Happy Mythicist New Year!

At the beginning of ‘the year of our Lord 2013’ it must be noted with amazement that still not a single Biblical Studies professor, whether tenured or not tenured, publicly endorses the mythicist viewpoint regarding Jesus of Nazareth. (Please correct me if I’m wrong. See first comment below.—R.S.) This startling fact is a testament to the monolithic refusal of both scholarship and society to embrace the results of scientific investigation and reason. In the field of religion, mankind still lives in the Stone Age.

Yet, the facts—laboriously brought to light by maverick scholars over the last two hundred years—show that Jesus of Nazareth is the chimera of a bygone era, an invented figure. From the virgin birth to the resurrection, from the walking on water to the raising of Lazarus, from the Transfiguration to the dying gasp on the cross, the entire story of Jesus is rank fiction, the stuff of fantasy. In the New Testament we have “The Big Lie” written large.

Many in the academic mainstream are now becoming uncomfortably aware of “Jesus mythicism” while ignoring it. Others now ridicule it—a sign of progress along the four Gandhian stages: ignore – ridicule – fight – accept. We are even seeing some ‘fight’ emerge, as a scholar such as R. Joseph Hoffmann sets forth the “true” elements in the gospels, enumerated here as 35 in number. Hoffmann even promises a book on the matter.

Neil Godfrey writes: “But like Bart Ehrman, Hoffmann thinks it is time to come out and say that though just about everything you read in the gospels is a myth, if you look carefully you will see that it can all be rationalized so that at least its foundation is not myth” (emphasis added). This is the ‘fight’ stage, a desperate attempt to salvage historicity from what is increasingly perceived as myth. But the arc of history is bending, and it is bending towards Jesus mythicism.

It is no coincidence that Christianity conquered Europe and has been a useful tool to aggressively promote the expansion of European culture. The religion quite early aligned itself with major western institutions and mores (read: Hellenism), so that it truly lies at the heart of western civilization. Over the centuries Christianity has befriended capitalism while shunning communism, has proven itself patriarchal while seeing woman as subservient, has fostered xenophobia while viewing other religions as threats. As Realpolitik, the spread of Christianity may be termed “domination.” As religion, it may be termed “evangelism.” As sociology, it may be termed “assimilation.” Whatever we call it, the ‘gospel of peace and humility’ has also been consummately hypocritical.
Jesus mythicists should realize that what we are about entails nothing less than a revolution in western civilization. In medical parlance, this is not an ‘office procedure.’ The patient is so sick that open heart surgery is the only option: we must take the heart out of western civilization and replace it with a new one. Interpreted, we must replace faith with reason.

Global distribution of Catholics (2006)

Jesus mythicism cannot simply be the cerebral demonstration that the man from Nazareth was an invention. That is not an end, but the beginning of a long process of change. The negative result of Jesus mythicism must give way to something positive. The void left by an absent Jesus must be filled, and only the free exercise of reason is big enough to do the job.

In ridding the West of Jesus of Nazareth, mythicists are doing more than deleting the central character of history. We are changing the meaning of the words ‘western civilization.’ For some, we are in fact deleting western civilization. The struggle is ultimately between faith and reason. On one side are the reactionary and conservative elements of mankind, those averse to change and ultimately driven by emotion and fear. On the other side are the forward looking and progressive elements of mankind, those which accept change as part of life and repose confidence in mankind’s rational faculty knowing, after all, that only reason can guide us securely into the unknown.

Though the Jesus mythicist is not yet included in the confraternity of bible scholars, he is not alone but has natural allies in the various domains of science, history, and atheism. Many who are now positively disposed to the mythicist thesis will champion it when that thesis becomes better known. Many nominal Christians, too, can be expected to change if and when it becomes politic to do so. Only committed Christians need Jesus of Nazareth. Truth be told, however, I think surprisingly few “committed Christians” will be found once all the hyperbole and bluster is removed…

The challenge before Jesus mythicism now is to make itself better known. Mythicists should neither hide nor feel squeamish about airing their views in any forum. All platforms are open and the truth need not defer to anything nor anyone. In the history of western religion this is a unique privilege and a unique time, for in bygone eras those professing radical religious ideas met summary execution at the hands of Christians hypocritically professing “the love of Jesus.” Today, we have the freedom to air the most controversial view of all views, that Jesus Christ did not exist. But we must be responsible in that airing, knowing that we are touching a raw nerve and attacking the most sacred tenet of western man. As we persuade, cajole, and probe, we must keep in mind that we are not attacking people but a view. Ours is essentially a task of instruction, carried out with tact and due consideration, for we are asking a great deal from the average Christian who has never even thought about these matters and who has placed enormous stock in his and her “savior of the world.”
[Charts and maps above courtesy of the Washington Post.]

About René Salm

René Salm is the author of two books on New Testament archeology and manages the companion website www.NazarethMyth.info.


Happy Mythicist New Year! — 3 Comments

  1. In the first sentence above I wrote: “At the beginning of ‘the year of our Lord 2013’ it must be noted with amazement that still not a single Biblical Studies professor, whether tenured or not tenured, publicly endorses the mythicist viewpoint regarding Jesus of Nazareth. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)” Well, we may have our first candidate in Thomas L. Brodie, an Irish Dominican priest who has taught scripture in the West Indies and the United States. Brodie is currently Director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, Ireland. He finds it possible to be both a Catholic and a mythicist, but I leave that interesting combination aside. Brodie’s book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery (Sheffield Phoenix, 2012) was recently published. Richard Carrier writes: “In this book Brodie (a major biblical scholar) drops a bombshell: he has been convinced that Jesus never existed as a historical person since the 70s.” So, with Brodie, we may have our first avowed mythicist from inside the halls of academe. —R.S.

  2. In my ignorance I am prepared to listen to the mythicists.What I fail to grasp is,if Jesus never was, how come Christianity took off, as it did, at least a century before the gospels became widely available. They seem to be expressions of Christianity rather than the basis as I was taught to believe. But,what caused that take-off? Failure to establish historicity hardly assures us that someone did not exist. I am open to the learned scholars, but they need to explain the phenemenon of Christianity without the existence of Christ.
    Sorely puzzled
    Julie Mackey

    • You ask a critical question: What caused Xty if not Jesus? My answer is in several posts on this website, most especially the “Ten Steps” (under the tab “Christian origins”) and my ongoing series “The Natsarene religion.” I argue that a “lost” prophet lived a humble existence, maybe ca. 100 BCE. His teachings were stellar, but his bio was not acceptable–it wasn’t “grand” enough to start a new religion and compete with Hellenist man-gods like Apollonius of Tyana. So the Paulinists invented a super bio and adapted the (far too) rigorous teachings to average tastes, admitting marriage and substituting “faith in Jesus” for gnosis.–RS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *