Obtain Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All Curated By David Fitzgerald Shown In Document

may as well be upfront, as probably expected I don't think this is a good book, Had I not been personally asked to read and review this book, I'd have given up somewhere between chaptersor, I realize however, that a negative review from a Christian is easily dismissed as the conclusion of a closed mind unwilling to entertain or give credit to the arguments being presented.
The problem is that Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed's flaws are extensive even before we get to the points it raises,

Nailed is written as a deconstruction of ten Christian beliefs that in truth are nothing more than myth, Two of the myths, Myth No,, that “Jesus was wildly famous” and Myth No,, that Christianity was a “miraculous overnight success”, are claims I don't believe I've ever heard from other Christians, as an Atheist or even since becoming Christian, Other Myths, such as Myth No,, that “Eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels” would be a belief held commonly by evangelical apologists, Sure Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony has renewed discussion on the topic, but among the consensus of biblical scholarship the reaction would be “Yes, and”.
That isn't to say these myths aren't sincere beliefs held among the fringe of Christianity, but Nailed doesn't claim to be a rebuttal of fringe fundamentalism but rather Christianity as a whole.


In the opening chapter Fitzgerald declares his purpose is to highlight "evidence gathered from historians all across the theological spectrum" yet the vast majority of the Nailed's content comes from quoting arguments from just three noted Jesus Mythicists: Richard Carrier, Robert M.
Price and Earl Doherty. Carrier for instance is called upon more times than there are chaptersmentions in all and is surely deserving of a coauthor credit,

Yet even when Fitzgerald isn't directly quoting or referring to them and appears to be making his own arguments we often find him to be simply paraphrasing from those exact same sources.
For instance in a chapter discussing the growth of early Christianity in Not the Impossible Faith, Richard Carrier introduces the work of Keith Hopkins in this manner emphasis mine:

A more thorough survey of the evidence and scholarship pertaining to Christian numbers was provided in a landmark paper by Keith Hopkins.


Fitzgerald, having just quoted from a later portion of that very same chapter of Carrier's Not the Impossible Faith, then introduces Keith Hopkins by saying again emphasis added:

Keith Hopkins surveyed the evidence and scholarship on early Christian populations in a landmark paper.
. .

Such instances are unlikely to be the result of coincidence and this kind of plagiarism is rampant throughout Nailed, While I'm sure these are merely sins of omission rather than intended malice, it creates massive confusion and doubt as to what specifically is authored by Fitzgerald himself,

On the occasions when Fitzgerald does appeal to sources other than Carrier, Price and Doherty, there are still issues, For example in Myth No,Eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels, Fitzgerald cites Steve Mason, whom he considers a “Josephan scholar”, and his work Josephus and the New Testament showing that Luke may have been copied from Josephus' works.
However in the previous chapter, devoted entirely to Mason's area of specialty, namely Josephus, he is not mentioned at all, The likely reason is because Mason argues strongly against Fitzgerald's conclusion that the Testimonium Flavianum is entirely forged saying:

one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration.
To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity
Mason, Steve, Josephus and the New Testament,

Readers of Nailed would be entirely oblivious to the fact Fitzgerald disagrees on Josephus even with those he himself considers respectable scholars on the issue, While it would not be feasible for Fitzgerald to cover every instance of where the scholars he cites disagrees with him, it seems rather obvious that if you appeal to a “Josephan scholar” they should probably get a mention in the chapter specifically on Josephus.


There are also numerous errors and issues with Fitzgerald's citations that show they were never factchecked before being included such as when in Myth No,Ancient historian Josephus wrote about Jesus, Fitzgerald writes:

Edward Gibbon, author of the classic Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, said with disdain, “What can be gleaned of Eusebius does not endear him to modern scholars”.


This quote is nowhere to be found in the cited work, Fitzgerald is actually misquoting via an intermediate source, which unhelpfully he doesn't cite or footnote, In reality the actual quote from Gibbon is that he calls Eusebius “a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history”,

There are also quotes where basic factual details are wrong and never corrected, such as in Myth No,: Archeology confirms the Gospels, where Fitzgerald citing Price says:

Price notes:
“Like Judas, Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional character who grows in the telling, As Dennis R. MacDonald has shown, he is based on King Priam, begging Agamemnon for the body of his son Hector”

Price and Fitzgerald both miss that in the Iliad King Priam petitions Achilles, not Agamemnon.
How are we to have any confidence in either's familiarity with the story when they don't remember one of the main characters in it

Such mistakes are common throughout Nailed and tracking them down is made all the more frustrating by Fitzgerald's lackadaisical attitude to citing quoted works.
It is often difficult to discover if these are Fitzgerald's errors or someone else's,

Finally another issue is Fitzgerald's arbitrary criteria for whom he considers a respectable scholar, Having already mentioned that Fitzgerald calls Steve Mason a “Josephan scholar” in Myth No,, in Myth No.Fitzgerald argues that those “try to argue that Josephus really did mention Jesus” such as Mason does are simply “wishful apologists”,

Fitzgerald dismisses the examination of the Gospels and conclusions of highly respected secular ancient historian Michael Grant Litt, D. from his work Jesus: An Historian's the Gospels in a single line as the product of “wishful thinking”, while the arguments of Frank Zindler, an amateur historian with degrees in Biology and Geology, gets eight paragraphs of consideration.


There are even a couple of arguments lifted from Freke and Gandy's The Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original Jesus” a Pagan God, which even Richard Carrier, Fitzgerald's major source used in Nailed, warns his readers away from:

I absolutely do not want you to buy it: it will disease your mind with rampant unsourced falsehoods and completely miseducate you about the ancient world and ancient religion

These are just the surface issues, I haven't even begun to debate the merit of Fitzgerald's various arguments in the book.


In closing, the most charitable thing that can be said about Nailed is that it highlights the need for a solid and critical editorial process, The only thing left is for me to hunt down the person who challenged me to read this and beg their forgiveness, I've no idea what I did to them to deserve such cruel and unusual punishment, but it must have been something awful because they clearly hate me, One of the most fundamental weaknesses of Christianity is that many, perhaps most Christians are afraid to hold up their faith to the same level of scrutiny as they would to buying a new fridge.
It

makes it difficult to review a book like this because from the outset the discussion is antagonistic,

It's not my intent to offend, only to review,

So

This book has strengths and weaknesses, It presents a bunch of factual arguments which aren't in dispute, I think pretty much all Christian scholars and perhaps most Christians accept that the Book of Mark was written anywhere fromyears after the the events described, and Matthew, Luke and John followed.
Most people now accept that references to Jesus attributed to Flavius Josephus were added later and not by Josephus,

There is nothing wrong with his arguments,

I guess the problem with this book is it's preaching to the converted, Christians won't read it or they'll rate itStar, Atheists will read it and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, And that's why I don't think this is a particularly great book, It really needs to communicate with Christians to be of value and I don't think it does,

SoStars. .