2021-12-01

We’ve Been Published — Varieties of Jesus Mythicism

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Tim Widowfield

Varieties of Jesus Mythicism

In the newly published volume — Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist? — you will find that the two closing chapters were written by Neil and me. Neil’s essay, entitled “A Rejoinder to James McGrath’s Case for Jesus” forms the penultimate chapter. Mine, “‘Everything Is Wrong with This’: The Legacy of Maurice Casey,” come in last. Our essays don’t necessarily advocate for mythicism (in any of its varieties), but instead, focus on the mistakes people have made and continue to make when arguing for the historicity of Jesus.

We’ll have more to say about it in the future. But for now, if you’re interested, the book is available at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.

The following two tabs change content below.

Tim Widowfield

Tim is a retired vagabond who lives with his wife and multiple cats in a 20-year-old motor home. To read more about Tim, see our About page.

Latest posts by Tim Widowfield (see all)



If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!


8 thoughts on “We’ve Been Published — Varieties of Jesus Mythicism”

  1. I just got the Kindle version. There isn’t a table of contents, unfortunately, but I scrolled through the chapters quickly to get a feel. It looks interesting, except for Atwill. Really? He’s included? Nevertheless, there are chapters by Fitzgerald, both Price’s (Robert and RG), DOHERTY!! (yay!!!), Huller plus a few others I’m less familiar with, and you and Neil. It should keep me out of trouble for a few days. ;-D

    Later,

  2. I just want to make the following note. I wrote my contribution for this shortly after the publication of Deciphering the Gospels, and before I got deep into the research for the new book I’m working on now. My views have changed significantly since I wrote the contribution for this book. I don’t think what I wrote for this is particularly problematic, but it doesn’t really reflect my current views on the Gospel origins. That’s fine, because I qualified my proposition: “The case I’ve laid out may not be entirely correct in every detail, but what is important here is that nothing about this model is outlandish or even novel.”

    I stand by that. I don’t think what I laid out is correct, but it also wasn’t outlandish. For those who haven’t or won’t read it, I basically laid out a case for Mark having been written by an associate of Paul’s and for the other Gospels being derived from Mark through mundane ways and for rather obscure reasons. I would say now that I don’t think the writer of Mark was an associate of Paul’s, and that we have a much better understanding of the motivations behind the writing of Matthew, Luke and John than what I understood when I wrote that. I now view Matthew and Luke as having been derived from Marcion’s Gospel and written in opposition to Marcionism. John appears to be a “Gnostic”/Valentinian Gospel that was appropriated and revised into an orthodox form. So this views Matthew, Luke and John as appropriations of “heretical Gospels”. I still view Mark as the first of the recognizable Gospels, preceding Marcion’s Gospel.

    Anyway, just wanted to put that out there. I haven’t received my copy yet so I haven’t read the other contributions yet.

    Thanks again to John and Dr. Price for the opportunity.

    1. Dear R.G., I read my Kindle copy of your contribution to John’s book. I’m eager to read what you now say are your thoughts on the origin of MARK. Can you email that to me at moore.bob[at]gmail.com ?

  3. In the tradition of good old Gerardus Bolland, I shamelessly reject as profoundly uncritical all versions which require or promote the belief in Markan priority or a historical Paul, let alone pre-70 Palestinian roots of Christianity.

    I suppose this renders the whole book unreadable for me.

  4. • 1Heidegger1! (29 May 2022). “The Christ Myth Theory”. Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

    I have interviewed Richard before and find his argument rigorous and plausible, though I ultimately disagree with mythicism on interpretive grounds.

    What do others think of Jesus Mythicism? Do you find it plausible, or finge/crank? Would anyone be interested in discussing the recent Loftus/Price mythicist book Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.