rationalskepticism.org

proudfootz wrote:

archibald wrote:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Case+Against+Christianity++By+Michael+Martin&hl=en#v=onepage&q=The%20Case%20Against%20Christianity%20%20By%20Michael%20Martin&f=false

Another philosopher enters the fray (ok, it was in 1991). The preview is fairly extensive. Chapter 2 is the relevant chapter.

The author, Michael martin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ma ... hilosopher)

Couldn't read what Martin himself said about the historicity of Jesus, but here's a response by his evangelical critics which might give us clues (rather like how we only have vague clues about why people in ancient times rejected early christian claims):

Michael Martin's chapter on "The Historicity of Jesus" wisely observes that "(t)he assumption that Jesus was an actual historical figure is basic to all forms of Christianity." [36] None of the other beliefs of the Christian faith serve much purpose without the historical figure of Jesus. This is the first and last point of Martin's chapter that I find agreeable, and it is the very first sentence of his chapter.

One would expect from the ultimate "case" against Christianity in this regard something far more professional, even from a non-historian; but one finds rather what amounts to a summary report of the case presented by G. A. Wells, so much so that Martin probably ought to remove his name from the chapter and attribute authorship to Wells directly. Of the 98 footnotes, quite half of them are fully or in part attributed to one of Wells' works. (This is rather ironic as well inasmuch as that by 2003, Wells had abandoned his thesis that Jesus never existed.)

Not that it gets any better beyond that half: Coming in second place with about 10 cites is a privately-published myth-thesis by Robert Tanguay (of whose credentials, we are told nothing); after that, token appearances are made by Gordon Stein, Bruno Bauer (c. 1850), John M. Robertson (c. 1910), the Dead Sea Scroll conspiracy scholar John Allegro, and a select host of unknowns...

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/martincac2.html

Note the typical disparagement of the sources, the 'professionalism', etc.

All the familiar defenses of the TF and 'the brother of Jesus Christ, James' passages ensue. Likewise the alleged 'darkness at Jesus's crucifixion' story supposedly from Thallus also is defended. I didn't notice if the earthquake was also defended as 'historical'...