While even some Jesus historicist scholars like Bart Ehrman do grant that Jesus mythicism is a worthy case, neotheists has a widespread view to decry the Christ Myth Theory. I call it “Jesus Conspiracism: Convinient approach to discredit and de-legitimize the idea of questioning Jesus’ historicity.” Jesus conspiracism among internet neotheists is the result of expert charlatans running discreditory attitude towards mythicsm. In this essay, you will see quotes from historicist scholars about how strong Mythicist arguments are and then you will see neotheist scholars bashing mythicism as if mythicism is some sort of theistic belief. Moreover, historicist scholars even admit that Mythicism is deliberately ignored so that it is seen as worthless.

Maurice Casey for example, states (2014, 243) that mythicism “has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship”. Not only that, he goes on to state the following as well:

It belongs in the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications.

Unlike Maurice Casey (and his victims, neotheists), Bart Ehrman, Robert Van Voorst, Archibald Robertson and alike not only grants that Mythicism is a worthy case, but admits that neotheist scholars ignore it deliberately (Ehrman 2012, chapter: On Taking Mythicists Seriously):

IT IS FAIR TO say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology. This is widely recognized, to their chagrin, by mythicists themselves. Archibald
Robertson, in one of the classic works in the field, says with good reason, “The mythicist…does not get fair play from professional theologians. They either meet him with a conspiracy of silence or, if that is impossible, treat him as an amateur whose lack of academic status…robs his opinion of any value. Such treatment naturally makes the mythicist bellicose.”

Here, Ehrman notes that mythicists are not taken seriously and then goes on to quote Archibald Robertson stating that mythicists does not get fair play, they are treated as if they are amateurs. Then, in the following paragraph, Ehrmans states the following:

Established scholars continue to be dismissive, and mythicists as a rule are vocal in their objections. As mentioned, the one mythicist within the vision of many New Testament scholars is G. A. Wells. In the massive and justly acclaimed four-volume study of the historical Jesus by one of the leading scholars in the field, John Meier, Wells and his views are peremptorily dismissed in a single sentence: “Wells’s book, which builds its arguments on these and similar unsubstantiated claims, may be allowed to stand as a representative of the whole type of popular Jesus book that I do not bother to consider in detail.”

Even books that one might expect to take up the issue of Jesus’s existence simply leave it alone. A case in point is the volume I Believe in the Historical Jesus by British New Testament specialist I. Howard Marshall. The title gives one a glimmer of hope that at least some attention will be paid to whether there actually was a historical Jesus, but the book presents only Marshall’s theologically conservative views of the historical Jesus. Marshall mentions only one mythicist, Wells, disposing of him in a single paragraph with the statement that no scholar in the field finds his views persuasive since the abundant Gospel sources, based on a
variety of oral traditions, show that Jesus must have existed.

above excerpts are from the same chapter of Ehrman’s book. After this paragraphs, Ehrman goes on to state “I think Wells—and Price, and several other mythicists—do deserve to be taken seriously”. Note that, both Ehrman and Archibald Robertson are Jesus historicists, yet they admit that other scholars dismiss mythicism.

Van Voorst was a Christian theologian and an expert at New Testament studies. In his book named “Jesus Outside the New Testament”, Voorst iterates what these neotheists do (2000, 6-16):

This is the controversial question, Did Jesus really exist? Some readers may be surprised or shocked that many books and essays — by my count, over one hundred — in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus. Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely. Thus, students of the New Testament are often unfamiliar with them.

If you read on, Voorst lists several reasons of New Testament scholars rejecting nonexistence hypothesis [of George A. Wells.] Among some content-related reasons, Voorst states the following (2000, 15):

Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Freethought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

While Voorst lists some scholarly reasons for rejecting mythicism, he does not deny that mythicism being anti-religious is also a reason mythicists are dismissed, ignored, bashed.

The 15th chapter of Dan Barker’s book named “Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists”, Barker recalls his evangelist years and states that they used to dismiss the possibility of Jesus never existing as “a tiny fringe of quacks and atheists.” Then, Barker recalls that they were offered a course dedicated to the book of Romans, another one on Jewish wisdom when he was a university student at religious studies but historicity of Jesus was not remotely taught. Do you see this systematic ignorance and delegitimasation?

Rafael Lataster similarly expressed (2015, chapter: Conclusion) this approach:

But look at what Casey did. Look at what Ehrman and the others do. These prominent historicists strangely and illogically appeal to the majority, appeal to authority, appeal to possibility, and, worst of all, appeal to innumerable sources that don’t even exist, in order to prove something that is supposedly very obvious. If we argued like they do, we would be overlooked (well, more than we already are), and rightly so.

but that is not all. Here is what Lataster states further (which can be an explicit and literal corraboration of this essay):

Instead, Carrier is criticised. Not overwhelmingly, however. Scholars like
Avalos and myself are appreciative of his efforts. Few historicist scholars
seem to have properly engaged with his work here, leaving amateurs to
discredit him.

As you can see, neotheists dismiss Mythicists so that they are discredited in the eyes of neotheists. If you recall, Casey bashed Mythicists stating that mythicists do not accept scholarship and they lack professional qualification. That is a blatant lie. Van Voorst narrates the history of this mythicist view and lists credible academics working on it. Let me iterate some names and their qualifications on my own:

• Constantin François de Volney’nin çalışmalarıdır. Expert at ancient languages, one of founders and pioneers of Egyptology. Spent years in Egypt and Palestine, working on their history. Has several works on the history of religions and the philosophy of history.
• Charles Fracçois Dupis
• Bruno Bauer. A Christian theologian. Fired from his university job for his works on Jesus Mythicism and his status of professorship has been stripped from him.
• John Mackinnon Robertson and Arthur Drews were also proponents of Mythicism. You can just google them and see their qualifications.
• Earl Doherty: Though he describes himself as an amateur, Doherty is master of classics. Ehrman touts him as “very good “read widely and has a gooddeal of knowledge at his disposal.”
• Robert Price: PHD in theology, PHD in New Testament studies. Ex-evangelist. Knows ancient Greek, as well as being excellent at history.
• Thomas Thompson: has degree in Biblical studies. Expert at Jewish Tanakh (Old testament), expert at Hebrew.
• Richard Carrier: PHD in history, expert at Classics. Actually, needs no introduction.
• Tom Harpur: has worked as professor of New Testament studies and Theology. Expert at Greek and Latin.
• George Albert Wells: Needs no introduction. Widely considered the best representative of Mythicism. Ehrman and Voorst praises him.
• Dorothy Murdock: Has degree in classics, professor of Greek in Greece.

Despite all such names with qualifications, Casey and neotheists allege that Mythicism is a work by amateurs, unqualified people. You can see its fruits in the internet: Jesus Mythicism is bashed, treated like young earth creationism or intelligent design are treated. We can see many examples of it:

• Here is a Quora thread/question where it is asked if Jesus Mythicism is like Holocaust denial: https://www.quora.com/Are-atheists-who-promote-the-crackpot-theory-of-Jesus-mythicism-debunked-by-actual-scholars-of-Early-Christianity-as-morally-bankrupted-as-Holocaust-denialists
• Randal Rauser’s blog for example quotes people bashing Jesus Mythicism: https://randalrauser.com/2016/06/jesus-mythicism-reflections-on-the-worst-arguments-against-christianity-part-2/
• A neotheist website named historyforatheists.com has an entire section bashing mythicism, where they even state that it is a fringe theory: https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
• or here is an another blog where even seemingly-atheists being victim of this systematic propaganda against mythicism: https://vridar.org/2018/10/06/atheist-hostility-to-jesus-mythicism-making-sense-of-it/
• Evangelical Apologist David Marshall for example stated that Mythicism is a position that discredits everyone that takes it: https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2012/04/christian-reaction-to-jesus-mythicism.html

You can see neotheism everywhere. If you are not familiar with neotheism, read it here: neotheism. Never trust a neotheist!

REFERENCES:

1. Barker, D. (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. Berkeley: Ulysses Press
2. Carrier, R (2014). On The Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
3. Casey, M. (2014). Jesus:Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths. London: Bloomsburry
4. Ehrman, B. (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN: 978–0–06–220460–8
5. Lataster, R. (2015). Jesus Did Not Exist: A debate among atheists. 
6. Price, R. M. (2011). The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems. Cranford: American Atheist Press. 
7. Robertson, A. (1946). Jesus: Myth or History. London: Watts&Co. Online erişim: https://archive.org/details/jesusmythorhisto035413mbp/page/n15/mode/2up?view=theater&q=fair+play 
8. Voorst, R. V. (2000). Jesus Outside The New Testament. Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
9. Wells, G. A. (1999). The Jesus Myth. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company.