I just wanted to share this Mythvision interview from yesterday with Dr. Richard C. Miller.  It raises the interesting point that the mythicism of Price and Carrier isn’t even given a seat at the table by most scholars when discussing Christian origins, which is hardly fair: 

  

I’ve long thought about this as we have an embarrassment of riches in proposed Christian Origins portraits of Jesus, so the fact that mythicism is simply dismissed out of hand is odd.  Wikipedia notes:

• The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed through history using these processes have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts. Such portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish messiah, prophet of social change, and rabbi There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, nor the methods needed to construct it, but there are overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.

My own thought is that mythicism is a natural consequence of a Jesus centred approach to reading the NT, which I try to argue against in my upcoming 3 part essay on Robyn Faith Walsh (hopefully it will pass review).  We see a similar problem when we try to get details about the historical Socrates from sources such as Xenophon, Aristophanes and Plato.  And, we resolve this difficulty in the same way, one point of entry into Socrates being Crito in the Phaedo.