The term “mythicist” was a new one for me. I came across it a few weeks ago while listening to an episode of Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio on YouTube (though, for the life of me, I can’t remember which episode exactly). The term apparently applies to the Christ Myth Theory, which holds that there is no proof of a historical Jesus, and even if there were by chance a historical Jesus, he would have little to do with the archetype he became, and even less so with the church that spawned. It is often now extended and used as a term for those who view all supernatural aspects of the worlds various religions as pure mythology.
I feel that I should be acquainted with the Judeo-Christian stories out of necessity so this is the exact approach I take when looking into them. And even to take it that one step further; I also think it is a healthy approach to take when looking into any mythology or belief system. When we start off by seeing these archetypes as flesh and blood we run the risk of becoming almost dogmatic in our perceptions of them. Or, even worse, we run the risk of projecting our own human baggage onto them. When first delving into a new mythology I find that viewing things with the widest lens possible tends to help me avoid putting these Archetypes into boxes which often limit their potential, at least magickally speaking.
But at the same time, I am a theistic practitioner. This puts me in a different boat than most mythicists because I do not believe that the supernatural (or maybe more appropriately supra-natural) is impossible. I hold the opinion that the essence we know as Satan or Lucifer (or any of the endless names that have been used) is very real and can be tangible in various ways through practice.
I see no issue with holding both views at once because I do not believe any single culture, text, or belief system holds the “truth” (if such a thing even exists). The Deity I venerate is, in my opinion, something vast, chaotic, and primordial, which could not possibly be known in It’s entirety by any one person, coven, or church. Similar to how no single person in my life sees all aspects of me. Who I appear to be to my mother is not the same person I appear to be to my significant other. Who I appear to be to my significant other is not who I appear to be to my coworkers, etc. And if for some reason you wanted to understand me by asking these individuals to define me, you would get very different descriptions of who I am as a person. All of these descriptions would show aspects of me, but none of them would properly define me as a whole. This, I think is what happens when we try and understand our Deities and Archetypes by taking the literal word of the myths. Each myth is just a snapshot frozen in a specific time and culture, and is then further eroded by translation, politics, and unfortunately even literal erosion.
I was told a short while back that “God is man writ large, and man is God writ small”. (The capital G here is denoting the concept of Deity, rather than a specific god.) If this holds true, and I am of the opinion that it may, then I’d say the myths and their subsequent religions can define Deities only as well as a coworker or an ex might be able to define you or I. So I think the myths themselves actually hold very little weight. But, they can certainly form a foundation for our understanding, especially when viewed comparatively.