(Please see description attached to book on Amazon site under former publisher--in Special Orders category).
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
"The most compelling argument ever published in support of the theory that Jesus never existed as an historical person." --Frank Zindler, editor, American Atheist Magazine, Autumn 2000.
"Doherty has written a potential modern classic, which deserves to be widely read and discussed." --Jan Koster, Professor of Linguistics, Groningen University, The Netherlands
"I have never read such scholarship in so easy a style. You have a wonderful way of conveying complex ideas." --Judith Hayes, author of "In God We Trust...But Which God?"
"Doherty has written a potential modern classic, which deserves to be widely read and discussed." --Jan Koster, Professor of Linguistics, Groningen University, The Netherlands
"I have never read such scholarship in so easy a style. You have a wonderful way of conveying complex ideas." --Judith Hayes, author of "In God We Trust...But Which God?"
From the Publisher
During three years of exposure on the World Wide Web, where he has presented convincing evidence, on a half a million word website, that no historical Jesus existed, to enthusiastic (and not so enthusiastic) reaction from around the globe, Earl Doherty's first published book has been eagerly awaited. The wait will not disappoint. In a highly attractive product (the cover itself is stunning), the author presents all the details of his argument in an immensely readable and accessible format.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
121 of 129 people found the following review helpful
Amazon Verified Purchase
Robert Price has very ably and empirically deconstructed the Christ myth to the point that the only item still seriously in question is whether the first layer of Q can be attributed to a Nazerite named Jesus. Price's successful deconstruction thus begs the question: What is the history of how a diverse group of followers came to worship a character who eventually attained the status of the one true God? Enter Earl Doherty and his book, "the Jesus Puzzle".
Doherty presents a new theory that relies mostly on rationalism. Not because he ignores the empirical evidence we now possess to develop theories on the development of Christianity, but instead because while its relatively easy to deconstruct many New Testament claims; positive evidence to create the historical Jesus and historical Jesus Christ are virtually non-existent, making Doherty's constructive efforts exponentially more difficult than Price's deconstruction attempts.
This is not to say Doherty presents little empirical evidence on the development of his Christ, but instead takes what little empirical evidence we have and puts forth a rational theory heavy on common sense. For example, Doherty spends significant amounts of time reviewing the conflicts discussed in the early epistles and analyzing the approach Paul and the other authors use to make a case for their position in the debate. Many of these debates were repeated later in the gospels, with Jesus providing an example addressing the conflict. The epistles consistently ignore the examples in the gospels of Jesus' position, and instead create their own argument, which of course wouldn't carry the weight if one had an argument by the God they worshipped.
While we know the Pauline epistles were written prior to the gospels, Doherty uses this empirical data to show that Paul was almost certainly not aware of any stories of Jesus to better argue his position, making Paul's approach of relying on himself his only practical option. See Romans 14:14 for an argument from Paul and compare to Jesus' example in Mark 7. Why wouldn't Paul use Jesus' example, which would carry much more weight than his? This sort of evidence is used over and over again by Doherty, but is only one small piece of the puzzle Doherty builds for his case.
Doherty does an excellent job of taking our current theories of development of the Canons from a chronological perspective and creating a theory that correlates that time continuum to the development of the character of Jesus Christ. Starting with Paul's early epistles Doherty shows the development of the Christ and eventually, with the distribution of the Gospel of Mark, the development of Jesus Christ.
Doherty's theory contradicts previous theories of a cynic teacher named Jesus whose followers eventually developed his character into the divine son of God, Jesus Christ. Doherty's challenge to this theory has not just the chronological development of the Canons on his side, but also makes it easier to reconcile 2nd century ignorance of the gospel narratives regarding a supposedly self-described "son of man" in the writings we possess from that period. Doherty's chapter comparing what was written during that time to support his theory sets a standard of excellence in logic I wish more religious historians used rather than the mere speculation we are often expected to swallow.
Whether Doherty's theory will become a peer-accepted theory remains to be seen. However his theory deserves careful consideration due to its common sense approach to the evidence we own. I look forward to reading critiques of Doherty's theory to see whether it stands the tests of scrutiny, I wouldn't bet against Doherty.
Doherty presents a new theory that relies mostly on rationalism. Not because he ignores the empirical evidence we now possess to develop theories on the development of Christianity, but instead because while its relatively easy to deconstruct many New Testament claims; positive evidence to create the historical Jesus and historical Jesus Christ are virtually non-existent, making Doherty's constructive efforts exponentially more difficult than Price's deconstruction attempts.
This is not to say Doherty presents little empirical evidence on the development of his Christ, but instead takes what little empirical evidence we have and puts forth a rational theory heavy on common sense. For example, Doherty spends significant amounts of time reviewing the conflicts discussed in the early epistles and analyzing the approach Paul and the other authors use to make a case for their position in the debate. Many of these debates were repeated later in the gospels, with Jesus providing an example addressing the conflict. The epistles consistently ignore the examples in the gospels of Jesus' position, and instead create their own argument, which of course wouldn't carry the weight if one had an argument by the God they worshipped.
While we know the Pauline epistles were written prior to the gospels, Doherty uses this empirical data to show that Paul was almost certainly not aware of any stories of Jesus to better argue his position, making Paul's approach of relying on himself his only practical option. See Romans 14:14 for an argument from Paul and compare to Jesus' example in Mark 7. Why wouldn't Paul use Jesus' example, which would carry much more weight than his? This sort of evidence is used over and over again by Doherty, but is only one small piece of the puzzle Doherty builds for his case.
Doherty does an excellent job of taking our current theories of development of the Canons from a chronological perspective and creating a theory that correlates that time continuum to the development of the character of Jesus Christ. Starting with Paul's early epistles Doherty shows the development of the Christ and eventually, with the distribution of the Gospel of Mark, the development of Jesus Christ.
Doherty's theory contradicts previous theories of a cynic teacher named Jesus whose followers eventually developed his character into the divine son of God, Jesus Christ. Doherty's challenge to this theory has not just the chronological development of the Canons on his side, but also makes it easier to reconcile 2nd century ignorance of the gospel narratives regarding a supposedly self-described "son of man" in the writings we possess from that period. Doherty's chapter comparing what was written during that time to support his theory sets a standard of excellence in logic I wish more religious historians used rather than the mere speculation we are often expected to swallow.
Whether Doherty's theory will become a peer-accepted theory remains to be seen. However his theory deserves careful consideration due to its common sense approach to the evidence we own. I look forward to reading critiques of Doherty's theory to see whether it stands the tests of scrutiny, I wouldn't bet against Doherty.
81 of 85 people found the following review helpful
A simple enumeration of the contradictions, inconsistencies and errors in the New Testament is not enough to prove that Jesus was as mythical as Dionysus. The author of this book knows this very well so he spends the pages of his treatise to build from the ground up his case with extreme attention to detail. His style is scholarly (states his assumptions, separates facts from conjecture even if this appears to weaken his case, attributes the ideas he explains), consistent and impartial.
The issue of "impartiality" is, for obvious reasons, very important in this case. The author does not try to buttress an inconclusive argument with methods not grounded to reason, but shifts the focus to issues for which conclusive arguments can be developed and constructive inferences can be extracted. He avoids to be combative, insulting or polarized. He does not miss an opportunity to heap praise to Apostle Paul (indeed a remarkable personality) but tries to use the mildest words to describe Mark's unskilled use of language.
The main argument is developed in several stages. The author gives an excellent review of the philosophical movements of the first and second century and builds a virtual map the coordinates of which are the various philosophical ideas. He then helps the reader place the various thinkers of the time on this map. This works amazingly well for Paul whose complex thinking suddenly becomes tractable. Works OK for the other epistle writers. But does not work very well for Mark. So, the very solid exposition of the Jerusalem group (Paul etc) is followed by speculative conjectures regarding the events that took place around the end of the first century (the time Mark was composed). It would be great if one could reconstruct these events, but it is not really necessary and might not even be possible. This book tried to narrow down the possibilities by assuming that Mark was initially meant to be fiction (I know of no internal or external argument for this other than that the opposite would imply a dishonest church father; a very weak argument). If no such assumption is introduced, any attempt to reconstruct Mark's state of mind becomes too speculative to be of much value.
The argument against the historicity of Jesus reaches a crescendo near the end of the book where the writings of the apologists are examined, a careful reading of which makes it obvious that they either did not know anything about the biography of Jesus or (one of them) considered the idea of a human Jesus abominable. As an added bonus, this chapter contains a superb account of the church politics that led to the canonization of the New Testament (more or less) as we know it today. This superb account offers, other than the enjoyment of a scholarly exposition of the most divinely inspired sequence of backstabbings, the final piece of the puzzle. It explains how all these different sects with so radical differences in their dogma (some ready to kill and die for a human Jesus and some arguing fervently for a non human Jesus), coalesced into a single religion.
The book includes some very interesting appendices about various heresies, about the dates of various gospels etc. And within the text the author devotes several paragraphs to explain the trickier parts of ancient Greek.
My only complain about the ancient Greek (I understand the ancient Greek of the NT reasonably well) is his translation of the "kata sarka". The author translates it as "according to flesh", which leaves a lot to be desired. There seem to be endless discussions on the exact translation of it and I do not think there will ever be an agreement. The problem is that the word "kata" can have many meanings. It can mean "according", it can mean "against" (not here), can mean "by", "towards", "per" etc. Moreover, these guys had developed their own jargon, apostle-speak, so "kata sarka" might be one of their novelties, in which case we have no hope. My own speculation is that Paul was trying to reconcile his views with a set of "prophetic" sentences in the Old Testament, but failed. But in any case, no reasonable interpretation of "kata sarka" is inconsistent with the main thesis of the book in my opinion.
Overall the book is excellent, all the essential arguments are solid, the historical, philosophical and theological reviews are magnificent and the closing argument is as enjoyable as it is convincing. Nowhere does the book beg the reader's good will or the reader's faith to a common cause to convince for an argument. The amount of hard work that went into this book is clearly evident.
The issue of "impartiality" is, for obvious reasons, very important in this case. The author does not try to buttress an inconclusive argument with methods not grounded to reason, but shifts the focus to issues for which conclusive arguments can be developed and constructive inferences can be extracted. He avoids to be combative, insulting or polarized. He does not miss an opportunity to heap praise to Apostle Paul (indeed a remarkable personality) but tries to use the mildest words to describe Mark's unskilled use of language.
The main argument is developed in several stages. The author gives an excellent review of the philosophical movements of the first and second century and builds a virtual map the coordinates of which are the various philosophical ideas. He then helps the reader place the various thinkers of the time on this map. This works amazingly well for Paul whose complex thinking suddenly becomes tractable. Works OK for the other epistle writers. But does not work very well for Mark. So, the very solid exposition of the Jerusalem group (Paul etc) is followed by speculative conjectures regarding the events that took place around the end of the first century (the time Mark was composed). It would be great if one could reconstruct these events, but it is not really necessary and might not even be possible. This book tried to narrow down the possibilities by assuming that Mark was initially meant to be fiction (I know of no internal or external argument for this other than that the opposite would imply a dishonest church father; a very weak argument). If no such assumption is introduced, any attempt to reconstruct Mark's state of mind becomes too speculative to be of much value.
The argument against the historicity of Jesus reaches a crescendo near the end of the book where the writings of the apologists are examined, a careful reading of which makes it obvious that they either did not know anything about the biography of Jesus or (one of them) considered the idea of a human Jesus abominable. As an added bonus, this chapter contains a superb account of the church politics that led to the canonization of the New Testament (more or less) as we know it today. This superb account offers, other than the enjoyment of a scholarly exposition of the most divinely inspired sequence of backstabbings, the final piece of the puzzle. It explains how all these different sects with so radical differences in their dogma (some ready to kill and die for a human Jesus and some arguing fervently for a non human Jesus), coalesced into a single religion.
The book includes some very interesting appendices about various heresies, about the dates of various gospels etc. And within the text the author devotes several paragraphs to explain the trickier parts of ancient Greek.
My only complain about the ancient Greek (I understand the ancient Greek of the NT reasonably well) is his translation of the "kata sarka". The author translates it as "according to flesh", which leaves a lot to be desired. There seem to be endless discussions on the exact translation of it and I do not think there will ever be an agreement. The problem is that the word "kata" can have many meanings. It can mean "according", it can mean "against" (not here), can mean "by", "towards", "per" etc. Moreover, these guys had developed their own jargon, apostle-speak, so "kata sarka" might be one of their novelties, in which case we have no hope. My own speculation is that Paul was trying to reconcile his views with a set of "prophetic" sentences in the Old Testament, but failed. But in any case, no reasonable interpretation of "kata sarka" is inconsistent with the main thesis of the book in my opinion.
Overall the book is excellent, all the essential arguments are solid, the historical, philosophical and theological reviews are magnificent and the closing argument is as enjoyable as it is convincing. Nowhere does the book beg the reader's good will or the reader's faith to a common cause to convince for an argument. The amount of hard work that went into this book is clearly evident.
72 of 76 people found the following review helpful
I was raised as a strict Methodist, but rebelled at a young age. Since I have retired, I have read numerous books trying to find out some sort of truth about the origins of Christianity. I had reached stage where I thought that Jesus of Nazareth was a Galilean, Cynic-influenced teacher, and that his story had somehow got mixed up with a Christ-cult which Paul adopted. I knew about the relative dating of the books of the New Testament, but I was enormously impressed by the comprehensive scholarship of Doherty's book. He makes an excellent case that there never was a historical Jesus. In the Epistles, which predate the gospels, there is NO evidence of the Jesus of the Gospels. What we have there is Paul's metaphysical idea where the sacrifice of the Son of God occurred at the level of demons, not on the earth. The source of Paul's ideas is scripture, not historical testimony. I used to think that Paul was responsible for turning Christianity into what it became. But I think Doherty is correct in emphasising "Mark", whoever he was, as turning the mythical level of Paul's thought into a historical basis. But this was a literary creation, on a parallel with the many myths circulating at the time about divine or semi-divine beings.
Thanks,Earl, for finally letting me see the truth.
John
Thanks,Earl, for finally letting me see the truth.
John
Most Recent Customer Reviews
3.0 out of 5 stars
Paul isn't necessarily the Answer.
I read a copy of this book generously provided by the author on his website. For that, I thank him. Read more
Published 10 months ago by Boris
5.0 out of 5 stars
Cogency and Validity
Earl Doherty's contention that Jesus was an allegory invented to flesh out certain theological tenets is based on an exhaustive investigation of the literary evidence. Read more
Published 13 months ago by Richard B. Smith
5.0 out of 5 stars
Open Letter to Earl Doherty
Dear Earl,
So now we know why the Pope wears 'RED' shoes. He's just trying to distract attention away from you. Thank you, thank you. Read more
So now we know why the Pope wears 'RED' shoes. He's just trying to distract attention away from you. Thank you, thank you. Read more
Published 20 months ago by Bill Hilly
5.0 out of 5 stars
Jesus is even Puzzled!!!!
Earl Doherty is a genius! This guy actually picks Jesus apart like an insect! I have a library full of Jesus myth books and this has been the best one thus far! Read more
Published 23 months ago by Bashiek Dorsey
3.0 out of 5 stars
Putting the cart before the horse.
Placing, according to general consensus, Paul and his Epistles before the Gospel of Mark makes Doherty consider that JC started out as an entirely divine being, secondarily given a... Read more
Published on May 16, 2010 by Chris Albert Wells
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fascinating book and scientifically very sound!
Fascinating book, scientifically very sound and definitely not promoting any "conspiracy theories". By far the most convincing publication in the field that I have read so far (and... Read more
Published on March 28, 2010 by Ralf M. Leonhardt
5.0 out of 5 stars
Where for art thou, Jesus
I suppose first off I should divulge that I am an atheist. I have always been facinated by the way people cling to these old myths. Read more
Published on January 30, 2010 by G. Cornell
4.0 out of 5 stars
What!? There was no William Tell!
No William Tell!? Robin Hood was a fake! King Arthur never existed? What shocking and appalling revelations! Read more
Published on November 28, 2009 by C. Wagner
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Jesus Puzzle
From a Christian's point of view (or perhaps now a former Christian's view), I found Mr. Dogherty's book to be not a put-down towards the revealed religion I have been so certain... Read more
Published on November 1, 2009 by M. J. Bennett
5.0 out of 5 stars
A fascinating tale on the true evolution of the bible
Earl Doherty presents a well researched investigative foray into scholarly work surrounding the life of a putatively human Jesus. Read more
Published on September 3, 2009 by The Rationalist
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
