Jesus: Mything in Action, Vol. I (The Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion) Paperback – March 21, 2017

Those who do research and then present their findings often discover that there is more work to do. Such was the case in 2010 when David Fitzgerald published a little book called Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed. His award-winning foray into mythicist studies left readers clamoring for more, but serious historical investigation takes time. Now, the long-awaited follow-up is finally available. Fitzgerald’s Jesus: Mything in Action is a three-part work that his fans will undoubtedly agree was well worth the wait.In the book’s introduction, Fitzgerald reminds his readers of a salient fact—a matter that, though now axiomatic, needs to be reiterated. Scholars have long drawn a clear distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and only one of those figures merits serious discussion by freethinkers. Regardless of what claims anyone makes concerning the existence of a man behind the myth, the protagonist of the Gospels is undoubtedly a fictional character.In the first volume of his study, Fitzgerald addresses the question of why there seem to be so few historians who are mythicists, and he admits, “We should pay attention to what the experts in the field think” (36). Nonetheless, his ensuing discussion of the situation suggests that the field itself has major problems—in large part because biblical research “remains…dominated by believers,” some of whom (whether intentionally or not) perpetuate an apologetic bias (36). Three problems Fitzgerald has identified receive attention here.First, with only a very few exceptions, arguments advanced in support of the mythicist position rely on negative findings of historical Jesus research concerning which there has been broad consensus for over one hundred years. As Fitzgerald observes, “The final conclusion reached by mythicists may be controversial, [but] not the evidence cited and the methodology employed to get there” (38). So, it is unfair to suggest that mythicists have taken a stance entirely outside the mainstream of historical Jesus research.Second, most experts have now grudgingly acknowledged that the criteria of authenticity used to isolate historical elements within the Jesus tradition have failed to deliver credible results. So, as Fitzgerald explains, even the most conscientious specialists in the field “have not followed sound historical practices” (51). In subsequent chapters, he provides specific examples to help readers understand why scholars have now lost confidence in the criteria of authenticity, and he surveys various historical reconstructions of Jesus that were based on these flawed principles, noting that the inexplicable disparity of the results led scholars to reconsider the longstanding acceptance of the underlying methodology.Third, mythicists have frequently insisted that biblical scholars employed by a church-affiliated institution cannot really afford to voice doubts about the historicity of Jesus, and Fitzgerald has now documented that claim. Of 1,417 “degree-granting institutions of higher education in the United States [that] offer some form of relevant Biblical/Jesus/NT Studies…the majority…have a religious affiliation” (59-60). Of course, not every denominational institution mandates strict faculty adherence to its doctrinal statement, but that is the case for 273 out of 814 schools. And so, as Fitzgerald stresses, many professors have a contractual obligation to affirm the historicity of Jesus (62). For readers who assume that academic freedom is alive and well in other religious colleges, universities, and seminaries, he presents six case studies that summarize how biblical scholars lost jobs for stating views not nearly so controversial as the Christ myth theory (63-79).Of course, no one can use this data to say how many biblical experts might be closet mythicists; that remains a matter of speculation. However, one can infer from this data that the field of biblical studies is not free from a bias toward religious orthodoxy. In addition, one can infer that doctrinal restrictions on academic freedom reinforce and thereby perpetuate religious orthodoxy within the scholarly guild. Furthermore, if (as the data suggests) the field of biblical studies is dominated by believers, it is no surprise that the strongest mythicist arguments quite often come from outside the academy.Fitzgerald’s work has many positive aspects, but several deserve special attention. His engaging conversational style makes Jesus: Mything in Action a pleasure to read, and the non-polemical tone of his approach provides a model that other participants in the ongoing mythicist-historicist debate should strive to emulate. He gives a fair hearing to views that challenge his own, always focusing on the cogency of competing arguments and never resorting to personal attacks against those who still have doubts about the mythicist position.Fitzgerald’s work is well-researched, drawing on an impressive array of scholarship. At the end of most chapters, he provides suggestions for further reading, including various online resources. Like the suggestions for further reading, the endnotes introduce readers to a wealth of research, and that material provides a clear roadmap for anyone who wants to learn more about the issues discussed in this study.David Fitzgerald has depicted his role as that of “a combat reporter, not a front-line soldier of the Jesus historicist/mythicist war” (83). In other words, he makes no claim that this three-part work presents his own scholarly research; instead, what he provides is a comprehensive resource meant to introduce interested readers to what mythicist scholars have written about the subject, while at the same time identifying significant problems associated with historicist position.Let me end my review with a quote that Fitzgerald includes in his study, even though the person quoted remains a historicist. The following statement, by Philip Davies, reflects my own view of the mythicist-historicist debate: “I don’t think…that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.” Like Davies, I am convinced that the historicist view best accounts for the surviving evidence, and I defend that view in my own book, Jesus Eclipsed: How Searching the Scriptures Got in the Way of Recounting the Facts. Yet, like Davies, I also realize that I may be wrong.So, instead of assuming that the historicist position must be correct, take the time to weigh the pertinent evidence, to consider the competing arguments, and to draw an informed conclusion. Read Jesus: Mything in Action, and see what you think. It is an excellent study!

Having read Bart Ehrman's books, I know there are many problems in the Gospels. But fortunately there is another source of information on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus-the Urantia Book (available on Amazon). Jesus, Creator and God of the universe, came to earth (Urantia) to experience life as a human being and to gain full sovereignty of his universe. This is what he meant after his resurrection when he said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18). He did not come to earth to atone for the sins of mankind. There was no racial guilt, no Adam's sin and no angry god demanding a sacrifice. Jesus had no interest in becoming king of Israel. He refused the Zealots when asked to join their party. He said at the synagogue at Capernaum in AD 26, "The Son of Man will not lead forth armies in battle for the establishment of a throne of power or a kingdom of worldly glory" (1536). Jesus rather tried to teach people how to live, to live righteously in order to bring on the kingdom of heaven. The Jews wanted Jesus dead, but they couldn't kill him. They invented changes that would satisfy Pilate. The changes didn't convince Pilate, and he tried everything he could to save Jesus. But in the end he folded, and Jesus was crucified. But the death of Jesus was not a sacrifice for sins (2003). Our spiritual salvation is not dependent on the death of Jesus (2002). But that doesn't mean we aren't messed up. After death, we go through long intensive training before we see the Father. Some need rehabilitation. There are so many inaccuracies and no space but to describe but a few. *Mary was not a virgin. She conceived by Joseph the night before Gabriel made his announcement. She had 7 other children. *Jesus wasn't tempted in the wilderness by Satan. He went off to think and make policy decisions. *Jesus did not walk on water. *Jesus at the Last Supper did not say "this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant"(Catholic Eucharist). This comes from Paul's writing, which he said came from Jesus himself (1 Cor 11:23-26). And the Gospel writers copied Paul. *The only anomaly when Jesus died was a darkening sky, but that turned out to be a sandstorm from the Arabian Desert. Jesus died on the cross, and on Sunday morning April 9, AD 30 he arose from the dead. This act had procedures the gospel writers could know nothing about. He appeared to 5 women near the tomb. He made 19 appearances before his ascension. He appeared to the disciples twice in Jerusalem, later in Galilee and the last time near Jerusalem.

Having previously read many books about the Old and New Testament, including Richard Carrier's book, "On the Historicity of Jesus," I thought I wouldn't necessarily learn much more from this book. Thus, I purchased only the first volume. Being not able to stop myself from reading it, during every spare minute of my day and even into the late hours of the night, I must now immediately purchase the next two volumes! The book goes into a lot of detail, however it's all written with a great sense of humor and an easy to read style! I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of my reading. Even when the book spent a lot of time detailing the stories of how others in the field have been treated by their peers and institutions, it never failed to be interesting.

David Fitzgerald nailed (pun intended) it again. In this amazing first volume of three he analyzes the gospels with such accuracy, supporting evidence and organized discourse that it is hard not to agree with him in the logical conclusion that follows: the mythic nature of Jesus is the only plausible explanation to the myriad of contradictions and anachronisms present in the gospels. David maintains the mild, colloquial and sometimes funny style that we found in his previous books making this one a page-turner. Can't wait to read Volumes 2 and 3.

Good follow up to Nailed. David goes way more in depth breaking down the reasons why he and growing numbers see Jesus as a myth.

Se você pensa que o Jesus histórico é fato consumado entre os estudiosos históricos da bíblia vai se surpreender com o que vai encontrar nesse livro. Há muito tempo o Jesus da fé foi desmascarado pela análise literária dos evangelhos. Porém, o Jesus da História era razoavelmente acreditado pelos estudiosos. Não mais. O livro destrincha os estudos de Jesus e mostra como as ideias provenientes de nosso primeiro Evangelho de Marcos são ficções empilhadas sobre ficções. Você vai abrir sua mente ao ler tamanha quantidade de informações sobre a produção literária do primeiro século e o quão diversa ela foi. Aguardo ansiosamente a tradução!!!

Sehr gutes Buch aus sehr guter Reihe. ich empfehle, die gesamte mything in action Serie und nailed zu lesen, dazu Richard Carrier On the historicity of Jesus. Denn in diesem Buch wird sehr oft auf die anderen eben genannten verwiesen, so dass es gut ist, wenn Mensch sie zur Hand hat, um gleich nachzuschlagen. Es liest sich sehr gut, sehr flüssig, auch für mich als nicht Muttersprachler sehr gut verständlich. Echt gut lesbarer Stil. Humorvoll. Angenehm.

This book changed many of my assumptions about the New Testament and specifically about what is known about the "real" Jesus (it turns out to be nothing at all that's historically verifiable). Fitzgerald (whose book about Mormons is also a really good read) demonstrates how most of the NT was written a considerable amount of time after Jesus was supposed to have lived and how much of it was plagiarised. There's doubt that St Paul ever existed also, but that's another story...In short, this book is well written in an engaging style and probably won't be read by anyone whose faith depends on believing that the NT is the story of a man-god - but it should be.

This is a great summary of not only the mythicist position, and the rationale behind it, but also a terrific summation of decades (if not centuries) of Old and New Testament textual criticism.