention to them, they are easily refuted by them.
3- Pop-books by scholars to the general public. These can be a mixed bag.
This arises sometimes when the scholars make claims that half true but presenting them as fully true, while the general public is none the wiser.
Some authors are more honest than other when writing to the general public.
That occurs in the physical sciences as well.
---
That out of the way let's turn to the author.
Now J.P. Holding book falls into category 2: Holding is an "Amateur", since he is not a biblical scholar nor does he claim or pretend to be (and this already differentiates him from the people I mentioned already in category 2 above!).
He states, at least in his website that he has a degree in library science and that he is good at looking up information. That appears to be true.
---
What of the book itself?
The book is good for the aim it sets!!!
The aim of the book is not to be a scholarly work (and it cannot be considered as such) but an apologetic work against the worst of group #2 above.
It's not a chance I dropped a few names there.
These names represent a fraction of people one might call `The internet crackpots of biblical scholarship' (ICBS for short).
They continue to support a form of `Christ Myth Theory' which is not even considered seriously by most scholars anymore. They either copy old and low quality material from the XIX century (e.g. Baur) or make up their own version which is often even of lower quality.
Indeed their work is usually found in websites an few books they squeeze out and mostly is void of any serious and peer-reviewed work.
Now you will say: But J.P. Holding is in the same boat!
True, but not quite. I think one of Holding's qualities is that he knows how to look up facts and information.
The book is indeed a collection of information and criticism on the ICBS works that exposes their flaws.
This is the strength of the book! The ICBS crowd's work can be in principle be debunked by most people who can read and is willing to do a little research. The problem is that most people lack the will or the time to do so.
Now J.P. Holding's work itself is not free of some critical points. As I said he's not a biblical scholar and perhaps, at times, he's too eager to jump to his own conclusions, although such faults are to be found in professional biblical scholars as well sometimes (especially those who write in category #3 mentioned above)
Holdin presents a neat book with many information that will debunk the ICBS' shabby works.
The info Holding presents is clear, not technical and can be checked with anyone with a valid library card.
Although I think Holding does distinguish himself, if you expect a book that will introduce you seriously in the field of biblical scholarship you might be disappointed.
---
IN CONCLUSION:
J. P. Holding's book is a neat resource to debunk the shabby work and crackpot theories that go around the internet and the libraries these days.
Yet, if someone TRULY desires to understand the `Historical Jesus' debate at an advanced level, then J.P. Holding's book is not for you.
In that case you need to turn to serious scholarly literature and do some research on your own.
So I think this book is excellent as a rebuttal of the crazier theories against Jesus and Christianity, but one must keep in mind it is not a scholarly book nor does it delve deeply into the ongoing Historical Jesus debate.
First I want to clarify something.
There are three types of works in science (using in a very a broad meaning here) and especially regarding the figure of Jesus:
1- The scholarly work. This usually comes out in forms of articles in peer-reviewed journals that are mostly unavailable to the general public otherwise it comes in the form of books that target the specialist in the area or in the form of conference proceedings.
2- The amateurish work. This can be good at times, but there is usually a big difference in depth and skill. Most of these works are self-published rubbish.
Works from people Acharya S, Sitchin, Richard Carrier, Doherty, Richard Dawkins and other are the worst kind of this category regarding the historicity of Jesus. They are text written by amateurs or people mostly ignorant of the field. They are both amateurs and make outrageous claims only to fail to give good arguments for them and, more often than not, full of gross mistakes.
True scholars largely ignore such works, since they are comparable to people who publish why Einstein is wrong without even knowing what a metric tensor is.
Usually, if a scholar bothers to pay attention to them, they are easily refuted by them.
3- Pop-books by scholars to the general public. These can be a mixed bag.
This arises sometimes when the scholars make claims that half true but presenting them as fully true, while the general public is none the wiser.
Some authors are more honest than other when writing to the general public.
That occurs in the physical sciences as well.
---
That out of the way let's turn to the author.
Now J.P. Holding book falls into category 2: Holding is an "Amateur", since he is not a biblical scholar nor does he claim or pretend to be (and this already differentiates him from the people I mentioned already in category 2 above!).
He states, at least in his website that he has a degree in library science and that he is good at looking up information. That appears to be true.
---
What of the book itself?
The book is good for the aim it sets!!!
The aim of the book is not to be a scholarly work (and it cannot be considered as such) but an apologetic work against the worst of group #2 above.
It's not a chance I dropped a few names there.
These names represent a fraction of people one might call `The internet crackpots of biblical scholarship' (ICBS for short).
They continue to support a form of `Christ Myth Theory' which is not even considered seriously by most scholars anymore. They either copy old and low quality material from the XIX century (e.g. Baur) or make up their own version which is often even of lower quality.
Indeed their work is usually found in websites an few books they squeeze out and mostly is void of any serious and peer-reviewed work.
Now you will say: But J.P. Holding is in the same boat!
True, but not quite. I think one of Holding's qualities is that he knows how to look up facts and information.
The book is indeed a collection of information and criticism on the ICBS works that exposes their flaws.
This is the strength of the book! The ICBS crowd's work can be in principle be debunked by most people who can read and is willing to do a little research. The problem is that most people lack the will or the time to do so.
Now J.P. Holding's work itself is not free of some critical points. As I said he's not a biblical scholar and perhaps, at times, he's too eager to jump to his own conclusions, although such faults are to be found in professional biblical scholars as well sometimes (especially those who write in category #3 mentioned above)
Holdin presents a neat book with many information that will debunk the ICBS' shabby works.
The info Holding presents is clear, not technical and can be checked with anyone with a valid library card.
Although I think Holding does distinguish himself, if you expect a book that will introduce you seriously in the field of biblical scholarship you might be disappointed.
---
IN CONCLUSION:
J. P. Holding's book is a neat resource to debunk the shabby work and crackpot theories that go around the internet and the libraries these days.
Yet, if someone TRULY desires to understand the `Historical Jesus' debate at an advanced level, then J.P. Holding's book is not for you.
In that case you need to turn to serious scholarly literature and do some research on your own.
So I think this book is excellent as a rebuttal of the crazier theories against Jesus and Christianity, but one must keep in mind it is not a scholarly book nor does it delve deeply into the ongoing Historical Jesus debate.
40 of 56 people found the following review helpful
Amazon Verified Purchase
Having been aware of this so-called "debate" on the Internet (please note: it is entirely an "online debate" not one advanced by serious NT or historical Jesus scholars) since the mid 1990s, I am glad that J.P. Holding has finally transcribed and edited some of his impressive "Tektonics" online articles for an entire book on "Shattering the Christ Myth." He and his amateur scholar contributors have pulled together an excellent set of articles and chapters debunking both the "myth" hypothesis and the "copycat" or "pagan parallel" thesis presented by many an anti-Christian conspiracy buff and uninformed skeptic of historical Christianity.
Chapters include an introduction on the history and origin of the "Christ myth" claims dating from the early 1800s; detailed defenses of the standard non-biblical references to Jesus from the Jewish historian Josephus (his two passages), the Roman historian Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny the Younger, and Papias; responses to the various "silences" argued by "mythicists" from Remsburg to G.A. Wells to Earl Doherty; analysis of the supposed "pagan Christs" from Mithra to Krishna to Horus to Dionysos; reviews and refutations exposing the abysmal scholarship and poor arguments of recent "Christ myth" movies "The God Who Wasn't There" and "Zeitgeist"; and additional material on the city of Nazareth, the academic and Internet mythicists, and more.
This book shows there is really nothing at all to the "mythicist" claims: they are groundless historically, poorly argued based on "silence" and refuted by numerous reliable witnesses to Jesus, and that includes the canonical Gospels and the earliest writings of St. Paul. The real debate among scholars is not whether there was a historical Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD, but on Christ's claims to divinity and being the unique Son of God, the miracles of the Gospels as signs of that divinity, and especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ -- i.e. the whole "Jesus of history" vs. "Christ of faith" debate among conservative evangelical and more "liberal" scholarship.
Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels: "There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'." ("Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' for Jesus")
British historian Michael Grant: "...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned...To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels [1977], pages 199, 200)
Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright: "It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much good evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world....the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period....that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus [aside from one or two]....It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest." ("The Self-Revelation of God in Human History" from There Is A God by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese [2007])
Robert Van Voorst: "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." (Jesus Outside the New Testament [2000], pages 6, 14, 16)
Shattering the Christ Myth is a welcome addition to the many evangelical defenses of Jesus Christ by well-known scholars such as R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), Moreland/Wilkins (Jesus Under Fire), and recently Boyd/Eddy (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition). As a Catholic apologist, I also appreciated the brief chapter on "Leo's Line" explaining the "fable quote" sometimes attributed to Pope Leo X by mythicist skeptics.
My only complaint is the book is slightly "oversized" so it is not the size of your normal paperback and may not fit easily on your bookshelf. Nevertheless a definite 5-star effort from apologist J.P. Holding and company.
Phil Porvaznik
Chapters include an introduction on the history and origin of the "Christ myth" claims dating from the early 1800s; detailed defenses of the standard non-biblical references to Jesus from the Jewish historian Josephus (his two passages), the Roman historian Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny the Younger, and Papias; responses to the various "silences" argued by "mythicists" from Remsburg to G.A. Wells to Earl Doherty; analysis of the supposed "pagan Christs" from Mithra to Krishna to Horus to Dionysos; reviews and refutations exposing the abysmal scholarship and poor arguments of recent "Christ myth" movies "The God Who Wasn't There" and "Zeitgeist"; and additional material on the city of Nazareth, the academic and Internet mythicists, and more.
This book shows there is really nothing at all to the "mythicist" claims: they are groundless historically, poorly argued based on "silence" and refuted by numerous reliable witnesses to Jesus, and that includes the canonical Gospels and the earliest writings of St. Paul. The real debate among scholars is not whether there was a historical Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD, but on Christ's claims to divinity and being the unique Son of God, the miracles of the Gospels as signs of that divinity, and especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ -- i.e. the whole "Jesus of history" vs. "Christ of faith" debate among conservative evangelical and more "liberal" scholarship.
Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels: "There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'." ("Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' for Jesus")
British historian Michael Grant: "...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned...To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels [1977], pages 199, 200)
Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright: "It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much good evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world....the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period....that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus [aside from one or two]....It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest." ("The Self-Revelation of God in Human History" from There Is A God by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese [2007])
Robert Van Voorst: "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." (Jesus Outside the New Testament [2000], pages 6, 14, 16)
Shattering the Christ Myth is a welcome addition to the many evangelical defenses of Jesus Christ by well-known scholars such as R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), Moreland/Wilkins (Jesus Under Fire), and recently Boyd/Eddy (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition). As a Catholic apologist, I also appreciated the brief chapter on "Leo's Line" explaining the "fable quote" sometimes attributed to Pope Leo X by mythicist skeptics.
My only complaint is the book is slightly "oversized" so it is not the size of your normal paperback and may not fit easily on your bookshelf. Nevertheless a definite 5-star effort from apologist J.P. Holding and company.
Phil Porvaznik
8 of 12 people found the following review helpful
By Benson Shays
Amazon Verified Purchase
Christ-mythers have a pretty big arsenal of arguments. They cite dozens of pagan parallels to Jesus, supposed New Testament silences, interpolations and contradictions. When combined they sound impressive, but they ultimately make for a better comedy routine than plausible history of Christianity. In the course of reading biblical scholarship that becomes clear. The truth, however, is that most people, whether believers or skeptics, have neither the time nor desire to take on such in depth study.
Most scholars and apologists will only go as far as looking at mythicists funny for even proposing that Jesus didn't exist, and rightly so. But realizing how well the internet can enable stupidity, Holding and his co-authors have collected every mythicist argument concocted in the last 150 years and thoroughly refuted it.
STCM is divided into roughly three sections, each dealing with different versions and aspects of the Christ-myth. The first puts the screws to the silence thesis as advanced by Earl Doherty; the second with the copycat thesis as argued by Acharya S and Robert Price; and the third addresses two "documentaries" about the Christ-myth and other miscellaneous arguments.
The most useful, although most mind numbing, portion of the book is the section dedicated to Earl Doherty's massive list of New Testament silences. Doherty's argument goes like this: If Jesus were a historical figure, he would have been mentioned by Paul where the latter discusses an issue Jesus also taught about in the Gospels. Since there's no mention of Jesus in these passages, he probably didn't exist. The argument takes on a few different forms, but that's the gist -- Christian author (take your pick) doesn't mention Jesus where he should have.
Holding et al. argue that the authors of the New Testament Epistles (NTE) usually didn't have a reason to recount the information about Jesus contained in the Gospels, because their audiences already knew it. As Holding puts it, "The entire silence mythicist thesis is premised upon a gross anachronism," that Paul, for instance, didn't know something about Jesus unless he specifically stated it in one of his letters.
Doherty has made a handful of attempts to address this criticism, in his 2009 book for example, but each falls short. When the people doing the original research think you're nuts, there's simply no place to turn for evidence in support of the argument. See my earlier point about scholars just giving mythicists the evil eye.
STCM also contains a very thorough defense of the extra-biblical references to Jesus. I found this especially entertaining because I read Holding's book shortly after reading Nailed, which was published almost two years later. Fitzgerald, however, doesn't appear to be aware (or ignores) that the arguments he uses against the partial authenticity of Josephus's discussion of Jesus, for example, were deflated long before his book was released.
I realize that these secular references are of limited value, and the argument for historicity ultimately has to go back to earlier sources. But the fact that writers like Tacitus and Josephus, whose competence is usually not doubted by scholars, mention Jesus and confirm some of the basic details of his life, is a point worth considering -- and defending.
The pagan copycat thesis, in all its forms, is also torn to shreds in the book. The parallels between Jesus and other religious figures from ancient world are generic, non-existent or the figure in question postdates Christianity, so the borrowing goes in the wrong direction.
But some mythicists take a more nuanced approach, suggesting that Christianity developed like many cults did in first century Rome. And as a result, the religion belongs in the "ancient savior god cults" category, as Doherty puts it. That's more likely. But as Holding rightly notes in response, putting Christianity into such a category doesn't necessitate any sort of copycat thesis and isn't "...relevant to whether or not it or any other tradition is 'divine truth.'" (p 275)
In summary, STCM is a comprehensive refutation of the Christ-myth, loaded with scholarship many readers otherwise wouldn't be exposed to. However vociferously mythicists may protest ("He's mean!" etc.). It's more a history book than a work of apologetics, and I think anybody interested in the historical Jesus question would find it useful.
Most scholars and apologists will only go as far as looking at mythicists funny for even proposing that Jesus didn't exist, and rightly so. But realizing how well the internet can enable stupidity, Holding and his co-authors have collected every mythicist argument concocted in the last 150 years and thoroughly refuted it.
STCM is divided into roughly three sections, each dealing with different versions and aspects of the Christ-myth. The first puts the screws to the silence thesis as advanced by Earl Doherty; the second with the copycat thesis as argued by Acharya S and Robert Price; and the third addresses two "documentaries" about the Christ-myth and other miscellaneous arguments.
The most useful, although most mind numbing, portion of the book is the section dedicated to Earl Doherty's massive list of New Testament silences. Doherty's argument goes like this: If Jesus were a historical figure, he would have been mentioned by Paul where the latter discusses an issue Jesus also taught about in the Gospels. Since there's no mention of Jesus in these passages, he probably didn't exist. The argument takes on a few different forms, but that's the gist -- Christian author (take your pick) doesn't mention Jesus where he should have.
Holding et al. argue that the authors of the New Testament Epistles (NTE) usually didn't have a reason to recount the information about Jesus contained in the Gospels, because their audiences already knew it. As Holding puts it, "The entire silence mythicist thesis is premised upon a gross anachronism," that Paul, for instance, didn't know something about Jesus unless he specifically stated it in one of his letters.
Doherty has made a handful of attempts to address this criticism, in his 2009 book for example, but each falls short. When the people doing the original research think you're nuts, there's simply no place to turn for evidence in support of the argument. See my earlier point about scholars just giving mythicists the evil eye.
STCM also contains a very thorough defense of the extra-biblical references to Jesus. I found this especially entertaining because I read Holding's book shortly after reading Nailed, which was published almost two years later. Fitzgerald, however, doesn't appear to be aware (or ignores) that the arguments he uses against the partial authenticity of Josephus's discussion of Jesus, for example, were deflated long before his book was released.
I realize that these secular references are of limited value, and the argument for historicity ultimately has to go back to earlier sources. But the fact that writers like Tacitus and Josephus, whose competence is usually not doubted by scholars, mention Jesus and confirm some of the basic details of his life, is a point worth considering -- and defending.
The pagan copycat thesis, in all its forms, is also torn to shreds in the book. The parallels between Jesus and other religious figures from ancient world are generic, non-existent or the figure in question postdates Christianity, so the borrowing goes in the wrong direction.
But some mythicists take a more nuanced approach, suggesting that Christianity developed like many cults did in first century Rome. And as a result, the religion belongs in the "ancient savior god cults" category, as Doherty puts it. That's more likely. But as Holding rightly notes in response, putting Christianity into such a category doesn't necessitate any sort of copycat thesis and isn't "...relevant to whether or not it or any other tradition is 'divine truth.'" (p 275)
In summary, STCM is a comprehensive refutation of the Christ-myth, loaded with scholarship many readers otherwise wouldn't be exposed to. However vociferously mythicists may protest ("He's mean!" etc.). It's more a history book than a work of apologetics, and I think anybody interested in the historical Jesus question would find it useful.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Author addresses all issues
A college student must be aware of the Mythos school - which can prove that you don't exist. The Author provides concrete answers that neutralize this Methodological approach... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Theoretix
1.0 out of 5 stars
Delusional Faux Scholarship
This book is delusional and is written by a delusional, fundamentalist, narcissist who is so completely inflexible and dogmatic in his "position" (and his position is not in... Read more
Published 14 months ago by Mage1111
2.0 out of 5 stars
Poor Christian Character
J.P. Holding has many good intentions, but his efforts in apologetics are marred by his use of mockery and insult. As a brother in the Lord I cannot support Holding's ministry. Read more
Published 15 months ago by Mandude
1.0 out of 5 stars
Disappointing strawmen!
As a seminary student, I've been very keen on finding all I can on the historical evidence for Jesus. This book was given to me as a gift, and I've recently completed it. Read more
Published 17 months ago by Reverend Aaron
5.0 out of 5 stars
An amateur, but complete dismantling of a tired conspiracy theory
This is a readable, and up-to-date debunking of a conspiracy theory that still has many followers today, especially on the internet. Read more
Published on November 1, 2010 by Kurgan
1.0 out of 5 stars
Cluelessly preaching to the Choir
Those who don't support the Christ Myth theory would be well advised to avoid this book. The old tired standbys of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the younger are toughted with all... Read more
Published on July 3, 2010 by Bruce Grubb
4.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent material
This book is an excellent addition to anyone who is serious to start learning in greater detail how well Christianity is firmly rooted in facts and history and the history of the... Read more
Published on June 28, 2010 by elgranrafo
5.0 out of 5 stars
Surprisingly Impressed
As someone who has been tirelessly unimpressed by the unconvincing apologetic works that have come out in the past few years, this book surprised me greatly. Read more
Published on March 3, 2010 by Whatanoddity
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Jesus Myth laid to rest for good! a book for every true historian...
A majority if not all scholars accept Jesus existed in 1st century Israel.Those that do not are either ill informed or reject the evidence right off hand. Read more
Published on January 10, 2010 by Christopher Cunningham
5.0 out of 5 stars
It's a Thankless Job, But Somebody's Gotta Do It
In the last few years there has been a revival of sorts of "Jesus mythicism". This idea is long discard (by scholars) notion that Jesus did not actually exist as a person (there... Read more
Published on August 13, 2009 by Labarum
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
