Page 1 of 15

Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:23 pm
by Robert Tulip
In assessing Christ in Egypt, readers should be aware of the level of scholarly controversy that surrounds the central claim that Christ is a myth. D.M. Murdock would like to publish in scholarly journals, but finds her way barred by prejudice. As a result, there is a need to build understanding and support, in order to home in on the key simple questions that are in dispute, the hidden assumptions that once revealed will allow progress in the debate.

I am presenting here the key arguments of the mythicist position as Murdock has articulated it, with comments from distinguished scholarly supporters, and would welcome response from readers of all levels of knowledge about this topic.

Even those who have not studied the topic in depth, but have a general interest in religion and logic, can make valuable contributions in terms of how this debate is perceived by the broader community.
The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not “real people” but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called “astrotheology.”

As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt, pages 11 & 12

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."

"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."

- Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology

The Mythicist Position - video

What is a Mythicist?

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:05 pm
by Interbane
Great, thanks Robert. Do you or Murdock have a FAQ of common rebuttals to her research, including answers to those rebuttals? I wonder because the thesis seems plausible and convincing. It seems the antagonists have ulterior motives(of course).

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:34 am
by youkrst
Yeah, well for the record, to me the mythicist position is the only position that makes sense because the bible is metaphor allegory and symbolism through and throughout.

I used to be a literalist but that was because I was ill informed.

I mean some people like nickelback, but they are still crap. I never liked nickelback, they suck and if you like them your taste is in your ass.

But I respect your right to like nickelback as long as you respect my right to feel sorry for you you poor malnourished traitor to good music.

Oh sorry, we weren't on that topic, my bad, apologies but not for thinking nickelback is soulless crap

Mmmmm just listening to Tull live doing no lullaby, bb's kit is sounding great.

But yeah that's my opinion, the mythicist position is the only position that is rationally defensible ultimately, and nickelback are shite.

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:52 am
by Robert Tulip
Some sources on debate regarding peer review and mythicism

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... f=4&t=3411

http://landonhedrick.blogspot.com/2011/ ... 3504468319

http://www.patheos.com/community/explor ... er-review/

This last one has an interesting response from independent mythicist scholar Earl Doherty.
Earl Doherty wrote:This idea of “peer” review is a joke in NT scholarship. The latter is a closed and privileged club, with boundaries that cannot be crossed (witness the failure of The Jesus Project), and no journal or publisher within that field is going to give mythicism the time of day. There would be no more possibility of an unbiased and effective review of a mythicist’s work than what you’ve given mine, and mythicists know that. You know it as well. The very idea that centuries of scholarship could have been based on a serious misinterpretation of the record is so abhorrent even to so-called critical scholars (there may be the rare exception, Mack or Ludemann for example), that no honest review is possible. You’ve shown that. And considering that people like you represent a good part of the general readership of such journals and publications, no journal or publication would risk the firestorm they would create in accepting and publishing mythicist viewpoints.

An interested party (not a mythicist) in the U.S. several years ago offered The Fourth R publication of Westar/the Jesus Seminar a donation of $5000 if they would devote part of an issue to mythicism, consisting of an article by myself presenting my case and a rebuttal article by any scholar of their own choosing. They turned it down. The editor claimed, “No one who believes Jesus never existed can be persuaded otherwise!” (Which, of course, was not the purpose, but talk about pots and kettles!) And the subject was declared as of no interest (read: too objectionable) to its readership. But that's not the point. Here was a good (and profitable) opportunity for historicism to deal a death blow to its long-term nemesis, or at least to trash it the way it has always been claimed can be done so easily. Here was a chance to give mythicism that "peer review" you would like to see it given. I guess you would consider as legitimate peer review an out and out denial of a voice to the very topic itself! (After all, you've said that you refuse to present any positive element of my case since it would supposedly grant it some kind of legitimacy. That's honest 'peer review'?)

This business of demanding of mythicists that they be peer reviewed, and then taunted and consigned to fraud and charlatanry when they are not, is as transparent as they come. Until the concept of Jesus being a non-historical character is regarded as a legitimate offering within the field of NT study and is addressed on that basis (even if argued against, which is equally legitimate), the idea of peer review of mythicism is an oxymoron, and we all know it. You and yours demand peer review because you know it is simply not possible. It is blatantly designed to serve your own purposes, which is the height of duplicity on your part.

When I commented that “maybe I’ll finally get my ‘peer review’,” I was quite obviously being ironic and sarcastic. The only “review” I would ever get from any of the “peers” you have in mind would be one by someone who approaches my book from the a priori position of condemning and rejecting it and sets out to trash it in the most unabashedly biased way. Just as you yourself have approached your review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.

So let’s not hear any more about the sham that is the idea of ‘peer review’. Having defined mythicism as charlatanry, having closed and barred the gates of your discipline to any consideration of Jesus not being an historical figure, having nominated as the only allowable “peers” those with predeterminedly hostile views toward the very idea, you’ve loaded the deck and then think to blame and condemn us for failing to make any headway in the game. If you can’t see the utter dishonesty in that kind of farce, and the disgrace it is to the concept of genuine and open-minded scholarship, you are beneath contempt.

Jim says: “I understand that you take the criticisms of your ideas personally…”

No, because what is thrown at me here is not “criticism.” In a scholarly context, “criticism” is—or should be—defined as “the act or occupation of analyzing and evaluating a literary or artistic work” (one of the definitions in Webster’s College Dictionary). “Analyzing and evaluating” in an honest and objective fashion backed by evidence and scholarly argumentation—rather than foaming at the mouth with preconceived hostility, blanket condemnation and ad hominem attacks. Let’s look at some of the ‘criticisms’ voiced here since my earlier posting:

“Bart (as you & I did) will be very unlikely to accept Doherty's mythicist non-sense which is based on dubious, weak, biased & convoluted so-called interpretations.” (Bernard)

Objective? Informative? Serious scholarly tone and integrity backed up by substance? Hardly.

“Your stance on peer review in history and religious studies is much like the stance of creationists on peer review in the natural sciences” (Jim)

Do you think that your review of my book thus far is on a par with that of respected and renowned evolutionary scientists when dealing with creationism? I have never seen them adopting a tone anything like yours, and they certainly back up their defense of evolution by copious and incontrovertible evidence for evolution itself, as well as clearly and powerfully demonstrate the flaws of the creationist ‘case’. Where is your copious and incontrovertible evidence for historicism? “Brother of the Lord can only mean one thing”? LOL! Where is your powerful demonstration of the flaws of mythicism? Associating it with creationism? Appeals to authority? "Doherty deviously postpones contrary evidence"? Where is the sophisticated and convincing rebuttal? “Paul doesn’t mention anything about Jesus’ life and teaching because everyone already knew every detail of it”? Where the integrity? Misrepresenting or ignoring vast swaths of my argument because you don’t want to confer the slightest legitimacy on a theory you viscerally despise? The comparison with creationists is not only invalid on so many levels, it is simply a blatant attempt to manufacture guilt by false association.

“Looking at Doherty's latest posting, all I can say is: rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric ...” (Bernard)

This is counter-argument rebutting my presentation of Jim’s attitude toward peer review for mythicism and its basic dishonesty? Not a shred of it. All bluster and empty words.

“Hell hath no fury like a Mythicist scorned.” (Just Sayin’)

Moderately clever, but contributing nothing except derision.

“I for one am reassured by the unwillingness even of a periodical like The Fourth R to accept bribes in exchange for giving a platform to non-scholarly ideas, even with an opportunity for rebuttal.” (Jim)

A “bribe” to urge a magazine in the field to consider the pros and cons of a longstanding (almost two centuries) minority scholarly conclusion in their own discipline? A “bribe” to ask a leading voice in critical scholarship to address a persistent idea which has been gaining credence and popularity on the public scene, if only to check its spread? Or is it more likely a burying of one’s head in the sand, a fear to rock the boat and jeopardize interests that are anything but scholarly, a realization that their defense against mythicism has about as much substance as the emperor’s new clothes? How does one know that the ideas are non-scholarly if they are never given voice and attention by those who allegedly can decide and demonstrate their scholarly quality or lack of it?

The Fourth R’s refusal to ‘peer review’ mythicism and Jim’s praising of their decision makes a mockery of his demand that mythicism submit to peer review when those “peers” refuse to do so and he supports them. It reveals the legitimacy of everything I said in my earlier post about the farce that the peer review issue raised by Jim really is.

I don’t know if you hacks realize the depth of scholarly depravity to which you have sunk. If we still operated like the Middle Ages, mythicists would not simply be condemned out of hand and treated as pariahs, they would be burned at the stake; and I have no doubt you guys would cheerfully light the kindling. Essentially, you are no better than a milder version of the Inquisition, with no greater scholarly honor or integrity involved than we would accord to the Dominicans, who refused to consider contrary evidence, gave no voice to any witnesses to support the accused, whose idea of rationality was to torture the victim to extract the “truth”, and consigned the condemned heretic to the ultimate wilderness. Not to mention burning their writings. Jim’s views and approach to his review of my book has as much to do with reasoned and capable rebuttal to mythicism as the Pope’s Hounds exercised in rooting out heresy and saving the vested interests of the Catholic Church.

Are any of you familiar with the American composer Charles Ives’ short orchestral piece called “The Unanswered Question”? A questing and questioning trumpet asks a calm and serious question. A chorus of five flutes at first complacently answers. Clearly inadequately, since the trumpet must repeat its question, though it maintains its equanimity. With each repeat of the question (about five times), the flute chorus becomes more and more agitated, condemnatory, it increasingly scoffs and scorns. In the end it is literally foaming at the mouth, wild-eyed with derision. (Ives’ talents are astonishing in creating his musical effects.) That is what historicism, and particularly the flute chorus here, has increasingly become, abdicating any responsibility (or ability) to address an honest and serious questioning, rooted in the evidence, of the historical basis of Christianity, indulging instead in vacuous ridicule and demonization, and an assigning of all heretics to a figurative stake, a fate pre-judged for them from the beginning.

You are not even capable of being ashamed of yourselves.

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:35 am
by geo
Michael Shermer discusses the concept of burden of proof in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things. The title is telling in this case because either a historical or a mythical Jesus may seem weird, depending on your perspective. Ultimately, we have to determine where the evidence lies.

So who has the burden of proof in this mythicism/historicism debate? It appears to me that the mythicists do for no other reason than that the historical Jesus is firmly established traditionally. It's the de facto position taken by in the vast majority of scholars and by professors at universities and colleges. It is embedded in our culture. It's easy to see how this came to be. For many hundreds of years our scholars were also deeply religious. They were not only heavily vested in a historical Jesus, but a divine one as well. Now that we've pared away the divine Jesus, it won't be easy to divest ourselves of the historical one. A historical Jesus is established and normal, despite a lack of evidence. So to overthrow the idea of a historical Jesus will require a paradigm shift which has to be driven by evidence.

Thomas Kuhn defined "paradigm shift" as it pertained to scientific theory. The paradigm defines the normal science of an age as it is traditionally accepted by a majority of practicing scientists in a field. A shift will occur when enough renegade and heretical scientists gain enough evidence and power to overthrow the existing paradigm.

Shermer points out that evolutionists had the burden of proof for a half a century after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, but now the burden of proof is on the creationists. Likewise, the burden of proof is on Holocaust deniers to prove that the Holocaust didn't really happen.

Though historical events can't be repeated, they can be tested and validated. According to Shermer, "each of us may have a different view of history, but they are not all equally valid. Some are historical, and some are pseudohistorical, namely without supporting evidence and plausibility and presented primarily for political or ideological purposes."

The mythicist position seems increasingly plausible to me. I'm not saying I'm there yet, but I'm at least more open to the position. I'm new to this debate and I haven't read CiE yet, but I would agree that the traditional view is corrupt and promoted over the centuries by religiously-motivated ideologists. But it's also interesting to see that historicists are saying the same thing about the mythicists: they are motivated by a secular ideology. No matter what, there's going to be stiff resistance to the idea that Jesus never existed.

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:51 am
by geo
youkrst wrote: Mmmmm just listening to Tull live doing no lullaby, bb's kit is sounding great.
There may only be a few people on the planet who know you are talking about Barriemore Barlow here. :lol:

Musical preference is so subjective, isn't it? I know some people who would prefer Nickleback to Jethro Tull. I can't understand it either, but I don't think you can presume to judge them for it.

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:56 pm
by FTL99
Interbane wrote:Great, thanks Robert. Do you or Murdock have a FAQ of common rebuttals to her research, including answers to those rebuttals? I wonder because the thesis seems plausible and convincing. It seems the antagonists have ulterior motives(of course).
Interbane, here's a link to Acharya's Frequently Asked Questions.

Acharya answers many rebuttals throughout her articles. Here's an example Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:10 pm
by FTL99
geo wrote:So who has the burden of proof in this mythicism/historicism debate?
Well, theists have failed in their responsibilities of burden of proof from the very beginning. There still exists no credible evidence for a historical biblical Jesus or god - no religious supernatural claims have ever been substantiated. Mythicists have a mountain of credible evidence that actually exists strongly suggesting that the origins of religious concepts have their foundations based in natural phenomena (i.e. astrotheology) with similarities and differences due to environments, cultures and eras. Academia is not even looking at it.
geo wrote:...I would agree that the traditional view is corrupt and promoted over the centuries by religiously-motivated ideologists...

This comes to mind ... Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia:
"Scholars in general can also be notoriously cautious, particularly when it comes to stepping on the toes of mainstream institutions, especially those of a religious bent—and there have been many such establishments, including major universities like Yale and Harvard, both of which started as Christian divinity schools.1 Numerous other institutions in the Christian world were either founded specifically as Christian universities and colleges or had seminaries attached to them. As stated on the Princeton Theological Seminary website, regarding early American education:

Within the last quarter of the eighteenth century, all learning…could be adequately taught and studied in the schools and colleges, nearly all of which were church initiated.2

1. See the Yale Divinity School website: "Training for the Christian Ministry was a main purpose in the founding of Yale College in 1701." ("History of Yale Divinity School.") See also the Harvard Divinity School website: “The origins of Harvard Divinity School and the study of theology at Harvard can be traced back to the very beginning of Harvard College.” ("Harvard Divinity School–History and Mission.") http://www.hds.harvard.edu/history.html

2 "About Princeton Theological Seminary–History of the Seminary."
http://www.ptsem.edu/About/mission.php

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 505
* Added links to the footnotes are from CIE bibl.

Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History
"As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion.... "

- Dr. Robert M. Price, Biblical Scholar
geo wrote:there's going to be stiff resistance to the idea that Jesus never existed

Agreed! However, we do have a start here as evangelicals are themselves questioning the Adam and Eve historicity Adam and Eve a myth?

They simply need to apply that same critical eye towards all the other biblical characters listed in the mythicist position. Remember, they're already mythicists when it comes to all other religions - that's a start!! It might be best to educate theists about the mythicist position by beginning with a religion they are not a devotee so they don't get offended or take things so personally straight away ... The Origins of Islam

I'd like to see academia finally create a sorely needed Department of Astrotheological Studies that factors in the astronomy and mythology at the root of religious origins as pointed out in the work by Acharya S/Murdock.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Historian Stephen Henry Roberts

"Instead of mythology being a disease of language, it may be truly said that our theology is a disease of mythology"
- Gerald Massey

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:14 pm
by FTL99
I like how Earl Doherty really puts the pressure on the so-called experts:
Scholarly Opinion

by Earl Doherty

"Why is it that no individual scholar or group of scholars has undertaken a concerted effort in recent times to discredit the mythicist position? (The brief addresses that have been made to it in various publications are outlined in my Main Article "Postscript".) In the heyday of the great mythicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a few valiant efforts were offered. However, both mainstream scholarship and the mythicist branch itself have made dramatic leaps since then. Biblical research has moved into bold new territory in the last several decades: unearthing a wealth of ancient documents, arriving at a new understanding of elements like Q, the sectarian nature of early Christianity, the Cynic roots of the great Gospel teachings, and so on; an almost unprecedented "critical" dimension to New Testament scholarship has emerged.

And yet the mythicist position continues to be vilified, disdained, dismissed. We would condemn any physicist, any anthropologist, any linguist, any mathematician, any scholar of any sort who professes to work in a field that makes even a partial bow to principles of logic and scientific research who yet ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination a legitimate, persistent theory in his or her discipline. There are tremendous problems in New Testament research, problems that have been grappled with for generations and show no sign of getting closer to solution. Agreement is lacking on countless topics, and yesterday's theories are being continually overturned. There is almost a civil war going on within the ranks of Jesus study. Why not give the mythicist option some serious consideration? Why not honestly evaluate it to see if it could provide some of the missing answers? Or, if it turns out that the case is fatally flawed, then put it to rest once and for all.

Doing that would require one essential thing: taking it seriously, approaching the subject having an open mind that the theory might have some merit. Sadly, that is the most difficult step and the one which most critics have had the greatest difficulty taking. It is all in the mindset, whether of the Christian believer whose confessional interests are overriding, or of the professional scholar who could never consider that their life's work might be fatally compromised."

- posted here
I wish the Dawkins, Harris et all crowd would give Acharya's work kudos since these guys aren't getting to the heart of the issues at all but, Acharya S certainly does - Acharya's Work Complements Sam Harris's Philosophy

The Mythicist Position - video

Re: Christ in Egypt: The Mythicist Position

Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:18 pm
by Robert Tulip
Thanks FTL for responding here. My comments in this post are in response to Geo.
geo wrote:Michael Shermer discusses the concept of burden of proof in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things. The title is telling in this case because either a historical or a mythical Jesus may seem weird, depending on your perspective. Ultimately, we have to determine where the evidence lies.
Many thanks Geo for these constructive comments. You are absolutely right that questioning the historical existence of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible seems mind-bending to people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea of Jesus as the best man ever. It is a scientific question of historical evidence.
So who has the burden of proof in this mythicism/historicism debate? It appears to me that the mythicists do for no other reason than that the historical Jesus is firmly established traditionally. It's the de facto position taken by in the vast majority of scholars and by professors at universities and colleges. It is embedded in our culture. It's easy to see how this came to be. For many hundreds of years our scholars were also deeply religious. They were not only heavily vested in a historical Jesus, but a divine one as well. Now that we've pared away the divine Jesus, it won't be easy to divest ourselves of the historical one. A historical Jesus is established and normal, despite a lack of evidence. So to overthrow the idea of a historical Jesus will require a paradigm shift which has to be driven by evidence.
Yes, correct, mythicism has the burden of proof, as indicated in the dismissive attitude of mainstream scholars in the James McGrath blog I cited above.
Thomas Kuhn defined "paradigm shift" as it pertained to scientific theory. The paradigm defines the normal science of an age as it is traditionally accepted by a majority of practicing scientists in a field. A shift will occur when enough renegade and heretical scientists gain enough evidence and power to overthrow the existing paradigm.
So for mythicists to address the burden of proof, they need a new paradigm that explains how the historical story arose, and presents a new explanation that explains all the facts in a coherent and parsimonious theory. This is where the question of a scientific basis of mythic ideation becomes critical. Murdock argues that astrotheology, the idea that myth originates in explanation of observation of the cosmos, is the basis of this new paradigm. This is an idea that I have supported since writing my BA Honours thesis in 1985 on the topic of messianic visions of precession of the equinox. At that time I was only 22 years old, and was relying more on intuition and logic than a fully worked out scientific theory. My readers at the time found the ideas incomprehensible, and almost failed me for it. Since then I have been avidly reading a wide range of supporting material, and now consider we are at the cusp of a breakthrough, with a new scientific explanation of religion about to emerge into public debate. Discovering Murdock's work through Booktalk, and seeing how she is comprehensively ignored, showed me that this new paradigm touches deep emotional questions, and requires a sound scientific framework in order to obtain traction.

The key to seeing precession as the framework of mythology is recognising that the observed shift of the spring point at the time of Christ matches exactly to Christian theology of Christ as a turning point of time, as reflected in our BC/AD calendar. The big idea is that the time of Christ was seen as a moment of cosmic harmony, when the seasons matched the stars, but that later interpreters could not understand this vision. The Biblical idea of the second coming of Jesus Christ fits into this paradigm, as a prediction of a future situation where Christianity will be reconciled with science through astrotheology.
Shermer points out that evolutionists had the burden of proof for a half a century after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, but now the burden of proof is on the creationists. Likewise, the burden of proof is on Holocaust deniers to prove that the Holocaust didn't really happen.
Murdock recently endorsed my comparison of her to climate scientists who have faced a "bewildering brick wall of ignorance and indifference." We see that ideas initially ignored and mocked have entered mainstream knowledge, such as orbital cycles for climate, plate tectonics and the theory of ice ages. Religion is a much more personal question for people, so a similar paradigm shift in the core ideas of Christian theology faces an even stronger burden of proof, introducing the need to explain the possibility of intentional mass delusion, than these objective mechanical questions such as evolution and climate.
Though historical events can't be repeated, they can be tested and validated. According to Shermer, "each of us may have a different view of history, but they are not all equally valid. Some are historical, and some are pseudohistorical, namely without supporting evidence and plausibility and presented primarily for political or ideological purposes."
The mythicist argument is that the historical record provides no evidence for a literal Christ, and abundant evidence for the syndrome of invention of convenient religious myths. It becomes a question of the balance of probability, with abundant scientific evidence cohering with the mythicist explanation, and only traditional authority supporting the conventional view.
The mythicist position seems increasingly plausible to me. I'm not saying I'm there yet, but I'm at least more open to the position. I'm new to this debate and I haven't read CiE yet, but I would agree that the traditional view is corrupt and promoted over the centuries by religiously-motivated ideologists. But it's also interesting to see that historicists are saying the same thing about the mythicists: they are motivated by a secular ideology. No matter what, there's going to be stiff resistance to the idea that Jesus never existed.
Historicists are actually getting more desperate. Earl Doherty's massive new book on the topic Jesus, Neither God Nor Man - the case for a mythical Jesus has moved the debate on from the earlier attitude that this material could be ignored into a situation where apologists are responding through ridicule and fallacious assertions, such as threadbare comparisons with creationism.

The question you raise Geo of secular ideology is critical here. Philosophers often hold unquestioned assumptions on this topic, seeing intellectual progress as a steady evolutionary march from the sacred to the secular, from faith to reason, from religion to science. However, the mythicist argument does not fit so easily against this equally dominant modern paradigm, as it also involves a challenge to the enlightenment atheist view that religion is bunk. If religion is actually allegory for a deeper hidden natural truth, as claimed by astrotheology, then the secular psychological wiring of modernity also comes under challenge, open to critical scrutiny just as much as the supernatural sacred brain wiring of Christian ideology.