Varieties of Jesus Mythicism E-Book

• Herausgeber: WS
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 666

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

To most people on the planet, the existence of Jesus is a given: “Of course he did!” They take it for granted that he existed simply because it reaffirms their faith. But to the rest of us who don't believe in a supernatural Jesus, the question of the historicity of Jesus is not simple. There are thousands of different ideas about to what extent the Jesus tales were based on a real man, or men, or woman… Did Jesus even exist, and if not, what best explains the rise of such a character in the New Testament?

That is where John W. Loftus and Robert M. Price come in. Each with decades of experience in the fields of theology and Christian history, Loftus and Price have compiled essays from some of the top authorities on Jesus mythicism to establish the world's first academic catalogue of mythicist beliefs. Experts who provided chapters include David Fitzgerald, Joseph Atwill, Michael Lockwood, and more!

The question is no longer simply, "Did Jesus even exist?" In this compilation, you'll find yourself questioning everything about the Christ story and how it truly began.

Leseprobe

Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?

Edited by John W. Loftus and Robert M. Price

© Copyright Hypatia Press 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Published in the United States of America by Hypatia Press in 2021

ISBN: 978-1-83919-159-6

www.hypatiapress.org

Praise for Varieties of Jesus Mythicism

“The essays contained within this anthology draw their readers out on a provocative adventure, a quest certain to yield many treasures. Yet, this quest is altogether different than that described by Albert Schweitzer in his landmark work The Quest of the Historical Jesus over a century ago. Despite the seeming nobility, such an academic pilgrimage to uncover the originary kernel of the Gospels, now having played out for decades in the halls of academia, has proven little more than a fool’s errand. We now face the obvious: these cultic tales are not and were never given as historiographical “footage” of live first-century events in time and space.” — Richard C. Miller, PhD, author of Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity, 2014.

“For a long time, mainstream Bible scholars have known that the gospels are not, in fact, reliable histories of Jesus. Even so, there is consensus that Jesus existed, and doubting that he was a real person is seen as eccentric or fringe. But respected secular scholars—not beholden to what Hector Avalos has called the ecclesial-academic complex—have questioned that consensus. This new anthology is a welcome addition to the growing library of works that invite close inspection of the issue. These essays explore the diverse amalgam of theologies and superstitions in the ancient world, showing that the origins of Jesus-belief are far more complex than devout scholars have been willing to grant. The previous Loftus anthologies have thoroughly documented the falsification of Christianity—and this one adds dramatically to the case against it.” — David Madison, PhD Biblical Studies, author, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief, 2016.

“The expert arguments in this book seek to understand how Christianity could have begun without a historical Jesus. All these Mythicist authorities make very compelling arguments for their respective theories. Which one is correct? Can all of them be correct? Let us think of each contribution as being a description of an evolving thread of religious traditions. If each thread intertwined—at various times and in various places—with all the other threads of tradition described in this book, it should be possible to produce a “grand unifying theory” of how the various forms of earliest Christianity began. Reading this book will be sine qua non for any scholar seeking to trigger a paradigm shift by showing how all these threads braided together to create a Christianity that did not begin at any single point in space or time.” — Frank R. Zindler, author of The Jesus the Jews Never Knew, 2003.

“Mainstream experts mostly already agree the miraculous Jesus didn’t exist, but what about a merely human Jesus? This anthology usefully exhibits the full gamut of doubting even that, from the absurd to the sound. Some contributions are not credible, but some are worth considering, and several are brilliant, indeed required reading for anyone exploring the subject.” — Richard Carrier, Ph.D., author of On the Historicity of Jesus, 2014.

“The New Testament Jesus did not exist, but was there a historical figure on whom the legend was based? This anthology will adjust your assessment of the probability. It’s a rollicking ride through a biblical battlefield.” — Dan Barker, co-president of Freedom from Religion Foundation and author of Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, 2008.

“This is an important and intellectually adventuresome collection of articles, well worth considering, reflecting the wide spectrum of views of those challenging the traditional conservative paradigm on the historicity of Jesus.” — Russell Gmirkin, author of Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, 2017.

Dedicated to Jesus mythicist Frank Zindler:

blog.edsuom.com/2014/04/a-life-celebration-frank-zindler.html

Foreword

I come to this pleasure, honored to compose here a foreword for a book that raises many radical and disruptive questions for our conception of Western sacred history. For, curated within this tidy volume, one encounters a most unsettling miscellany of essays, each challenging the mainstream historical objectivity presumed to underpin the cultic iconography and tall tales we find within the pages of the New Testament Gospels. In this sense, each chapter stands as a tacit act of heroic sacrilege, a myth-critical lens by which to deconstruct earliest Christian proclamation and by which better to understand the designs and literary strategies of the original crafters of the religion. While myth-criticism of the Bible may not be new in Western thought, we find ourselves in this century at a fulcrum, an axial point in history wherein our sacred narratives no longer travel quite so unquestioned; that which was once held all-but-universally sacrosanct, namely, the Christian Bible, no longer obtains a normative credibility. While we may accurately attribute much of this decline to the baseless certitude and farcical historical claims of Christian clerics, apologists, and theologians, much of this trend arises through the daring free-criticism by modern thought leaders, Loftus and Price being two of our most dauntless and formidable.

In my own research and writing on such topics, I have taken inspiration from these two vanguard figures. We three arrive at an insolent “unbelief” by way of sincerest fidelity to the very virtues of the religion itself, that is, by a sheer tenacious commitment to truth and love. What irony that these two most central precepts of the religion should spell its very demise, certainly in traditional form. Christian devotees, you see, call their holy book the “Truth.” Yet, unauthenticated implausibility constitutes the one common thread-line binding the entire odd collection of sacralized texts. And I am not the first to raise fundamental ethical questions concerning the tribalism, apathy, pettiness, and inhumanity of the varied depictions of the deity on offer in the pages of the Christian Bible. Loftus and Price, we observe, share a marvelous uncommon virtue: They both raise with unwavering honesty and vigor such culturally unsettling questions, questions that threaten the very legitimacy of modern Christianity.

The essays contained within this anthologydraw their readers out on a provocative adventure, a quest certain to yield many treasures. Yet, this quest is altogether different than that described by Albert Schweitzer in his landmark work The Quest of the Historical Jesus over a century ago. Despite the seeming nobility, such an academic pilgrimage to uncover the originary kernel of the Gospels, now having played out for decades in the halls of academia, has proven little more than a fool’s errand. We now face the obvious: these cultic tales are not and were never given as historiographical “footage” of live first-century events in time and space. The omission of any policy of authentication, the unapologetic literary showcase of the naturally impossible, and the replete application of language structures permuting the folklore, legends, and mytho-systems of the classical Mediterranean world, must point us in an altogether different direction.

Similar to contrived faith-based efforts to class the Gospels within the genre of historiography, despite close familiarity with the genre, early Christians likewise avoided applying biographical labels to the Gospels. Such labels now become perhaps most problematic regarding the matter of literary object, since most assume that a history aims to depict ontological reality and biography an ontological person, whereas such presumptions break down as one further critically contemplates the Gospels. Most all referential objectivity in effect became crushed, buried beneath a dense bricolage of cultural literary models governing the narrative construction. If ever an ontological Jesus did exist, that person was lost to us, indeed made irrelevant behind many layers of charged early Christian literary figmentation. In my own book Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (Routledge, 2014), the analysis reveals a quite different modality and textual performance, that visible in the early Christian reception of the Gospels. Justin Martyr, the earliest and perhaps most vigorous of the earliest Christian apologists, c. 150 CE, confessed that these depictions of the Christian iconographic founding figure were “nothing new” with respect to other garden-variety myth-based patterns and tales commonly circulating in classical society (1 Apology 21). Divine birth, body-translation, and ascension provided the customary decorative frames embellishing the storied lives of those figures enlisted in the classical Mediterranean Hall of Fame, as it were. Unlike the Caesars, Hellenistic kings, philosophers, and other famed historical figures granted divine honors, Jesus instead appears to join the other group, that is, those of questionable or nonhistorical existence; the page-by-page unauthenticated showcase of the naturally impossible precludes any rational historicist modal reading. As Burton Mack pointed out a generation ago, the Gospels are data for a different kind of quest, not for a historical figure, but for reconstructing the social identities and ideological designs of the ancient cultic communities that crafted, recited, and sacralized these and so many other inventive texts.

Despite its range of at times rather creative hypotheses, one may appreciate the humanistic virtue of myth-criticism in the method’s honest endeavor to explain, in culturological, sociological, ideological, psychological, and anthropological terms, the proliferation of early Christian literary products and the societies that produced them. As Robert M. Price has shown, Christ-Myth Theory, applied as a methodology in subset to secular myth theory (à la Frazier, Propp, Frye, Levi-Strauss, Segal, Bascom, Dundes, and a host of talented successors), provides guard-rails for a vital heuristic exercise that has yielded a number of powerful insights: As sacralized literature, to what extent might one explain the Gospels, when constrained by the supposition that these textual representations did not derive, be that primarily or at all, from any authentic historical figure Jesus? The present volume invites us to take up the call to explain, to theorize, and finally to recognize that Western sacred history’s principal emblem has only and always ever been a cultural-literary phantasm.

Dr. Richard C. Miller, PhD, is a humanistic scholar of Christian origins in the ancient Hellenistic and Roman world.

Contents

Preface: The Jesus We Find in the Gospels Never Existed!1

By John W. Loftus

Introduction: New Testament Minimalism4

By Robert M. Price

Chapter 1: Why Mythicism Matters, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Jesus (Myth Theory)9

By David Fitzgerald

Chapter 2: Jesus Christ33

By Barbara G. Walker

Chapter 3: Dying and Rising Gods46

By Derreck Bennett

Chapter 4: Christianity is a Western Branch of Buddhism66

By Michael Lockwood

Chapter 5: The Roman Provenance of Christianity88

By Joseph Atwill

Chapter 6: Pauline Origin of the Gospels in the Wake of the First Jewish-Roman War110

By R. G. Price

Chapter 7: Under the Mushroom Tree: R. Gordon Wasson versus John M. Allegro131

By Michael Hoffman

Chapter 8: Star-Lore in the Gospels154

By Bill Darlison

Chapter 9: The Mythic Power of the Atonement207

By Robert M. Price

Chapter 10: A Sacrifice in Heaven: The Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews239

By Earl Doherty

Chapter 11: The Jewish Myth of Jesus273

By Stephan Huller

Chapter 12: Jesus: Pre-Existent and Non-Existent295

By Robert M. Price

Chapter 13: Mark’s Gospel: A Performed Play in Rome306

By Danila Oder

Chapter 14: Is There a Man Behind the Curtain? A Response to Bart Ehrman324

By Robert M. Price

Chapter 15: A Rejoinder to James McGrath’s Case for Jesus341

By Neil Godfrey

Chapter 16: “Everything Is Wrong with This” The Legacy of Maurice Casey364

By Timothy A. Widowfield

Preface: The Jesus We Find in the Gospels Never Existed!

By John W. Loftus

In 1929, E. C. Segar introduced his cartoon character, Popeye, in a comic strip based on a one-eyed, pipe-smoking sailor named Frank ‘Rocky’ Fiegel.1

So there was an actual person behind the Popeye cartoons.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, with the knack for solving crimes through observation and reason, was modeled after Dr. Joseph Bell. Bell was one of Conan Doyle’s medical school professors.2

So there was an actual person behind the Sherlock Holmes novels.

Santa Claus, who supposedly brings presents to good boys and girls on Christmas Eve, is based on a fourth-century Greek bishop named Saint Nicholas.

So there was an actual person behind the Santa Claus myth.

So what? Popeye the cartoon character never walked the earth. Neither did Sherlock Holmes. Neither does Saint Nicholas do a fly-by over it. At their absolute best, these characters are composite ones, with elements drawn from several sources, along with the mythical creative imaginations of human beings. But by speaking about composite persons, we’re not speaking about particular persons, people who actually walked the earth, much less any literary/cartoonish or magical/mythical characters.

The parallels are obvious. It’s how Biblicists argue with regard to Jesus. They do it along these same lines:

Since there was an actual person behind the Popeye traditions, Popeye existed according to mainstream Biblical historians. No one could reasonably doubt that Popeye was based on a real sailor who liked to get into fights, if they studied history properly. Since there was an actual person behind Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories, Sherlock Holmes really solved crimes in his day. So too Santa Claus really exists. Who else brings the presents on December 25th, and who else eats the cookies and drinks the milk left for him?

All biblicists need for someone to exist is for a literary figure to be based on a real historical person. So Jesus existed too!

It doesn’t really matter if Olive Oyl, or Dr. Watson existed, or Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, and Santa Claus were based on historically attested figures. So likewise, it doesn’t really matter if Lazarus or Judas Iscariot or Joseph of Arimathea existed. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Jesus existed.

But to say that since the gospel ‘Jesus’ was based on a real person he therefore existed, is no different than saying that since Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, and Santa Claus were based on real people, they existed.3

Let’s say there is a human person behind the myths about the Jesus in the Gospels. So what? There are many non-historical myths about such a person to be found, significant ones. Examples of these include that he existed before creation, he was one with a father god, fulfilled prophecy with his life, born of a virgin in Bethlehem, had the authority to speak for a god, did miracles, atoned for our sins on the cross, bodily arose from the dead, and that he’d return soon. With so many non-historical myths as these, it doesn’t make a difference if the person pictured in the Gospels is a completely made up, mythical person.

He might as well be.

The Jesus pictured in the Gospels is a myth. If we must take the mythical tales at face value, then such a person found in the gospels never existed. So, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels never existed. If there was a real human being who was the basis for the Jesus character in the New Testament, he is dead now.

But what if it’s worse than that? What if there was no actual person behind the Jesus found in the Gospels, at all? What can account for Gospel origins?

That’s the focus of this present book.

Prepare to enter into the ancient mythical mind. In that world, anything can happen.

Introduction: New Testament Minimalism

By Robert M. Price

If there is no God, there may yet have been a historical Jesus. If Jesus never existed, there might still be a God. The two questions are quite different, I would say unrelated. You will certainly find many atheists who believe there was a historical Jesus and even admire him in the same way they regard, say, Confucius. They are rarer, but you can even find Christians (like Roman Catholic monk and New Testament scholar Thomas L. Brodie) who do not believe there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who walked the earth in ancient times. This book does not consider theism and atheism, being instead devoted to the question of the Christ Myth in its many versions.

The opinion that Jesus never existed is a very old one. The pseudonymous author of 2 Peter found himself in a defensive posture when he wrote, “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). He was fibbing, but that’s not my point here. Rather, it shows that at least as early as the middle of the second century CE when this pious forgery was composed, some critics of Christianity were denying the Christian savior had ever lived. Strangely, you will find that mainstream biblical scholars mount a similar argument to 2 Peter’s. That ancient author was appealing to the past to defend a historical Christ, claiming to have seen Jesus in person. In a mirror-image version, today’s scholars also appeal to ancient history in order to discredit Mythicism by claiming there were no ancient Jesus Mythicists. How odd to hear them echoing the maxim of Medieval Catholics: “If it’s new it’s not true. If it’s true it’s not new.” Such opponents of Mythicism seem to believe that, without an ancient pedigree, a theory need not be taken seriously, never mind that their own rational-critical approach to Jesus studies is a historically recent invention.

Yes, mainstream academics laugh off Jesus Mythicism, consigning it (and those who espouse it) to the same “weirdo file” as moon landing deniers. Why? Because Mythicism is indefensible nonsense? That might be so, but I cannot help understanding the situation along the lines of Peter Berger’s theory of “plausibility structures,” according to which the plausibility of any notion is proportional to the number of one’s peers who believe it. The result is “consensus scholarship,” a box outside of which nothing can be taken seriously. Minority ideas will automatically appear bizarre and heretical. It is not that consensus scholars are afraid to dissent from the party line, lest they lose their jobs. No, it is more a matter of social psychology. But I am no mind reader, so I never dare try to explain away someone’s rejection of my opinion on this basis.

In fact, as Thomas S. Kuhn explains in his great book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, advances in science proceed at least as much by new paradigms for construing data as by the discovery of new data. New models, theories, and paradigms are suggestions for making new and better sense of the data we already had. These new notions must prove themselves by running the gauntlet of collegial criticism. That’s the way it has to be; you don’t want your colleagues to just accept your theory by faith. You want it to win out, so you welcome the initial skepticism. And eventually, despite their investment in traditional consensus viewpoints, your peers may be convinced, and your once-eccentric theory may become the consensus position—until some other upstart supplants it.

This is what happened with Continental Drift: once scientists dismissed it like Flat Earthism, but eventually, with the rise of Plate Tectonics, the wind shifted, and scientists reluctantly admitted that the fact that the outlines of the continents fit together like puzzle pieces was no mere coincidence. Heresy has morphed into Orthodoxy. It has also happened (many times) in the field of biblical studies. The most drastic recent instance is that of so-called “Old Testament Minimalism,” the theory that Hebrew scriptural characters were almost all mythical: not just Adam and Eve, not only Cain and Abel, Enoch and Noah, but even Father Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon. The pioneer theorist of Minimalism, Thomas L. Thompson, was forced out of a promising academic career and had to take up house painting to make a living—until the tide finally turned. Now everybody’s a Minimalist, everybody but fundamentalists, that is. And now Professor Thompson has received the recognition he deserved all along.

It turns out that the factors that led to Old Testament Minimalism (archaeological reevaluation, tradition criticism, etc.) are also operative in Jesus Mythicism, which ought, in fact, to be called “New Testament Minimalism.” I expect, or suspect, that the wheel will keep turning and that Jesus Mythicism will sooner or later gain similar acceptance—not that I’ll ever live to see it. I’m not even rooting for it. To me, it’s just a fascinating subject. And I’m far from alone in this. The contributors to the present collection are creatures, eccentrics, like me. And, though we are few (at least at present), there is a surprising range of theories among us. And I think it will always be this way, because that’s the way it is in scholarship.

As you are probably aware, today’s mainstream Jesus scholarship is quite diverse. Many theories have attracted dedicated partisans, people who conclude that the historical Jesus was a revolutionist (Robert Eisenman, Peter Cresswell), a feminist (Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Luise Schottroff), a Cynic sage (John Dominic Crossan, F. Gerald Downing; Burton L. Mack, David Seeley), a Pharisee (Harvey Falk, Hyam Maccoby), a Hasidic master (Geza Vermes), a shaman (Stevan L. Davies, Gaetano Salomone), a magician (Morton Smith), a community organizer (Richard A. Horsley), an apocalyptic prophet (Bart D. Ehrman, Richard Arthur), and so on. It would be easy and tempting for an external observer to shake his head and to judge that all these Jesus reconstructions, though a pretty good case can be made for most of them, cancel each other out. If this one is as likely as the others, why choose any one of them? Well, of course, you have to look into them all (if you want to have the right to an informed opinion) and then make your own decision. But most likely it will be a tentative one—as it must be if you want to be intellectually honest. Your conviction should not be stronger than the (fragmentary and ambiguous) evidence allows.

If someday Jesus Mythicism should dominate the field, I’m afraid this predicament would not change. As this book will make absolutely clear, there are just as many Mythicist theories. Some believe that Jesus was a fiction devised by the Flavian regime in order to pacify Jews who had the nasty habit of violently rebelling against Rome. Others argue that Jesus was a Jewish/Essene version of the equally mythical Gautama Buddha. Another option is that Jesus was, like the Vedic Soma, a mythical personification of the sacred mushroom, Amanita Muscaria. Or perhaps Jesus was a historicization of the Gnostic Man of Light. Was Jesus a Philonic heavenly high priest figure? And there are more. I believe you will find yourself surprised and impressed by the cogency of these hypotheses. Once you probably regarded all these theories (if you ever even heard of them!) as equally fantastic. After you’ve finished Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?, you may very well find them equally plausible. And who says you have to settle on any one of them? It’s worth the mental effort to grasp and weigh each one. I say, let a hundred flowers bloom!

Robert M. Price

December 4, 2019

Chapter 1: Why Mythicism Matters, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Jesus (Myth Theory)

By David Fitzgerald

The Christians won’t like it, but here’s a new and improved Gospel of Jesus I think the rest of us can all agree on:

About 2,000 years ago, more or less, a simple Galilean preacher gained a following with his radical teachings, until he so angered the Jewish authorities that they convinced the Romans to crucify him. After his death, his disciples and flock began to preach that he had appeared to them alive again before returning to Heaven. They wrote about him, spread legends about him, and over time, this small cult grew into the major world religion we know as Christianity.

I’m kidding, of course—we atheists can’t agree on anything. I’m also kidding that this gospel makes any sense. Certainly, it used to be a valid hypothesis, but we are way past that point now.

Don’t get me wrong; there’s nothing intrinsically implausible about the idea that Jesus was merely one more failed apocalyptic prophet of the time, or even a composite of several of them. Lord knows there were plenty of them to go around. And we can all see a wealth of wildly contradictory, wildly exaggerated legends and myths surrounds him, but that doesn’t prove there was no real figure at the core. After all, all legends have a kernel of truth at their center… don’t they? Besides, the historical evidence for him is overwhelming, as all historians agree. Only a tiny lunatic fringe of crackpots says otherwise, and besides, all they have to go on are flawed arguments from silence. Right?

For argument’s sake, let’s just assume for a moment that the above paragraph is 100% true. It isn’t, but it certainly encapsulates my attitude twenty years ago, when I was a young atheist activist perfectly fine with the idea Jesus was an actual historical figure. It had never crossed my mind to think otherwise. Ironically enough, it wasn’t until I became curious about what we could know about the “real Jesus” that I first began to suspect there never was one—and realized I was not the only investigator to think so…

In my 2010 book, Nailed,4 I discussed the top ten ways the official story of Christianity simply falls apart on close inspection—whether there was a real Jesus or not. In the penultimate chapter, entitled, “Can Jesus be Saved?” I pointed out the many ways the history of the church and the New Testament would look different if there had been a single human founder behind all the various competing early Christian movements.5 Among several other reasons, we have this thorny paradox if Jesus had been an actual historical figure:

Either this Jesus was a remarkable individual who did (or at least, taught) a host of amazing, revolutionary things—but no one outside his fringe cult noticed for over a century. Or, he didn’t… and yet shortly after his death, this otherwise unremarkable figure inspired tiny communities of worshipers to spring up everywhere, scattered all across the empire; small house cults that oddly couldn’t agree about the most basic facts of his life—or if he had ever had a life on Earth at all.

Ten years ago, I was struck by the public response to the book, but also surprised by the intensity of its detractors—not from the Christian detractors (let’s face it, what else are they going to say?), but from our fellow atheists. It turned out Jesus Myth theory set off all the red flags they get from conspiracy theories: In their minds, Jesus denial felt too much like Holocaust/Moon Landing/Climate Change denial. In an age when Flat-Earthers are making a comeback, please believe me when I say I have sympathy for those who are extra-skeptical of the fringe and the woo. But there are serious differences between calling NASA a Jesuit-run Illuminati hoax and pointing out the myriad historical difficulties of a beloved religious figure’s problematic backstory.

So, what sort of historical difficulties are we talking about?

Why Mythicism Matters, Reason #1: Too Many Jesuses

As it turns out, parsing any actual facts about Jesus from our sources is deeply problematic, as generations of biblical scholars have been discovering for over two hundred years. The prevailing attitude (among both secular scholars and laymen alike, it seems) is that once we sift out the obviously mythological elements from the gospels, we’re left with reliable biographical information. And yet, using this dubious approach, secular scholars have managed to tease out a bewildering variety of contradictory Jesus figures.

“Who do men say that I am?” asks Jesus in Mark’s gospel. It remains an open question. Christians love to crow that virtually all historians believe Jesus existed; they conveniently ignore the fact that no non-Christian historians believe their Jesus existed. In fact, the level of disagreement among Jesus scholars over the most basic facts concerning him is astounding. Of course, first comes the divide between “the Jesus of Faith” and “the Historical Jesus”—and both are simply placeholders for entire family trees of hypothetical, reconstructed Jesuses. Even if we ignore the plethora of faith-based Jesus figures, there are still a multitude of competing secular options to consider: Was he a Zealot rebel, or nonviolent peacemaker? Radical social reformer or royal pretender? Cynic philosopher, or Essene heretic? Pagan-style magician or exorcist/faith healer? Cult guru? Liberal Pharisee? Charismatic Hasid? Conservative rabbi? All these and still more have been put forward as the “Real Jesus.”

However, it remains to be seen if any of these scholarly reconstructions reflect a genuine historical figure. As Robert M. Price and others have commented, all—well, almost all—of these proposed Jesuses are plausible enough. As far as it goes, none are hopelessly far-fetched. All tend to focus on particular constellations of Gospel elements, interpret them in certain ways, and reject other data as inauthentic. Each appeals to solid historical analogies for their new take on Jesus.

Still, all of them do suffer from two serious deficiencies. First, Bart Ehrmanhas observed that most, if not all, fail to make sense of Jesus’ death—albeit, neither do the gospels. Ironically, Ehrman’s own favored “Jesus as failed apocalyptic prophet” theory also fails to account for why the Romans would kill Jesus; it was not against Roman or Jewish law to be an apocalyptic prophet—or to declare oneself to be the messiah, for that matter.

Secondly, as Price notes in his 2000 book Deconstructing Jesus, this multiplicity of convincing possibilities is precisely the problem. All of them sound persuasive until you hear the next one. They cancel each other out.

Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels—exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on—(He) is a composite figure… The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.6

Could Jesus have been a stealth messiah?It’s not uncommon to hear atheists muse that perhaps the real Jesus was none of these things, just one more itinerant Jewish preacher wandering the Galilee. But again, how does just another failed apocalyptic prophet go on to suddenly become deified all across the ancient world?

Besides, there comes a point when it no longer makes sense to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt. Even if we make allowances for legendary accretion, pious fraud, the criterion of embarrassment, doctrinal disputes, scribal errors and faults in translation, there are simply too many irresolvable problems with the default position that assumes there simply had to be a single historical individual (or even a composite of several itinerant preachers) at the center of Christianity.

There’s also a less-obvious problem with supposing Jesus was a fairly unknown figure in reality. What about all the other messianic figures we know about in this period, a surprising number of wanna-be Judaean messiahs from around the time of the early first century: John the Baptist, Apollonius of Tyana, Jonathan the Weaver, Athronges the Shepherd, Simon of Peraea, ‘the Taheb’ (the Samaritans’ messiah)and more; over a dozen in all?7

If Jesus’ fame was anywhere near the levels depicted in the Gospels—multitudes following him, fame spreading throughout Judea, to Syria, Egypt, the ten cities of the Decapolis league, etc.—his achievements were easily on par with even the best of these. But every one of these was able to accomplish something Jesus couldn’t. How did also-ran messianic figures like ‘the Taheb’, Jonathan the Weaver, and all the rest manage to leave a historical footprint—but not Jesus? How could everyone outside his own cult fail to notice him, or even his new religion, for nearly a century? Conversely, if Jesus was so forgettable that he wasn’t even as interesting as any of these others, then how could he inspire a fringe religion of tiny feuding house churches to pop up all across the far-flung corners of the Roman empire?

And there’s still another consideration: what about all the other Jesuses and Christs of the first and second century that we find in the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and other early Christian writings? As I mention in Nailed (pp. 151–52):

Paul himself complains about the diversity among early believers, who incredibly treat Christ as just one more factional totem figure, some saying they belong to Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas—or to Christ. Paul asks, “Has Christ been divided?” (1 Cor. 1:10-13). Paul also repeatedly rails against his many rival apostles, who “preach another Jesus.”

In his letters, Paul often rages and fumes that his rivals are evil deceivers, with false Christs and false gospels so different from his own true Christ and true Gospel, that he accuses them of being agents of Satan and even lays curses and threats upon them!8

Other early Christians were just as concerned as Paul. The Didakhê, an early manual of Christian church practice and teachings, spends two chapters talking about wandering preachers and warning against the many false preachers who are mere “traffickers in Christs,” or “Christmongers.”9

The evidence is clear; there were many different gospels, Jesuses, and Christs being preached by different groups in the first century (and even into the early second century, when the Didakhê was likely written). No single individual Jesus made an impact on history, but many different ones made an impact on theology—at least on the cultic fringe. The ‘stealth messiah’ approach to the problem simply fails to make any sense of the evidence.

In reality, the more we uncover about Christian origins, the more we see that early Christianity dissolves into an exuberant diversity of competing Christ movements with little in common. All our secular reconstructions of the “real Jesus” (like the one I offered at the beginning of this chapter) turn out to be two orders of wrong, no more than myths based on myths.

Why Mythicism Matters, Reason #2: A Source of a Different Color

Increasingly, it’s become obvious that all our so-called “biographical” information sources for Jesus boil down to Christian writings fully dependent upon our four canonical gospels—and in turn, these four have shown they are not based on any oral traditions or eyewitness reports, but are entirely literary constructions,10 and all appear to ultimately derive from a single text,11 the allegorical12 writing we call Mark’s Gospel. Before that pivotal work, the various strands of early Christianity and their competing “apostles”13 worship Christ figures very different from the later varieties of Jesus that arrive only post-gospels.

Some critics say it is a non sequitur to conclude from confusing and contradictory evidence that their subject didn’t exist at all. I agree. The fact is, it’s only the evidence for a historical Jesus that remains confused and contradictory. The evidence for an allegorical, “celestial” Jesus is compelling and found in both Christian and non-Christian sources,14 an evolutionary process that can be seen across the centuries in extant texts, from before the rise of Christian movements to after the gospels.

On the other hand, as Raphael Lataster points out in his incisive 2015 book, Jesus Did Not Exist, Historicists like Ehrman are forced to rely on purely hypothetical source materials, although they have no guarantee these documents say what Historicists assume they say15—or, more to the point, even whether these postulated “source” texts ever really existed at all in the first place…

In fact, in recent years, all the criteria for Jesus’ historicity have been weighed and found wanting. It’s not only secular critics who have rejected them; even devout scholars on a first name basis with Jesus have bowed to decades of withering criticism to admit that all our tools to verify his existence have proven fatally flawed. Christian historiansChris Keith and Anthony Le Donne’s 2012 book Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (T & T Clark Int’l) ably documents this unexpected development,as well as Richard Carrier’s Proving History (Prometheus, 2012), which exposes the failure of all the would-be criteria brought forth in attempts to solidify the shifting sands beneath the slippery, elusive figure of the historical Jesus.

Why Mythicism Matters, Reason #3: But the Evidence…

One constant refrain from laypeople who haven’t been following the current state of Jesus Studies is: “How do Mythicists explain away all the evidence for Jesus?” Their assumption is that there must be far too much contrary evidence to explain away in the case of Jesus…

Too much evidence? The dearth of evidence for Jesus—and the shoddy state of what little we do have—are two of the factors that should compel any Historicist toward a healthy agnosticism on the Jesus question at the very least.

Consider this: we have nothing written by Jesus, and we do not know who really wrote any of the Gospels. Of the four evangelists, only “Luke” even claims to be writing history, but neither he nor any of the others ever cite their sources, or give a sign that they critically examined any, or justify why we should trust their particular version of many conflicting gospel claims.

All these gospel authors are anonymous, writing at least a generation or more after the fact. None claim to be eyewitnesses; on the contrary, “Luke” explicitly tells us he is investigating the story inherited by his generation of believers,16 and the gospel we attribute to “John” purports to be handed down from an unnamed “beloved disciple.” However, this clearly fictitious “beloved disciple” character doesn’t exist in any of the earlier gospels—and has been gratuitously inserted into their rebooted plotlines. For example, in Luke, Peter runs to go see the empty tomb (24:12). In John, both Peter and the beloved disciple run to the tomb—and the beloved disciple conspicuously outruns Peter there (20:3-4).17

As their actual identities are completely unknown,18 we have no other literature orscholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy. Far from being objective, dispassionate historians, all freely declare their bias toward persuading new converts. What’s more, all derived their accounts from Mark’s gospel, even the multitude of non-canonical gospels that didn’t make the cut to be accepted as Scripture. And then there’s the unpleasant matters of Christian forgeries in our gospels and New Testament epistles, their deliberate alterations in theological edit wars, and the honest scribal mistakes that were never caught and now can’t be rectified.19

What’s more, we have no original New Testament texts. As Bart Ehrman and numerous other historians have long made very clear, we don’t have the original of any book of the New Testament. What we have are copies of copies of copies of copies… It’s not until the late second/early third centurythat we begin to get the complete texts of some of the individual books of the New Testament,20 and not until the early-to-mid fourth century that we have our first two complete New Testaments, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus. Even that is a bit misleading since both codices have different books from each other—and, for that matter, from our own Bibles. They have books we don’t have. We have books they don’t have.21This means for the first 150 to 200 years of Christianity, we have a complete textual black-out period, where we simply cannot know what was originally written about Jesus at all.22

We all know there is no physical evidence of any kind in the case of Jesus, apart from countless medieval forgeries and hoaxes like the Shroud of Turin23 or the eight or more competing foreskins of Jesus.24Nor is there any contemporary historical corroboration for any of the Gospels’ depictions of Jesus’ life. This should not surprise either side of the historicity debate, but the puzzling “silence of Paul” concerning Jesus’ life is less explicable.25 That lacuna has troubled scholars for centuries, but to make matters worse, it isn’t just Paul. Every Christian writing before the Gospels exhibits the same bewildering ignorance about Jesus’ life and teachings, and even our familiar New Testament books have passage after passage that make no sense if Jesus was the figure from the gospels.26

Christian apologists have always upheld Jesus’ historicity with absurdly exaggerated claims, such as when Douglas Geivett put the resurrection on the same level of certainty as Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.27 Richard Carrier pointed out that in this case, for four of the five proofs cited in support of the Rubicon crossing’s historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all—and the single “proof” that it does have is not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence: a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses (falsely passed off as personal eyewitnesses), writing expressly to sell a new religion. As Richard Carrier wrote, “Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes.”28

We can (and should) laugh at this, but the truth is, even the mundane and non-miraculous “facts” of Jesus’ biography are no better attested. Jesus’ arrest, his trial, his execution, the last supper and his cleansing of the temple are just a few examples of events that we know simply could not have happened as presented in the gospel stories.29

The standard approach of Jesus scholars has been to cull all these elements of the gospels that are obvious impossibilities and reject them as theological fictions. Having winnowed out the chaff, they assemble their version of “the Real Jesus” from whatever is left. But the result, as Albert Schweitzer recognized more than a century ago,30 is that the new Jesus becomes a Rorschach test for the searcher; their version of who Jesus “really” was turns out to be their own mirror image.

What we should be doing before we claim any fact of Jesus’ life has been established with an acceptable level of certainty is to begin with two simple questions: What is our source for any claim about Jesus, and how reliable is that source?31 Otherwise, which camp is operating under dogma and wishful thinking: the mythicists, or the Historicists?

After all, it has become undeniably apparent to everyone but the most hidebound believers that—historical Jesus or no—our gospels are myths about Jesus. The question remains: are they myth all the way down?

Why Mythicism Matters, Reason #4: But the Consensus…

So what about the supposed overwhelming consensus among historians? Consensus? What consensus? We’ve seen that Jesus Studies is already split into two camps, and neither half believes the other half’s Jesus ever existed. But if you (like me) tend to gravitate to the work of the secular scholars,32 there is scarcely any consensus on who the “real Jesus” was. Besides, for the most part, mythicists are in agreement with the same arguments the majority of secular scholars are making.33 In fact, the most credible segments of the mythicist camp aren’t out on a limb or bucking any scholarly consensus; they are merely following the same lines of evidence to a conclusion just a little past most biblical scholars’ comfort zone.

Indeed, the evidence for a historical Jesus is so problematic, several scholars, including Brandon University’s Kurt Noll, Princeton sociologist Rodney Stark, and others already argue that the question is moot.34 Knowing what we know now, any contributions that a historical founder may or may not have made are irrelevant—we can already completely account for the rise of the various strands of the Christian movement whether there was a real Jesus or not.

Myth theory is not creationism for atheists; it’s a wake up call for a theory that has been in crisis for centuries. This isn’t (or shouldn’t be) seen as a squabble between heretical mythicists and orthodox Historicists. It is a fight between those who take Jesus Myth theory seriously—whether or not it ultimately prevails over Jesus Historicism—and those who simply dismiss it out of hand.35

Case in point is Bart Ehrman, who remains one of the most influential and important secular biblical scholars today, and for good reason. Perhaps no other historian has done as much to pull back the curtain on the subfield of biblical history, or shed as much light on the ways its foundation has been built upon sand.36 So it is especially curious to see how he clings with such certainty to the questionable notion that “whether we like it or not,” Jesus definitelyexisted.

Reading his 2012 book Did Jesus Exist? was an exercise in disappointment and lost opportunity. Mythicists didn’t dislike the book because we had expected him to agree with us; we panned the book because we were anticipating it would be both the best defense of what facts do hold up in Jesus Historicism theory, and a vigorous critique of Mythicism that would at least help clear some of the dead wood from the field.

But as his fellow Historicist, University of Sheffield’s Emeritus Professor Philip R. Davies pointed out, Ehrman’s smug dismissal of the questions raised by mythicists is part of the problem in biblical studies, just as serious as the ones Ehrman himself has so ably spotlighted.37 The late Davies chided Bart Ehrman and his 2012 book Did Jesus Exist? for this very attitude, and his perspective was a refreshing change:

…surely the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear, or even to work out what kind of historical research might be appropriate.

Such a normal exercise should hardly generate controversy in most fields of ancient history, but of course New Testament studies is not a normal case and the highly emotive and dismissive language of, say, Bart Ehrman’s response to Thompson’s The Mythic Past shows (if it needed to be shown), not that the matter is beyond dispute, but that the whole idea of raising this question needs to be attacked, ad hominem, as something outrageous.

This is precisely the tactic anti-minimalists tried twenty years ago: their targets were ‘amateurs’, ‘incompetent’, and could be ignored. The ‘amateurs’ are now all retired professors, while virtually everyone else in the field has become minimalist (if in most cases grudgingly and tacitly). So, as the saying goes, déjà vu all over again.

I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability. In the first place, what does it mean to affirm that ‘Jesus existed’, anyway, when so many different Jesuses are displayed for us by the ancient sources and modern NT scholars?

In fact, as things stand, what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality (the same is true of the King David of the Hebrew Bible, as a number of recent ‘biographies’ show)…Does this matter very much? After all, the rise and growth of Christianity can be examined and explained without the need to reconstruct a particular historical Jesus.38

Why Mythicism Matters, Reason #5: That One Slight Problem with Biblical Studies

Davies brings up an important point here, one also raised by biblical historian Hector Avalos in his devastating critique of his own field, The End of Biblical Studies (Prometheus, 2007).39 Avalos notes that in the uniquely insular world of biblical studies, theological concerns have always dominated. There is a bizarre Russian-doll nature to biblical studies; it’s what I call the Belfast Analogy:

Northern Ireland during the Troubles of the 1960s to the 1990s saw a minority, the Ulster Protestants, surrounded by the majority Catholic Ireland. Meanwhile, nested within Ulster was its own Catholic minority. Feeling under siege, Ulster Protestants in turn made life intolerable for their captive minority-within-a-minority.

Likewise, Christians feel surrounded by the secular world, and this is no less true in academia. But while believers may feel under siege in all other fields of history, in the rarified world of biblical studies, Christian presuppositions, biases and above all, theological (and their accompanying financial) interests still hold sway, making life very hard for any scholars whose findings threaten Christian doctrine.

Am I saying this is a conspiracy theory? Of course not.

Am I saying Christian biases and presuppositions pervade the entire field? Of course I am—and how could it be otherwise?

When I was researching for my book Jesus: Mything in Action, I was surprised that no one had ever verified the seemingly intuitive observation that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars have a religious affiliation. It seemed fairly problematic to survey every biblical scholar’s religious position(s), but it occurred to me that it was quite possible to not just survey, but in fact to conduct a complete census of every single American learning institution that offers Biblical/Jesus/New Testament Studies and/or degrees.

Which is precisely what the book’s research team did. For “U.S. Biblical Studies Depts. Census (2015),” the team, spearheaded by Susi Bocks, investigated all 4,726 degree-granting institutions of higher education in the United States, and conducted a full survey of the 1,417 that offered any kind of relevant Biblical/Jesus/New Testament Studies. Nearly 60% of these proved to be religiously affiliated.40 The real surprise came when we looked into their scholarly restrictions. A full third of these religiously affiliated schools frankly confirmed that they required a statement of faith or similar religious commitment from their staff. That was not the surprising part.

What was shocking was the number of schools that refused to admit this, or indeed, the number that explicitly lied about requiring a statement of faith. When the team dug deeper, they soon discovered that in fact, actually at least two-thirds of all religiously affiliated schools required their teachers to tow a strict theological line—and the actual number is almost certainly even higher, and may well be as high as 100%.41 So perhaps the question shouldn’t be, “How many biblical scholars reject myth theory?” but, “How many biblical scholars are contractually obligated to reject myth theory?” As Upton Sinclair noted long ago: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Wait, I hear you ask. Could a whole field of professionals be wrong? Why not ask your pastor and see what he says? The truth is, the majority of biblical historians are just as wrong about there being a Jesus as they are about there being a god. And for the same reason.

We should not forget that the field of Jesus Studies is in crisis because Christianity is in crisis. Both are under tremendous pressure to show that all is well and under control, even while their evidentiary foundations are crumbling. The subject of biblical studies is also dying out in secular academia, which first of all means there are fewer and fewer jobs for current and future biblical historians, period.

What’s worse for us, it also means that increasingly, the only institutions offering positions in biblical studies are the religious institutions—which makes it that much more difficult for any would-be secular biblical historians to espouse blasphemous theories…

And speaking of blasphemy, we should also note that even in such a thoroughly Christian-dominated subfield,yesterday’s blasphemy is tomorrow’s consensus.

Did eyewitnesses write the Gospels? Did their authors copy from each other? Do their Gospels contradict one another? Are any of Paul’s letters forgeries? Are any of the other epistles in the New Testament really by the authors whose names they bear, or even written during their lifetime? Was forgery rampant in Christian scriptures? Was John the Baptist’s sect part of Christianity, or was it a rival cult? Is our New Testament the same as that of the early Christians? Were our scriptures tampered with? Do we have any way to determine which, if any, of our extant scriptural texts reflect the reading of the original text?

The real answers to all these and still other questions greatly displeased—and were dismissed and ridiculed by—the majority of biblical scholars, which is to say, those with a religious affiliation. But the truth eventually prevailed. The history of biblical studies is littered with such overturned verdicts.42

Why Mythicism Matters, Reason #6: It’s Not Just Jesus…

By the way, Christianity is not alone in wrestling with uncomfortable questions and troublesome facts about its own origins. One unexpected side effect of studying the historicity of Jesus was discovering that he’s not the only religious founder who has been put under the microscope in recent years. Both Buddhists and ex-Muslims have contacted me to let me know they are having the same debates in their respective circles over whether the Buddha or Muhammad were actual historical figures.

Like Jesus, whose name works well as an allegory (in Hebrew, Y’shua, “to deliver/to rescue,”) the name “Muhammad” can also mean “the chosen/praised one.” Muhammad purportedly lived in the late sixth to earlyseventh century (570-632 CE), but none of our contemporary non-Muslim sources of theseventh century corroborate the canonical story, and it’s not until over a hundred years later, towards the middle of theeighth century, that we get any clear epigraphic Arabic evidence for him. For example, an inscription from 677 or 678 CE, attributed to Muawiya, the first Umayyad caliph, makes reference to belief in God—but has no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger, or in the Qur’an as revealed Scripture.

Also like Jesus, the biographical data for Muhammad—the ahadith (plural of hadith) and sira—appear generations after the fact, and their reliability has come into severe question.43 At the same time, there are good grounds to hypothesize that the Qur’an itself is not the work of a single writer, but developed from different texts over theseventh and eighth centuries. Unbelievable as it seems, Islam appears to be a result—not a cause—of the religious and cultural milieu of the Arab conquests.44

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Eastern traditions have tended to a more detached stance on the historicity of founder figures like Prince Siddhārtha Gautama, the Buddha. In the influential Mahayana scripture the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha himself calls his own historical authenticity into question.45

Buddha has come down through the ages with a dutifully miracle-laden biography, including a divine conception and birth and the usual attendant miracles and extraordinary events throughout his divine career. But as Columbia University Professor Bernard Faure points out, the fact that similar events are also said to have occurred during the life of the founder of Jainism, Mahavira—another allegedly historical figure—indicates that a degree of caution must be exercised in accepting their factual basis.46

The line-up of semi-legendary religious founder figures continues in both the eastern and western spiritual traditions: Zoroaster, Moses, Abraham, the traditional founder of Taoism Laozi (or Lao Tzu), Confucius, and the list goes on.

Even some figures whose writings have come down to us have fallen into question: Isaiah, Homer and Aesop, to name just a few. For well over two centuries, the Old Testament book of Isaiah has been recognized as the work of multiple authors from at least three different time periods. The question of Homeric authorship is still debated, but increasingly the epics are seen as the result of a process of working and reworking by many contributors, and “Homer” a label for an entire tradition. Aesop’s biographical data is a chimera that has appeared to marinate for centuries before coalescing into written form.47

So the idea that Christianity, or indeed, any and all of the other major world religions, may have begun with a purely mythical founder, is far from ridiculous. Indeed, it appears to be the norm.48

Conclusion

“Facts are sometimes the most radical critics of all,” theologian William Wrede commented about his own field of study back in the day. The Historical Jesus question has the potential to be the biggest paradigm shift in the study of Christian origins. And the importance of Jesus Mythicism goes far beyond the Historical Jesus question itself. For instance, it highlights all the uniquely problematic elements plaguing biblical studies historically and currently, such as the pervasive bias affecting biblical studies—a remarkable condition different from any other field of history.

At the very least, this debate will point out that strong agnosticism is warranted towards everything that we think we know about who and what Jesus said, did, and was. And at best, it will utterly change the way we look at the founding figures of virtually all major religions, not only the Abrahamic, but from the Eastern traditions as well.

As James Burke noted long ago in his excellent show The Day the Universe Changed, what you think you know conditions what you actually can know. If you “know” that the sun goes around the Earth, then you can never know the real reason Mars goes retrograde, or any number of other facts about how the solar system really works.

After two decades of investigating the matter, I am increasingly convinced that myth theory holds the answer to unravel Christianity’s perplexing origins, and that we will never understand the rise of the various Christian movements until we recognize this fact: our Jesus is a Jewish version of the other rebooted mystery faith savior deities that dominated the ancient Hellenistic world, and our Gospels all derive from the original “Mark’s,” a blatantly allegorical story written far from and generations after the place and time it describes.

This is not from dogma or wishful thinking; if the evidence could be shown to warrant it, I’d be happy to change my mind back to Historicism,49 and still be a perfectly contented atheist. After all, it’s not like Christianity is suddenly going to start making sense if it turns out Jesus was real.50

But what’s never going to change my mind—nor should it yours—are the kinds of critical responses we’ve seen to date: the same weak, special pleading, ostrich-headed, knee-jerk responses trotted out to resist every single theology-threatening advance in biblical studies, ever. Bad enough that the Christians stonewall and ridicule any scholarship that exposes the cracks in their party line; worse that secular skeptics have echoed their chorus.

I am far from the first or best qualified to point out that dogma and wishful thinking have long interfered with sound scholarship when it comes to the Historical Jesus question. In the case of religiously motivated scholars, we can at least appreciate how hard it is to overcome their Christian bias, and recognize how strained and self-serving their objections are.

Sadly, too many of our fellow humanists are copying from the Christians’ play book, aping the same smug defensive reaction, replacing analysis with hand-waving, and trotting out the same old tired dismissals, false analogies, and appeals to authority. And in the end, there’s really no need for any such secular hostility towards myth theory at all.

Why Mythicism Matters, Reason #7: The Best Reason of All

Here’s why you should love Jesus Myth theory, too: Critics fail to appreciate the simple value that comes from the mythicist/Historicist debate, regardless of which side prevails. For all the pious hysteria over evolutionary theory, Christians increasingly are finding that they can wiggle and re-interpret their faith to accommodate Darwin’s unavoidable truth of natural selection, the delightfully oxymoronic “theistic evolution.” However, Christians can’t play that game with Mythicism.

Jesus Myth theory is kryptonite for Christianity. Unlike us, they can’t even enjoy a relaxed agnosticism about the mere possibility of Mythicism being true. They need Jesus NOT to be a myth.

Unfortunately for them, Jesus is a myth.

And that remains true, no matter whether it’s the mythicist camp or the Historicist camp that ultimately comes out on top. The believer’s “Jesus of Faith” gets debunked either way. Atheists who roll their eyes and wonder why Mythicism doesn’t seem to be going away might be relieved to realize that.

I find myself constantly quoting Price’s apt observation that whether or not there ever had been a real Jesus, for all intents and purposes, there isn’t one anymore