There has been so much of interest related to the historical Jesus and the Gospels recently that a collection of links with a few quotes and discussions seemed in order. Let me start with something that initially seems only tangentially related.\u00a0This fascinating article on Josephus\u2019 references to \u201cGalileans\u201d suggests that he viewed them as a distinct ethnos from the Jews of Galilee, to be found primarily in the urban centers<\/a>. Is that the right way to understand Josephus\u2019 terminology? If so, what might that mean for our perception of the historical Jesus?<\/p>\n Tim O\u2019Neill writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n Mythicists have plenty of ways to reinterpret these bothersome passages or find other ways to dismiss them. The problem is that their arguments are, as usual, contorted,\u00a0ad hoc<\/em>\u00a0or rely on dubious readings and so have been found unconvincing by the vast majority of scholars, Christian or otherwise. But the reference to Jesus as \u201cdescended from David according to the flesh\u201d has proven a particularly thorny problem for Mythicists and they have had to work hard to jam it into the framework of their theory. Their efforts are varied but none of them are convincing and one prominent effort in particular is so ridiculously convoluted as to be quite laughable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n You should definitely read the entire thing, as he goes into a lot of detail about what Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, and various other mythicists have to say. For instance:<\/p>\n But no-one can say Carrier lacks conviction or bravado. Despite this \u201ccosmic sperm bank\u201d idea being one that even his most ardent disciples find less than compelling and other Mythicists find downright embarrassing, Carrier is tireless in defending it. And, in doing so, he gets increasingly dogmatic and shrill about it. So he defends it\u00a0here<\/a>. And\u00a0here<\/a>. And, again,\u00a0here<\/a>. And each time he becomes more strident and insistent. You almost have to wonder if he is really convinced himself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n https:\/\/historyforatheists.com\/2020\/05\/jesus-mythicism-6-pauls-davidic-jesus-in-romans-13\/<\/p>\n There\u2019s a book manuscript draft that has been shared by Christopher Hansen on Academia.edu,\u00a0The Quest of the Mythical Jesus<\/em><\/a>. He discusses my work at length, and summarizes it thus:<\/p>\n James F. McGrath has been one of the most active voices in speaking out against Jesus Skepticism in the academic world. He has been voicing his concerns both in public venues, such as Patheos, and then also on more academic forums as well. Of many of the current academics in the debate, he one of the most extensive bibliographies of critiques. His work has been particularly influential as a result of the publicity and awareness he has spread on the issue of Jesus\u2019 historicity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There\u2019s a lot of discussion of a new book that I too am eager to read, Helen Bond\u2019s latest, The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark\u2019s Gospel<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n http:\/\/eerdword.com\/2020\/04\/29\/five-questions-with-helen-bond\/<\/p>\n http:\/\/eerdword.com\/2020\/04\/30\/genre-matters-the-first-biography-of-jesus\/<\/p>\n Helen Bond\u2019s\u2013 The First Biography of Jesus Part One<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n