mark_lm's review against another edition
5.0
I'm not a Christian. I've only read the so-called synoptic gospels. I have no expertise in this area, just some interest. The book seemed to be a well-argued and logical proposition, not some wacky tirade. I found the evidence presented fascinating, particularly the reminders to evaluate the bible keeping in mind when its parts were written and what the authors could have known about Jesus himself and what others had written about him (or, in the case of Paul, hadn't written about him yet).
kahawa's review against another edition
3.0
Ok.... But not very rigorous, and at times his arguments were simply a lack of imagination. Reality is often strange, so it's not strange to find strangeness.
iggymcmuffin's review against another edition
1.0
This book suffered tremendously from a lack of an editor. It was scattered and unfocused. The myths are so much myths either. He just calls his chapters "Myths" for no good reason at all. The organization is attrocious.
More importantly, Fitzgerald frequently confuses Gospel Jesus with Historical Jesus, and makes a number of very novice mistakes such as the line about Jesus not knowing what a church is (except in the original Greek the word means something totally different then church), while at the same time not catching the pun he is referring to (Petros/rock) would only works in Greek, but Jesus by all accounts didn't speak Greek. He also regularly omits information that would weaken his hypothesis, making him look more like an atheist with an axe to grind then a serious historical writer, or at least someone who isn't all that interested in the various positions of biblical historians.
To top it off he relies on secondary sources, much to his destriment, and far to heavily on Richard Carrier. If I wanted to know Carrier's position I'd read on of Carrier's books.
More importantly, Fitzgerald frequently confuses Gospel Jesus with Historical Jesus, and makes a number of very novice mistakes such as the line about Jesus not knowing what a church is (except in the original Greek the word means something totally different then church), while at the same time not catching the pun he is referring to (Petros/rock) would only works in Greek, but Jesus by all accounts didn't speak Greek. He also regularly omits information that would weaken his hypothesis, making him look more like an atheist with an axe to grind then a serious historical writer, or at least someone who isn't all that interested in the various positions of biblical historians.
To top it off he relies on secondary sources, much to his destriment, and far to heavily on Richard Carrier. If I wanted to know Carrier's position I'd read on of Carrier's books.
letab's review against another edition
4.0
This is a nice little review of the argument for no historical Jesus. Fitzgerald lines up the myths nicely with condensed information to support each one. It's a good way to become familiar with the hypothesis without drowning yourself in information and getting lost in footnotes! Sometimes it's also nice to get a synopsis of scholarly material before you tackle larger tomes. And if you decide to further your studies of this subject, Fitzgerald provides a list of books from other authors that gives more details than Nailed.
setaian's review against another edition
3.0
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 from 30~100 years 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 it 1 Star. 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.
So 3 Stars.
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 from 30~100 years 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 it 1 Star. 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.
So 3 Stars.
dcp374's review
4.0
Liked it
For what ever reason I recently have been interested in subject of the historicity of Jesus, and have been exploring the subject with both David Fitzgerald and Richard Carrier's work. I found this book a bit easier to absorb than Carrier's books I've read so far.
For what ever reason I recently have been interested in subject of the historicity of Jesus, and have been exploring the subject with both David Fitzgerald and Richard Carrier's work. I found this book a bit easier to absorb than Carrier's books I've read so far.
steveinadelaide's review
5.0
One of the most powerful arguments, with evidence, that Jesus never existed (what is called the mythicist view). For anyone interested in this question, David Fitzgerald’s book is a must read. Fitzgerald writes clearly and engagingly. For those who are certain that Jesus Christ existed, this is a bombshell — so read at your own risk!