The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems

by Robert M. Price

The Christ-Myth theory ... "Worse Than Atheism"? New Testament scholar Robert M. Price, one of America's leading authorities on the Bible, has assembled in his book evidence that shows that almost the entire "biography of Jesus" is a conscious reworking of earlier literature.It is one thing to say "There are no gods" or "Jesus was not a god, just a man." It is quite another thing to say "Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all" or that "Christ is a myth." But scholars have been saying exactly that since at least 1793 when the Enlightenment scholar Charles Dupuis began to publish his 13-volume Origine de Tous les Cultes, ou Religion Universelle, which elucidated the astral origins not only of Christianity but of other ancient religions as well. New Testament scholar Robert M. Price, one of America's leading authorities on the Bible, here summarizes much of the scholarship that has led him and a growing number of modern scholars to conclude that Christ -- a partial synonym for Jesus of Nazareth -- is mythical. Most usefully, Price has assembled evidence that shows that almost the entire "biography of Jesus" has been created from Greek Old Testament stories and themes and even incorporates motifs from Homer, Euripides, and perhaps Aesop. Because readers will have a hard time "taking it on faith" that the Jesus biography is merely a reworking of previous material, broad swaths of "Old Testament" context are quoted in association with each New Testament equivalent, so readers can judge for themselves whether or not Dr. Price's claim be the "Live of Christ" was not fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies; it was, rather, a conscious reworking of earlier literature.

Genres: Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Christianity, Theology

427 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Robert McNair Price is an American theologian and writer. He teaches philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, is professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus, asserting the Christ myth theory.

A former Baptist minister, he was the editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism from 1994 until it ceased publication in 2003. He has also written extensively about the Cthulhu Mythos, a "shared universe" created by H.P. Lovecraft.

Reviews

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I already have a large amount of respect for Robert Price and his critical/scholarly work, I was not at all displeased with his effort here.

Positive: exhaustively researched, plentiful and thorough references to both pro-myth and pro-history scholars, and a conversational style that takes the reader through very dense biblical studies.

Negative: The effort was perhaps too exhaustive for a book not necessarily intended for people used to such scholarly works. I can only recommend it to readers of other works of this nature (such as John Loftus' works).

In synopsis, Price demonstrates via recognized scriptural techniques that the gospels present not history but midrash (retellings) and peshram (reverse engineering to verify prophecy). Jesus, contrary to Dr. Bart Ehrman's well-known view, is a creation or an amalgam of various scriptural tales.

Put simply, read this book to arm yourself against Christian apologists who always fall back on the historicity argument.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Builds a rather thorough, and strong, case

Although I have long since left behind Christian belief (for my own reasons), works like this still hold my interest, if for no other reason that religion still remains a compelling subject worthy of study. This particular book, comprising previously published essays, goes into the mythic character of Jesus while also examining areas where this theory might fall short. Congratulations, I read the title! The most damning of these is probably the one on Mark being a midrashic rewrite of Old Testament episodes with some Homer thrown in for good measure. I also appreciated the conclusion, where Price clarifies that the issues of god and Jesus existing are separate, although he (and I) deny both. Ultimately, as with his other work, the impetus is on the reader to decide whether they buy what he (very compellingly, imo) presents.

[Gary Siebert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robert Price writes an excellent guide to the Christ-Myth theory. I especially appreciate his generous attitude. He lacks the arrogance that others in the field sometimes present. His research is thorough and he doesn't waste time denigrating those who disagree. I only gave it a four instead of a five because I read it on my Kindle and due to the copious footnotes, it would be better read in hard copy. Skeptics of the theory should approach this material with an open mind. I believe it is where the future of Biblical studies, if it is to have a future, is headed. I wish more seminaries and secular schools of religion would begin serious research in this area.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE SKEPTICAL SCHOLAR ADVOCATES, BUT ALSO CRITIQUES, “JESUS MYTH” THEORIES

Robert M. Price (born 1954) is an American theologian and writer---and former Baptist minister---who taught philosophy and religion at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, and is now a professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute.

He wrote in the Introduction to this 2011 book, “I have not tried to amass every argument I could think of to destroy the historicity of Jesus. Rather, I have summarized the series of realizations about methodology and evidence that eventually led me to embrace the Christ Myth Theory. There may once have been an historical Jesus, but for us there is one no longer. If he existed, he is forever lost behind the stained glass curtain of holy myth. At least that’s the current state of the evidence as I see it. The present volume contains the major essays and papers I have written to set forth the case for the Christ Myth theory as well as my best attempts to deal with the major difficulties scholars have pointed out with it.” (Pg. 23)

He observes, “it is by no means only Christ-Myth cranks and eccentrics who have rejected the story of Pilate trying to free Jesus as a piece of implausible fiction. Who knows what happened? Maybe Herod the Great did try to kill the infant Messiah. Maybe the Sanhedrin did condemn Jesus as a blasphemer and a gutless Pilate finally gave in to their whims. But it does not seem very probable, and probability is the only coin in which the historian trades… it is a chain of very weak links that binds Jesus to the circumstances of the first century.” (Pg. 49)

He explains, “the stories comprising the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are themselves the result of haggadic midrash upon stories from the Old Testament… The New Testament writers partook of a social and religious environment in which currents of Hellenism and Judaism flowed together and interpenetrated in numerous surprising ways… We must now envision proto-Christian exegetes ‘discovering’ for the first time what Jesus the Son of God had done and said ‘according to the scriptures’ by decoding the ancient texts… we will see how virtually any scriptural source was fair game… For his part, Mark relied about as heavily on the Iliad and the Odyssey…” (Pg. 60-62)

He notes, “Are we red-letter confident that Jesus rose from the dead, much less appeared to James? All we can say on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:7 is that some faction claimed the honor of a resurrection vision for James because it was a pre-requisite for exercising the apostolic office (1 Cor 9:1, ‘Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?’). Was the claim true? What’s your favorite color?” (Pg. 270)

He states, “I have left unmolested most of the teachings of Jesus included as genuine items in [[ASIN:1598151584 The Gospel of Jesus]]. Many of them come from the Q source… I see nothing specific demanding some other author than Jesus. But that does not prove it was he who said them. There is no particular reason to deny these words to a historical Jesus, but where does that leave us? Can we henceforth simply assume that these sayings have passed the test and can be relied upon as authentic Jesus sayings?... I wonder if this is not one of those places where agnosticism is called for, and what we get instead is fideism… Jesus may perhaps have said these remaining saying, or maybe it was someone else.” (Pg. 312)

He argues, “I want to survey three ways of understanding James’ epithet ‘brother of the Lord’ that would not entail physical relationship to a historical Jesus. First is the possibility that James was understood, like Thomas, to be the earthly, physical counterpart to a heavenly Jesus. Second is that James was prominent among the missionaries known as ‘brothers of the Lord.’ Third is that his fraternal connection is fictive and presupposes the historicization of a heavenly Jesus and seeks retrospectively to co-opt the Jesus sect by subordinating its figurehead to Jesus as his brother.” (Pg. 336)

He summarizes, “We have seen that the Christ-Myth claim that Christianity developed from some sort of pre-Christian Jesus or Joshua religion has suffered mainly from reliance on weak (though not absurd) arguments, mostly dependent on the identification of the pre-Christian Jesus with a hypothetical pre-canonical Joshua god, distinct from Yahweh, a debatable doublet of the very case being argued with regard to the Christian Jesus. The evidence for a Joshua deity proved misty and equivocal…” (Pg. 420)

He concludes, “I do not believe in a free-standing God, one existing outside the dramatic, role-playing context of liturgy. My first problem with personalistic Theism is my inability to accept Idealist metaphysics… My second problem with theism is what seems to me the utter lack of evidence of a just and providential deity’s supervision of the world. If these problems could be overcome, I should still have great difficulties with the specific doctrines of the particular religions, though Pantheism or Monism might attract me. I should add, too, that I am a respectful God-denier. That is, I dissent from Theism from within the theological discussion, not from outside it. I would rather speak of the Death of God, along with Nietzsche and Altizer, than the non-existence of God.” (Pg. 423)

This book will be of great interest to Atheists, skeptics, and other freethinkers who doubt Christianity.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

1/3 in, some of this is totally new to me.. 20% -27% thus far has some stunning insights , some of the midrash stuff is sending my head spinning .. better than I expected.

[Jc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like the previously read/reviewed "Did Jesus Exist?..." by Bart Ehrman, this is a text for serious students of the early history of the christian cults, and not for the casual reader. Both go pretty intensely into the arguments for or against an actual person named Jesus having actually existed and having been the inspiration for the "christian" religions as they developed. Both authors make good arguments, and both are interesting reads. However, though I highly respect both authors and have read most of their major publications, there is something about the question they debate here that causes both of them to at times drift away from purely rational/logical/historical arguments and edge into emotional argument and a few logical fallacies (e.g., Ehrman makes a few statements that are textbook examples of the Appeal to Authority fallacy). Both make great arguments, despite the emotions involved. I think an educated and critical reader will end a reading of the two works with the certainty that there is still no conclusive answer to whether a living Jewish man named Joshua originated or inspired the future religions (full disclosure: I lean slightly towards Price's conclusions, but Ehrman defends his conclusions quite well). Needless to say, both authors, while they disagree whether the evidence shows there was or was not an historical "Jesus," agree that no modern interpretation of "christianity" has much to do with what the original Jesus figure may have represented.

[Steve Wiggins · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to the idea that Jesus never existed. A bit repetitive, but an introduction by a scholar who knows what he's talking about. See further remarks: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.