For some, the similarities between mythicists and creationists outweigh the differences, while for others the reverse seems to be true. The latter tend to get very upset when the comparison is made.
And so perhaps it is only fair that I emphasize from time to time one of the differences between mythicists and creationists. Having been one of the latter for a while during my teens, and having interacted critically with members of both constituencies in recent years, I think I finally have a clear difference.
Mythicists are more entertaining.
I will offer two recent examples, and save the best (the more hilarious and shorter of the two) for last.
First, commenter NatePe suggested that the book From Reliable Sources by Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier as providing a good presentation of the methods that are used by historians – and which allegedly are not used by those who study the historical Jesus. In response, I mentioned that I not only am familiar with the book, but had myself offered it in the past more than once as an example of the sorts of methods I have in mind when I talk about historical study in general and research on the historical figure of Jesus in particular. NatePe questioned whether I had read the same book as him.
“Although work like Carlyle’s is surely naive, it is also a mistake to un-derestimate the effect an individual can have. Imagine what today’s world would be like had Mohammed, Confucius, or Christ not lived, if Marx had not written, if there had been no Hitler!”” (Martha Howell and Walter Previnier, From Reliable Sources, page 141)
But even more hilarious than a mythicist trying to quote in mythicism’s favor a source that mentions and takes for granted the consensus of historians regarding Jesus, were these words uttered by Neil Godfrey in a recent comment: “This thread has all gone totally off the planet and, neutral bystander that I am, I do believe the fault lies with those who are determined to find fault with and attack anyone on the mythicist side of the fence.”
Since words seem insufficient in response to Godfrey’s self-description as a “neutral bystander,” I offer instead the following instructional poster illustrating the response that I consider most appropriate: