Did Jesus exist? There has been a recent surge in public discussion surrounding this question, with many scholars ('mythicists') claiming that Jesus did not exist. Maurice Casey, one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation, seeks to provide a clear and balanced view of what can be said about Jesus, and of what can't.

Did Jesus exist? In recent years there has been a massive upsurge in public discussion of the view that Jesus did not exist. This view first found a voice in the 19th century, when Christian views were no longer taken for granted. Some way into the 20th century, this school of thought was largely thought to have been utterly refuted by the results of respectable critical scholarship (from both secular and religious scholars).

Now, many unprofessional scholars and bloggers ('mythicists'), are gaining an increasingly large following for a view many think to be unsupportable. It is starting to influence the academy, more than that it is starting to influence the views of the public about a crucial historical figure. Maurice Casey, one of the most important Historical Jesus scholars of his generation takes the 'mythicists' to task in this landmark publication. Casey argues neither from a religious respective, nor from that of a committed atheist. Rather he seeks to provide a clear view of what can be said about Jesus, and of what can't.

In his latest book, Maurice Casey brings his great expertise in historical Jesus studies to bear on the phenomenon of mythicism, the claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Although mythicism is universally rejected by professional historians, it is surprisingly popular on the internet and in a small number of self-published books. Casey's book offers both the scholarly detail needed to deal with the subject seriously, and the sarcastic wit appropriate to the character of the phenomenon. The result is not only informative but also entertaining. Casey's book provides a clear and sufficiently detailed explanation of what mainstream scholarly conclusions are, why and how they are reached, and why professions in the field all but universally find the denialist alternative not merely unpersuasive, but failing to even implement the appropriate methods of scholarly investigation and argument.