Uncommon Sense

The “mythicist claim” comes from the debate over whether Jesus of the bible was real. Recently Bill Cooke, a senior editor of Free Inquiry and a historian of atheism and humanism, posted five challenges to the mythicism claim in Free Inquiry magazine. He got few replies. (Gosh I wonder if that is because of the circulation pattern for Free Inquiry magazine?)

I will not go over his five challenges to proponents of the myth theory of Jesus in a bid to move the argument on (“Five Challenges to Christ Myth Theorists”) which appeared in the August/September 2024 issue of Free Inquiry. But to show you how these challenges are not at all useful, here is Challenge #1: Why should we ignore the majority consensus of Jesus scholarship around the world and pay attention to a few mythicists operating, for the most part, outside the academy?

This is an obvious manifestation of logical fallacy: the argumentum ad populum, also called the bandwagon fallacy. Gosh, if so many people think it is true, well it must be. (This was refuted in the 1960’s bathroom wall scrawl: Eat shit, a billion flies can’t be wrong!) My objection is that “the majority consensus of Jesus scholarship” includes mostly people whose jobs depend upon Jesus being real. Would people employed by the Catholic Church, say (or any of its many auxiliaries), not be risking their jobs were they to say “Jesus was not real.” I would like to see a poll of such scholars, including who they work for. I would cautiously suggest that a majority of the so-called majority possess a religious office (e.g. Monsignor) or work for a religious institution, specifically a Christian religious institution. We could then see if there is a consensus among “scholars” without such a bias.

To be fair Bill Cooke is claiming that the Christ Myth is an albatross for secular humanists to bear because some theists claim that all secular humanists are also Christ mythicists and, basically, he is saying “We have enough problems, we don’t need this one added on.” That is fair to say, but is the path forward trying to dispel the mythicist movement … or to get more secular humanists on board. Mr. Cooke took the first path. (He could have taken a poll of secular humanists to see how many believed in a Christ Myth theory and then used that to opposed the claim that “all” secular humanist so believe, no? He actually claims that only a “minority” of secular humanists so believe but he doesn’t quote a poll.)

So, ignoring the other “challenges” … Mr. Cooke and others have missed the point. Whether the Jesus mentioned in Christian scriptures existed as an historical figure, a real person, is almost beside the point. These documents are ahistorical (something there is also a consensus upon) being largely theological documents. That hasn’t prevented the “majority” of New Testament scholars from trying to pry out the “truth” of Jesus the Christ out of them. (I suggest it may just be a topic driven by book sales.) So, was Jesus a real man in the first century CE? Sure, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of men with that name in that region of the world. (Actually no one bore the name “Jesus” as the letter J wasn’t invented until the sixteenth century. Jesus is the end result of an Aramaic/Hebrew name, translated into Greek, then translated into Latin, and then into English and other languages.)

So, if we allow that an itinerant rabbi of that name lived in first century Palestine, that doesn’t answer the big question, name: Was Jesus a god? Given a real preacher man, can anyone prove that he was indeed a god?

All evidence shows that the Jesus of scripture was created after he died. His main proponent, and the author of the bulk of the New Testament was Saul/Paul and in his writings there is no evidence of him being aware that Jesus walked the Earth and performed miracles, etc. Paul’s only claim was that he was in touch with the spiritual Jesus after his death. Simply put, Paul claimed to be a medium. Now, ask yourself honestly, how much credence do you put in the utterances of mediums today? Apparently, as scripture refers to this, there was a major, major chasm between people who were followers of the man Jesus, and Paul creator of the Jesus god. This sure sounds like rift between those who knew the man and those who claimed god status for the man. (Paul defends himself against claims he is a liar vociferously in his writings.)

There is no doubt that the bulk of Christianity the religion is myth based. How could it not be? Christian “scholars” are using their “historical Jesus” arguments to undergird their religion’s claims, but they do not. Whether Jesus, the man described in scripture, was a real person is almost irrelevant. Even if he were, the rest of the Religion About Jesus is pure myth, as it includes almost nothing involving actual adherence to what the man was supposedly teaching. For example, Jesus never claimed that faith (in Him) would get you to Heaven. Even scripture shows Jesus separating the sheep from the goats on Judgment Day based upon their deeds, yet modern Christianity continues to insist that only faith is required.

Footnote Re “…  a few mythicists operating, for the most part, outside the academy?” As a former member of a version of “the academy” I bristle at this intellectual slur. It is trying to dismiss mythicists as having no standing in their intellectual academy, which is untrue and is another manifestation of the ad populum fallacy: there are so few of them, and they smell, no? Mr. Cooke should be above such tactics.