Talk:Christ myth theory/Sources

This is a list of the sources for Christ myth theory, any relevant qualifications, positions held, and publications.

Comtemporary

Pro

G.A. Wells (born 1926)

• Education: Degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. Phd, specialization unknown.

• Position: Professor emeritus of German, Birkbeck College, London

• Relevant specialization: none

• Relevant publications:

• The Jesus of the Early Christians (Pemberton 1971);
• Did Jesus exist? (Prometheus Books 1987);
• The Jesus Myth (Open Court 1998);
• Religious Postures: Essays on Modern Christian Apologists and Religious Problems (Open Court 1988);
• The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Prometheus 1988);
• Who Was Jesus?: A Critique of the New Testament Record (Open Court 1989);
• The Jesus Legend (Open Court 1996);
• Can We Trust the New Testament? (Open Court 2003);
• Belief and Make-Believe (Open Court 2003);
• Cutting Jesus Down to Size (Open Court 2009).

• Basic position: At one time doubted the existence of the historcal Jesus, though he acknowledged that such as a view is "is today almost totally rejected". Has since come to believe that Q is early evidence and now accepts a minimalistic historical Jesus.

• Views of others: Graham Stanton regards Well's arguments as the most sophisticated of the Christ myth theorists, though he rejects them. Michael Martin argues that Wells's argument is "sound" though it "may seem ad hoc and arbitrary" and "is controversial and not widely accepted".

Michael Martin (born 1932)

• Education: Phd in philosophy from Harvard University

• Position: Professor emeritus of philosophy, Boston University

• Relevant specialization: philosophy of religion

• Relevant publications:

• Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press 1989);
• The Case Against Christianity (Temple University Press 1991);
• Atheism, Morality, and Meaning (Prometheus 2002);
• The Impossibility of God (ed, Prometheus 2003);
• The Improbability of God (ed, Prometheus 2006);
• The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (ed, Cambridge University Press 2006).

• Basic position: Argues that a strong prima facie challenge can be made to the argument for Jesus's existence, though he acknowledges that such a denial is "not widely accepted".

• Views of others: Gary Habermas describes Martin as "[o]ne of the only scholars to follow G. A. Wells" and says that "Martin's theses fail to account for the available data at a very basic level." Habermas draws attention to Martin's failure to accurately respresent the views of the scholars he himself quotes in support of his views of Josephus.

Contra

Graham Stanton (1940-2009)

• Education: Bachelor of Divinity and MA, University of Otago; PhD Westminster College, Cambridge, a theological college of the United Reformed Church affiliated with the University of Cambridge through the Cambridge Theological Federation.

• Position: Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge

• Relevant specialization: New Testament; Gospels, particularly Matthew's

• Relevant publications:

• Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (Cambridge University Press 1974)
• The Gospels and Jesus'' (Oxford University Press 1989)
• Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (T. & T. Clark Publishers 1992)
• Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels (Zondervan 1997)
• Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge University Press 2004)

• Basic position: Today nearly all historians accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain valuable evidence about him

• Views of others:

Robert E. Van Voorst

• Education: BA Hope College, MDiv Western Theological Seminary, PhD in New Testament, Union Theological Seminary [1]--an institution affiliated with Columbia University

• Position: Professor of New Testament Studies, Western Theological Seminary

• Relevant specialization: New Testament

• Relevant publications:

• Jesus Outside the New Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 2000)
• Reading the New Testament Today (2004)
• The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (co-author, 2007)

• Basic position: Argues that even G. A. Wells no longer subscribes to the Christ myth theory.

• Views of others: