Very compelling

A very detailed highly compelling thesis into the real Jesus. In my opinion it is very hard to refute much of what this book argues: that a Jewish peasant from Galilee walked the land of Palestine and died on the cross. No resurrection, no virgin birth, just a man with a particular apoplectic view. Highly recommended.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

If only all Christians like myself listened to this book!

Wow!
A truly outstanding book of immense importance.
Just goes to show you how blind people are to the true facts of religion.
I would love him to do one on the evil of Islam!

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

Did Jesus exist

An excellent book . Well argued and convincing covering enough ground but not too much.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

References

Nothing more annoying than having references and page numbers quoted in every other sentence, leave them for the back of the book.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Good book but poor evidence

Would you listen to Did Jesus Exist? again? Why?

Yes. I think you need to listen to this book several times in order to analyse the arguments and evidence. For me its not a book you read just once

What was one of the most memorable moments of Did Jesus Exist??

Not applicable

Which scene did you most enjoy?

Not Applicable

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

Not Applicable

Any additional comments?

I like and enjoy all Bart Ehrman's books. In my opinion he is an excellent scholar and teacher. In this book he sets down his case for a historical Jesus. Although his arguments are rational and reasoned there is an immense amount of speculation. In addition many of the arguments he gave were counter productive to the view of a historical Jesus. I feel in summary that the evidence he gives is tenuous at best. For instance he will say that the Gospels are corrupted sources that cannot be trusted but then turn to them to to show "evidence" for the historical Jesus. His use of speculative works like Q, M and L are relied on far too heavily. No modern scholar has ever seen theses books so how can see cite with any authority what is in them?

Before reading this book I was an agnostic with regards to the "Mythicist" argument and a believer in a minimalist historical Jesus. However after Bart's book I am now an agnostic (70:30 that he is a fictional figure) when it comes to the historicity of Jesus. In my opinion, from the arguments given, all that is left of a historically possible Jesus is that "there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus (or a derivative of that name) who was crucified" which could be paraphrased as "there is an English boy called Harry Potter". The picture given of Jesus is so far from the traditional view as to be meaningless for comparing that person to the one in the New Testament. Just because there is a boy called Harry Potter living in England would have no bearing on the historicity of J K Rowling's character. Nor would it be worthwhile using the Harry Potter books to find the real Harry Potter. In my opinion the New Testament is equitable to just such a fictional work. I think if the evidence for Jesus was applied to any other character in history than there would be no debate and most scholars would think he was just a legend. Whilst in my opinion this is the weakest of Bart's books it is well worth a listen if you are interested in Christianity and religion.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

5 people found this helpful

Excellent historical scholarship

This is an excellent book. The author's analysis of a complex and controversial subject is clear and well balanced. He presents and objectively weighs the available historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and concludes - convincingly in my opinion - that such a person really did exist in the early part of the first century CE.

As a former student of history at university, I particularly liked the part of the book where he set out and explained the investigative methods historians of ancient history use. It was a very easily understandable summary and may be a help to anyone starting to study historical source material. It was also useful to see those methods applied to the case in point.

I would certainly recommend what I found to be a thought provoking and easy to listen to book to anyone interested in the biography of Jesus or the study of history more generally.

5 stars.

Graham

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

2 people found this helpful

Odd Methodology

Bart Ehrman is an excellent all-round 'objective' scholar of Judeo-Christian historicak development and resultant ideology. However, in this book he makes a methodological mistake that borders upon the usual level of anti-intellectualism that emanates from within the US, and which masquerades as 'academic vigour.' The tragedy here, is that I know he is far from stupid despite being an American! To put it simply, his expressed 'personal belief' in the physical existence of a historical Jesus is NOT academic grounds to assume that a man called 'Yeshua Ben Yoseph' (Jesus Christ) - a) physically existed, and b) on the strength of 'a' was the Son of God! This is academic nonsense. I am sure that he knows full well, that if any other figure in history possessed so little substantive supporting evidence, academia would quite rightly assume that a mythology was in operation, and any claims to literal existence would be deemed 'unsafe'. Furthermore, Ehrman, despite his own claim of being a supposed 'elite' scholar does make mistakes which I assume are due to wishful thinking on his part. In one of his other books, he claims the P52 fragment of John's Gospel (on display in the UK), dates from around 125 CE - thus proving the antiquity of John - when in fact the latest scholarship suggests a date of around 170 CE (plus or minus 20 years) and as late as 200 CE! Furthermore, Ehrman ignores the work of Karl Kausky who claimed that Early Christianity was influenced by the philosophy of the older Indian Buddhism. He also excludes Karl Marx who dismisses modern Christianity as it supports the capitalist system and is premised upon an inverted mindset (whereby thoughts in the mind are mistaken for concrete objects in the physical environment). The USSR - like the US - separated Church from State and the classroom from the Church. Socialist Law guarantees all citizens the right to follow any religion (or none), with all religious beliefs being a private matter. There was no 'official' view of Christianity in hhe USSR as incorrectly suggested by Ehrman. He thinks this because the US propagated continuous disinformation about the USSR, one lie of which involved the false propaganda that religion was surpressed. Today, this lie is aimed at Communist China and Cuba, etc, despite millions of people happily following their religions with no State interference whatsoever. The truth is that there is no physical evidence that Jesus existed.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

Annoying

The main evidence offered for the historicity of Jesus was that it is what scholars think and so we should be happy with that. One loses respect for author of books which I have previously enjoyed, when they have a generous idea of what constitutes independent testament and try to defend the testamonium flavianum as true.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful