Casey's Superfluous

Chapter 3 Casey’s Superfluous ‘Scholarship’ Ehrman’s book arguing for what is already the consensus view is so under- whelming that the now late Maurice Casey found it necessary to also weigh in on the debate, with what would be his last book, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? Casey added nothing useful to the discussion, but for com- pleteness, the only other book of recent times written by a secular New Testa- ment specialist arguing for the Historical Jesus ought to be considered. With this book published in 2014, Casey acknowledges Ehrman’s “bold attempt”, but alluded to the latter’s “regrettable mistakes”.1 Casey aims to primarily “set out the main arguments for the existence as a historical figure of Jesus”, and secondarily, to refute the claims of the opposing mythicists.2 Regrettably, he completely misrepresents mythicism, mythicists, and mythicist approaches, and, like Ehrman, seems to completely overlook the more defensible agnostic position. Beginning rather poorly, Casey fails to outline his own method, and, like Ehrman, he also relies heavily on hypothetical sources. He defends against the problem of Paul, though somewhat unnecessarily, as he argues for the Gospels’ primacy by employing radically unorthodox dating methods. Casey finally attempts to engage with mythicist claims, though he focuses on the more ama- teurish mythicists, with barely a coherent word about Earl Doherty, who at the time had presented one of the most convincing cases for mythicism thus far (despite technically being an amateur himself). The tone of Casey’s work is also unprofessional and, at times, quite crude. 1 Poisoning the Well Casey’s introductory chapter is an attempt to ‘poison the well’, is filled with eas- ily avoidable errors about mythicism, and includes unnecessary ad hominem argumentation. In a section disrespectfully entitled “Scholars” (scare quotes included), Casey attempts to discredit “the most influential mythicists”, yet includes Bart Ehrman, who is precisely the opposite of a Jesus mythicist (and is indeed a bona fide scholar), and numerous figures who are technically amateurs 1 Casey (jeamm), p. 17. 2 Ibid., p. viii. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:�0.��63/9789004408784_005 <UN> 100 Chapter 3 and not actually mythicists, such as “Blogger Godfrey” (Neil Godfrey is more of an agnostic on the issue, much like myself).3 Casey irrelevantly portrays mythicists as unqualified, anti-Christian,4 and as former fundamentalists,5 which is demonstrably false; and something Casey would have known by doing what researchers are supposed to do: research. He needn’t even have searched long and hard. Carrier’s more liberal, non- fundamentalist, Christian background has been public knowledge – via books and internet essays – for over a decade before Casey published his book. Car- rier’s example also highlights the irrelevance of Casey’s approach, as he was an atheist for over fifteen years before he even came to see Jesus’ ahistoricity as plausible. The most peculiar aspect of Casey’s tactic is that he is demonstrably wrong even by his own work. For example, Casey himself acknowledges that Doherty was not raised as “an American Protestant fundamentalist”, but as a Catholic.6 Furthermore, Ehrman – as with many other secular, mainstream, historicist scholars specialising in the Historical Jesus – could also be described as a former fundamentalist, and he is certainly no mythicist. These unnecessary and libellous errors are continued throughout the book, with Casey strangely accusing mythicists of being unable to accept that Jesus had a brother (i.e., James, the ‘brother of the Lord’), as “mythicists used to be conservative Christians: they did not believe that Jesus had natural brothers because they believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”7 One can only wonder how this calumny had passed peer-review.8 It now seems 3 Ibid., pp. 10–36. 4 Ibid., pp. 2–3. Bart Ehrman also thinks that an anti-Christian agenda drives mythicists. See Ehrman (dje), pp. 336–339. 5 Casey (jeamm), p. 44. Given Casey’s aggressiveness, and poor – while also dogmatic – case (as we shall see), the only fundamentalist he truly sees is the one staring back at him from the mirror. Casey’s sweeping generalisation is akin to assuming that all Muslims are terror- ists, or that all Brexiteers are bigots. On the latter, I have found that many supporting Brexit, including academics, had genuine and rational concerns about the economy, the integration of migrants, and undemocratic elements of the European Union. For example, see Raphael Lataster, “On Richard Swinburne and the Failings of Christian Theistic Evidentialism,” Litera- ture & Aesthetics 26, no. 1 (2016): 39–40. 6 Casey (jeamm), p. 16. Casey then surprisingly insists that Doherty “was nonetheless brought up in an authoritarian environment”, despite lacking evidence, and despite earlier acknowl- edging (on the same page, no less) that “Information about Earl Doherty is not readily avail- able”. He could have simply contacted Doherty, but that would have required effort. Like actual research does. And it gets in the way of lazy mud-slinging. 7 Ibid., p. 170. 8 Clearly peer-review is not the be-all and end-all. Hence, we should focus on the arguments. Also, it is quite likely that the book was not peer-reviewed, since it is actually a popular book, and not a proper monograph published by an academic press. <UN>.

Load more