gstafleu

There is something that pops up in various threads from time to time: the fact that the "mainstream" refuses to give serious consideration to the Jesus Myth theory. That seems to be an accurate observation, and it allows appeals to (lack of) authority like "Well, how come no real authorities talk about this?" Here I want to give some thought on why this is the case. Just some musings, and I'd be very interested in any light that others can throw on the subject.

I'll move from what I think is fairly obvious to the less obvious. First, then, it seems clear that many (probably a majority) of scholars of Christianity are Christian believers themselves. I would posit that for a believer it is simply impossible to take the idea of a mythical Jesus seriously. The idea of a historical Jesus is so central to the world of the believer that any notions of a mythical Jesus are reflexively waved away as obviously insane. And, I would add, the believer is sincere in this: for him or her such a notion is indeed insane. (There are rare exceptions, Robert Price for example. But I would argue that he represents the exception, not the rule.)

That leaves us with the non-believers. Still a significant group I would say, even if, at least in the field, perhaps still a minority. The non-believers also seem hesitant. Why?

The first answer might be: practical considerations. If a non-believing researcher published his or her approving thoughts on the Jesus Myth theory, (some of) the believers would, to put it bluntly, scream bloody murder. This would at minimum result in quite a hassle for the researcher, and depending on the influence and ferocity of (some of) the believers, career damage should not be ruled out. So a decision by such a researcher to maybe let this cactus stand and look for something else to research is not unlikely.

Still I think that we are left with a final group of non-believers who are hesitant for other reasons, if only because the usual infighting of academia doesn't apply to them. For them I would posit a final reason: cultural inertia. Even non-believers have generally been brought up with the image of an historical Jesus, misrepresented as he may have been, as a cultural icon. Leaving behind a cultural icon is simply not easy. Add to that the fact that a mythical Jesus means not just that the culture of which we are part is guilty of, let us say, an over enthusiastic interpretation of a possibly charismatic teacher figure. Rather, it means that the whole culture fell for what essentially is a hoax, or at least a massive delusion. That thought too cannot be easy for a member of the culture, non-belief notwithstanding.

I think all these factors together may explain the curious hesitation we see over something that would otherwise, given the evidence, be accepted as the most likely explanation as a matter of course.

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151

I find this explanation sufficient for America, but I am still puzzled by Europe, especially Germany.

I don't expect the MJ position to be taken seriously here, but I do expect it to be taken seriously in Germany and France and Scandinavia.

No Robots

It is true that contemporary scholars do not pay much attention to mythicism. Perhaps it hasn't reached the point of sufficient visibility. But scholars did address the question in its early-twentieth century heyday. Here are a couple of papers:

• "The New Jesus Myth and Its Ethical Value" / Nathaniel Schmidt. International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Oct., 1911), pp. 19-39.
• "Jesus, Myth, and History: Troeltsch's Stand in the 'Christ-Myth' Debate" / B. A. Gerrish. Journal of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 13-35.

gstafleu

Malachi,
Don't you think the cultural inertia and embarrassment for falling for the delusion would work in Europe as well?

Gerard

dzim77

As far as I know, Biblical scholars/historians follow accepted critical practices. According to these practices, the evidence for an HJ is more than sufficient. Apparently you must use different standards (unaccepted ones) or "change the rules" in order to reject an HJ.

GakuseiDon

Can you define "mainstream"? And how would you expect proponents of the Jesus Myth theory to resolve this problem?

GakuseiDon

I remember starting a thread on what (if anything) is stopping academia from taking the Jesus Myth seriously, but was unable to find it. But I did find another similar thread from earlier this year:
Historical vs Mythical Jesus: academic status of argument

Malachi151

To a degree, but Germany and France have a pretty solid history of criticism of Christianity. The Jesus Myth hypothesis was hatched in Germany after all...

jakejonesiv

The OP requires opinion, here goes such.

The question of Mythical Jesus does not attract much attention because issue is fought “upstream.” The lines of battle are generally drawn, not concerning the historicity of Jésus or Paul, but above the unicity of Christian origins. On several occasions, the défenseurs of traditional Christian origins will go to any length to dispute the religious or mythical influence other that the traditional Judaism. (decreasing Judaism is stage 2 after all other religious influences are avoided). All one must do is make suggestion of a parallel between Jesus and Dionysus (for example) to draw a hundred objections the parallel is never close enough for it to count.

As long as Jésus can without risk be enclosed in the Castle of Uniqueness, the slavering hordes of the mythers, radicals, and of the skeptics can be repulsed.

ymmv.
Jake Jones IV

rlogan

Calling them "scholars" is kind.

In the same way we can call safe-crackers "tradesman" and con-men "professionals".