User:BruceGrubb/CMT Material/FAQ

Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page User:BruceGrubb/CMT Material. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please update this material when needed.

Important: This FAQ is designed to try and address issues that repeatedly come up in the Christ myth theory article. It is designed to provide answers that have been given in the past and encourage the search for newer and better ones. Note that is not a official FAQ of the article but rather problems that have kept coming up in the article. All references unless noted appear on the main Christ myth theory page

To view a response, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

1: I have seen several different definitions presented regarding the Christ Myth theory and am wondering just what is it?

Response: The problem is that the term "Christ Myth" refereed to the more general idea that the Gospel Jesus was a myth without always clarifying just how he was a myth. Then Arthur Drews in his 1910 book Die Christusmythe (The Christ Myth) which there was nothing in the Gospel account that could not be explained via mythology eliminating the need for a historical Jesus (Weaver, Walter P. (1999) The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity. ISBN 1-56338-280-6 pg 50) and also said if any insisted there had to be a real person behind the story that we knew nothing about that Jesus. (Drews (1910) Burns translation via Internet archive pg 19) resulting in "Christ myth theory" begin a short hand for 'the theory presented in Drews' book Christ myth

Because the phrase Christ myth was and is used to describe things other than Drews' book the phrase "Christ myth theory" and it various synonyms has different meanings depending on what the author is talking about:

Jesus originally being an allegoric myth to which historical details possibly including an actual obscure 1st century teacher of the same name were added later (Dodd, Charles Harold (1938) History and the gospel University of Chicago pg 17; (1911) The Hibbert journal, Volume 9, Issues 3-4 pg 658; Robert M Price. "Response to James D. G Dunn," in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 230.)

Jesus began as at a Myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58)(one possible reading of Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

Jesus was historical but lived c100 BCE (Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65)

The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism (Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199)

The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character and therefore non historical by definition.(Price, Robert M. (2000) Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85)

The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review

The Christ-myth theory belongs to the group of "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." (Wood, Herbert George (1934) MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.] : The University Press pg 40)

Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley) The problem with this definition is it makes no distinction between historic myth (like the Trojan War) and philosophical myth (like Hades and Persephone). More over, Eusebius in Preparation of the Gospel [portrayed Heracles as a flesh and blood person who was later deified] and as late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods" ("Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" pg 646)

Citation:

"This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence." (Grant, Michael (1995) [1977], Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, ISBN 978-0684818672)

2: I am confused by the use of myth I am seeing in some of the literature. It seams to mean something other than totally made up story.

Response:Myth to the scholar has many meanings. Bulfinch in his 1881 compilation Bulfinch's Mythology in the "Origin of Mythology" listed six different ways myths are thought to come about: Scriptural, Historical, Allegorical, Astronomical, Physical, and explanation for natural phenomena with "All the theories which have been mentioned are true to a certain extent."

Biblical studies professor J. W. Rogerson goes into the many definitions in his paper "Slippery words: Myth" (Dundes 1984) but to the layman Remsburg gives what is likely the easiest to understand explanation:

"Myths are of three kinds: Historical, Philosophical, and Poetical.

A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. "Nothing great has been established," says Renan, "which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived."

A Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the caress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and heroes of antiquity are pure myths. John Fiske refers to a myth as "a piece of unscientific philosophizing," and this is a fairly good definition of the philosophical myth.

A Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks, and the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and foster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, belong to this class.

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?"

To put this in more modern terms They Died With their Boots on, Little Big Man, and Son of the Morning Star are all historical myths of the Battle of Little Big Horn. Washington Irving's story that Columbus sailed west to prove the Earth was round is another historical myth; in this case the myth became so strong that it was presented as fact for many decades (National Research Council (2005))

Mason Locke Weems' story of Washington's chopping down of the Cherry Tree is a Philosophical and pure myth while Longfellow's Paul Revere is a Poetical myth.

Refernces:

Dundes, Alan (1994) "Sacred narrative, readings in the theory of myth" University of California Press

National Research Council (2005) How students learn: History in the classroom pg 187-199

3: I've read there is a spectrum of ideas regarding the historical Jesus. Doesn't that mean the Christ Myth theory just a strawman argument to used to claim the Gospels are totally historical?

Response: You have likely read Marshall and-or Boyd-Eddy and yes there is a spectrum of ideas regarding the historical Jesus. But just as the visible spectrum can be broken down into seven colors so the historical Jesus spectrum can be similarly broken down. In fact over the course of a century at least three people (Remsburg, Barker, and Eddy-Boyd) have done so. Because as Eddy-Boyd points out these four categories (or "colors" if you will) are "admittedly over simplistic", "ideal-typical", and a "useful heuristic" they should not be taken as absolute definitions. In fact, if you look at the definitions provided by these three authors as well as some others you will notice that the four categories don't always match up which in turn means the boundaries between the definitions are not sharp and clear. However, this doesn't mean the Christ Myth theory is a strawman created by pro historical Jesus supporters only that where it breaks with the equally fringe minimalist position is not always clear...even to scholars and experts.

The four "colors" of the historical Jesus spectrum (and their current status with the academic community) are:

Christ Myth theory (Fringe)

all trace of a historical person, if there was ever one was to begin with, has been lost. (Jesus agnosticism) (Boyd)
Jesus began as at a Myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being being added later. (Walsh; Dodd)
"Jesus never existed at all and that the myth came into being through a literary process." (Barker)
"Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity." (Remsburg)

Minimalist (Fringe)

There is just enough to show there was a first century teacher called Jesus and little else. (Boyd)
"Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (Barker)
"Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit." (Remsburg)

Moderate Historical (mainstream)

"Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life." (Remsburg)
"Jesus did exist, and that some parts of the New Testament are accurate, although the miracles and the claim to deity are due to later editing of the original story." (Barker)
A historical Jesus did exist but was very different from the gospel Jesus (Boyd-Eddy)

Total/Extreme Historical (Fringe)

"Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth." (Remsburg)
"The New Testament is basically true in all of its accounts except that there are natural explanations for the miracle stories." (Barker)

References:

Barker, Dan 2006) Losing Faith in Faith pg 372

Boyd-Eddy (2007), The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 24-25

Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17

Marshall, Ian Howard (2004), I Believe in the Historical Jesus

Remsburg, John (1909) The Christ

Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58

4: What separates the Christ Myth Theory from the idea that Jesus existed but the Gospels tell little to nothing about him (minimalist) idea?

Response: This goes back to the spectrum question above. In some cases this is equivalent to asking 'Is 484 THz 750 nm red or orange?' to which the answer is 'how do you define red and orange?' If there is one point that does separate the two it is that the minimalist thinks there is enough to show there was a teacher named Jesus in Galilee in the 1st century while the Christ Myth theorist does not (Goguel 1926). However some minimalist positions do seem to contain something resembling the Christ Myth theory as seen the two examples below:

"Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit." Remsburg (1909)

"Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." Barker, Dan (2006)

References:

Barker, Dan 2006) Losing Faith in Faith pg 372

Goguel, Maurice (1926) "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2): 115–142

Remsburg, John (1909) The Christ

5: If the Christ Myth Theory is the idea Jesus never existed why are theories he may have lived a century earlier sometimes considered part of the theory? I've seen candidates for a historical Robin Hood a full century after the stories supposedly take place.

Response: This is also related to the spectrum "color" definition problem above. Some definitions of Christ Myth theory clarify their "Jesus never existed" position as being "Jesus of Nazareth never existed". This is the same difference between "Robin Hood never existed" and "Robin Hood, Earl of Locksley, never existed"; the later gives you a specific version who supposedly lived in a specific time. The issue then becomes how much has to match before you say the version you are are presenting is "historical" and not everyone may agree with that assessment.

6: I've seen an author call someone who accepts there may have been a first century Jesus a Christ Myth Theorist and am confused regarding the definition.

Response: There are three causes for this: honest mistake, possible agenda, and possibly different definitions.

Possible Honest mistake or different definition example:

"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." (Schweitzer (1931) Out of My Life and Thought page 125)

The searchable reprint of the expanded 1913 The quest of the historical Jesus] only confuses matters as the chapter titled "The most recent disputing of the historicity of Jesus" is where Frazer appears (other than in a footnote that pairs him with Robertson and in the index of names) and it is hard as blazes to figure out from the context what Frazer himself actually held and when you go back to Frazer you wonder why was he even in this section. The conclusion is either Schweitzer was misunderstanding Frazer or Schweitzer was using "contested the historical existence of Jesus" to mean something other than "saying Jesus didn't exist". Which it was we simply do not know.

Possible agenda examples:

"The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review

"Resmberg himself seemed equivocal in his commitment to a Christ-myth thesis .He says in his chapter listing these names that it "may be true" that a teacher in Palestine did exist but it is clear that his sympathies did lie with mythicists." (Holding, James Patrick (2008) Shattering the Christ Myth pg 94)

However, things are not quite as these authors claim.

Wells had accepted the Q-Jesus as being historical with Jesus Myth in 1996 retaining only the Paul's Jesus was quasi mythical position from his earlier works putting him more in the minimalist rather then the traditional Christ Myth camp though close enough to cause confusion among scholars as where to put him.

Remsburg on the other hand clearly stated no less then three times that he felt the was enough evidence there was 1st century teacher names Jesus. Also Remsburg's definition of "Christ myth" was so broad as to encompass everything but the extreme "New Testament narratives contain nothing but infallible truth" position:

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."

So neither Jesus myth Wells or Resmburg is actually saying there wasn't a 1st century teacher named Jesus but the reader is left with the impression they do.

Possibly different definitions example: Post Jesus Myth (1996) G. A Wells

Several scholars (Price, Stanton, Carrier, Eddy-Boyd) have continued to put Wells from Jesus Myth (1996) on into the Christ Myth theorist category--a position that Wells has corrected them on at least two different occasions. However given philosopher Walsh stated "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." there is the possibility that these scholars may be using slightly different definitions from that of Wells.

References: Carrier Richard (2006) Did Jesus Even Exist? Stanford University presentation May 30 2006

Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine

Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 143.

Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58

7: I see references to a Remsburg list in books and on the internet regarding the Christ Myth Theory. Was he a Christ myther?

Response:While Remsburg does use many arguments also used by Christ Mythers Resmburg was more a minimalist arguing that the Gospel Jesus was a fiction rather than there not being any 1st century teacher called Jesus. Also his use of "Christ Myth" was in reference to mythology and legend that had been added to the story of the 1st century teacher after the fact and would cover much of the historical Jesus spectrum.