On the Challenges of Engaging and Not Engaging the Christ Myth Theory
by DANIEL N. GULLOTTA
I have an extremely odd relationship with “the Christ Myth theory.” From knowing next to nothing about it a few years ago (apart from that awful Zeitgeist film) to reading Bart D. Ehrman’s book on the subject, Did Jesus Exist?, it seems like I cannot escape it. The Christ Myth theory is the view that, in one form or another, the man known as Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. This theory takes many shapes and sizes, some of which compliment each other, but at its core, all supporters of this theory view that Jesus did not exist. To say this is a fringe theory is a bit of an understatement. No scholar employed by a major university holds this view, and one can easily count on one hand the people who hold PhDs in a related field who are “Mythicists,” as they call themselves. While I do not hold to the mythicist position at all, I found their views engaging, and I wanted to learn more.
As a part of my Honors Degree and research with the University of Newcastle, I wrote a critical book review and response to Richard Carrier’s book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason For Doubt, which I am currently in the process of reworking and revamping to have it peer reviewed and hopefully published. This gave me the opportunity to expose myself to a whole body of literature that I had never encountered before, all related to the question of Jesus’s historicity. While I found it engaging enough for a semester’s worth of research, I had no real desire to continue studying the Christ Myth theory, because I found the so-called “issue” to be misplaced and the whole debate rather misguided. Furthermore, I found the literature highly inflammatory, and not overly scholarly. There were notable exceptions (such as Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier), but most of the literature was clearly the work of amateurs. Regardless, I thought I would be done with it and be on my way to new and more exciting areas of research, such as polemics within the early Church, or furthering my study on Marcion of Pontus and the emergence of early Christianity.
However, over the last couple of weeks, more and more people seem to be talking about the Christ Myth theory. Facebook posts, podcasts, YouTube videos, news articles, and more seem to be dominated by this topic at the moment. I have no doubt most of this new buzz is related to the publication of Carrier’s book and his current speaking tour around the United States, but what got me curious is the silence from Biblical scholars. Something that I find deeply troubling is how few scholars are willing to even engage with the topic or the issue and equally troubling, how Mythicists “respond” to their critics.
Bart D. Ehrman wrote his book, of course, and Maurice Casey added his voice to the discussion with his book, Jesus: Evidence and Arguments or Mythicist Myths? R. T. France, James D. G. Dunn, and Robert E. Van Voorst, have briefly wrote on the Christ Myth theory, although many years ago, and well before the recent boom in its popularity. R. Joseph Hoffmann has occasionally written on the subject. Mark Goodacre talked with Carrier on the topic on Unbelievable Christian Radio. Although Dr. Zeba Crook of Carleton University did publicly debate and discuss the existence of Jesus with Carrier, so that is noteworthy. Yet, Dr. James McGrath of Bulter University seems to be a lone academic in the trenches, willing to face ongoing bombardment on his blog with Pathos, Exploring our Matrix. I wonder why? Recently, I thought about this with a scholar friend of mine and his advice was, “Best ignored.” This got me thinking… is this the best way to “deal” with the Christ Myth theory? Yet, as I thought about this, it occurred to me that it is not exactly hard to see why so many scholars avoid the question of Jesus’s historicity…
Talks and discussions about the historicity of Jesus have quickly turned into internet flame wars, hate campaigns, and shouting matches. For example, there was Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman internet showdown, the Tim O’Neill and David Fitzgerald feud, just to name but two. As well as this, some scholars have become nothing more than “targets” for some Mythicists. A particularly shocking example is the website by Kenneth Humphreys, JesusNeverExisted.com, author of Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate Heresy, which features pictures of Hoffmann, Casey, and Fisher with terribly immature and pointless captions. Hoffmann is labelled an “arrogant know-it-all,” Casey is accused of being “out in the sun too long,” and Fisher (undoubtedly because is she is a woman) is branded a mere “cheerleader” for Hoffmann and Casey. And in his “review” of Ehrman’s book, Did Jesus Exist?, Humphreys insinuates that Ehrman might become a Mythicist; however, he doesn’t, because doing so would hurt his career and his book sales. Humphrey is but one example, but it does not take much searching to find an unbelievable and unreasonable amount of criticism against scholars who defend the historicity of Jesus.
This is just one of the reasons why I am finding it more and more difficult to even engage with this theory. Most of its representatives are not committed to the reasonable exchange of ideas. Because of how antagonistic Jesus Mythicists are, it should be little wonder that they are not engaged with and ultimately avoided. If scholars engage with the Christ Myth theory, it might only serve to give credence to an otherwise fringe view. Yet, if scholars do not engage, scholarship might find itself out of touch with the questions and concerns of the public, or at least a significant audience. Regardless, Carrier has made his case against the historicity of Jesus, and given his credentials and peer-review publication, I think it is fair to say that he deserves our attention no more or less than any other scholar working in the field. However, I fear Hoffmann maybe right when he writes, “The failure of scholars to take the “question of Jesus” seriously has resulted in a slight increase in the popularity of the non-historicity thesis, a popularity that—in my view—now threatens to distract biblical studies from the serious business of illuminating the causes, context and development of early Christianity.”
It seems like a difficult situation for everyone involved.
Especially for Mythicists, like Carrier, who desire to establish the theory within academia and avoid being pinned down with the “crank theorists” and scholars like McGrath, who are willing to engage the topic, but get blasted by a wave of internet hate when they do. However, seeing as many people found Ehrman’s book so lacking (for some reasons I understand and for others I do not), I have even considered taking on the issue of investigating and defending the historicity of Jesus myself. However, it seems that to do so welcomes the legions of internet trolls, angry bloggers, and mean-spirited fundamentalists (of every creed). If this is the manner in which this dialogue and debate is carried out, what becomes of the people willing to engage with this topic? It sort of reminds me of Richard Dawkins warning to evolutionary scientists willing to debate creationists, “Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs.” Yet it is a topic that interests me greatly and I feel like writing such a work would be a worthwhile venture… but perhaps a dangerous one as well…
As a part of my Honors Degree and research with the University of Newcastle, I wrote a critical book review and response to Richard Carrier’s book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason For Doubt, which I am currently in the process of reworking and revamping to have it peer reviewed and hopefully published. This gave me the opportunity to expose myself to a whole body of literature that I had never encountered before, all related to the question of Jesus’s historicity. While I found it engaging enough for a semester’s worth of research, I had no real desire to continue studying the Christ Myth theory, because I found the so-called “issue” to be misplaced and the whole debate rather misguided. Furthermore, I found the literature highly inflammatory, and not overly scholarly. There were notable exceptions (such as Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier), but most of the literature was clearly the work of amateurs. Regardless, I thought I would be done with it and be on my way to new and more exciting areas of research, such as polemics within the early Church, or furthering my study on Marcion of Pontus and the emergence of early Christianity.
However, over the last couple of weeks, more and more people seem to be talking about the Christ Myth theory. Facebook posts, podcasts, YouTube videos, news articles, and more seem to be dominated by this topic at the moment. I have no doubt most of this new buzz is related to the publication of Carrier’s book and his current speaking tour around the United States, but what got me curious is the silence from Biblical scholars. Something that I find deeply troubling is how few scholars are willing to even engage with the topic or the issue and equally troubling, how Mythicists “respond” to their critics.
Bart D. Ehrman wrote his book, of course, and Maurice Casey added his voice to the discussion with his book, Jesus: Evidence and Arguments or Mythicist Myths? R. T. France, James D. G. Dunn, and Robert E. Van Voorst, have briefly wrote on the Christ Myth theory, although many years ago, and well before the recent boom in its popularity. R. Joseph Hoffmann has occasionally written on the subject. Mark Goodacre talked with Carrier on the topic on Unbelievable Christian Radio. Although Dr. Zeba Crook of Carleton University did publicly debate and discuss the existence of Jesus with Carrier, so that is noteworthy. Yet, Dr. James McGrath of Bulter University seems to be a lone academic in the trenches, willing to face ongoing bombardment on his blog with Pathos, Exploring our Matrix. I wonder why? Recently, I thought about this with a scholar friend of mine and his advice was, “Best ignored.” This got me thinking… is this the best way to “deal” with the Christ Myth theory? Yet, as I thought about this, it occurred to me that it is not exactly hard to see why so many scholars avoid the question of Jesus’s historicity…
Talks and discussions about the historicity of Jesus have quickly turned into internet flame wars, hate campaigns, and shouting matches. For example, there was Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman internet showdown, the Tim O’Neill and David Fitzgerald feud, just to name but two. As well as this, some scholars have become nothing more than “targets” for some Mythicists. A particularly shocking example is the website by Kenneth Humphreys, JesusNeverExisted.com, author of Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate Heresy, which features pictures of Hoffmann, Casey, and Fisher with terribly immature and pointless captions. Hoffmann is labelled an “arrogant know-it-all,” Casey is accused of being “out in the sun too long,” and Fisher (undoubtedly because is she is a woman) is branded a mere “cheerleader” for Hoffmann and Casey. And in his “review” of Ehrman’s book, Did Jesus Exist?, Humphreys insinuates that Ehrman might become a Mythicist; however, he doesn’t, because doing so would hurt his career and his book sales. Humphrey is but one example, but it does not take much searching to find an unbelievable and unreasonable amount of criticism against scholars who defend the historicity of Jesus.
This is just one of the reasons why I am finding it more and more difficult to even engage with this theory. Most of its representatives are not committed to the reasonable exchange of ideas. Because of how antagonistic Jesus Mythicists are, it should be little wonder that they are not engaged with and ultimately avoided. If scholars engage with the Christ Myth theory, it might only serve to give credence to an otherwise fringe view. Yet, if scholars do not engage, scholarship might find itself out of touch with the questions and concerns of the public, or at least a significant audience. Regardless, Carrier has made his case against the historicity of Jesus, and given his credentials and peer-review publication, I think it is fair to say that he deserves our attention no more or less than any other scholar working in the field. However, I fear Hoffmann maybe right when he writes, “The failure of scholars to take the “question of Jesus” seriously has resulted in a slight increase in the popularity of the non-historicity thesis, a popularity that—in my view—now threatens to distract biblical studies from the serious business of illuminating the causes, context and development of early Christianity.”
It seems like a difficult situation for everyone involved.
Especially for Mythicists, like Carrier, who desire to establish the theory within academia and avoid being pinned down with the “crank theorists” and scholars like McGrath, who are willing to engage the topic, but get blasted by a wave of internet hate when they do. However, seeing as many people found Ehrman’s book so lacking (for some reasons I understand and for others I do not), I have even considered taking on the issue of investigating and defending the historicity of Jesus myself. However, it seems that to do so welcomes the legions of internet trolls, angry bloggers, and mean-spirited fundamentalists (of every creed). If this is the manner in which this dialogue and debate is carried out, what becomes of the people willing to engage with this topic? It sort of reminds me of Richard Dawkins warning to evolutionary scientists willing to debate creationists, “Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs.” Yet it is a topic that interests me greatly and I feel like writing such a work would be a worthwhile venture… but perhaps a dangerous one as well…
