Talk:Christ myth theory/testpage

The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus mythicism, the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community. Some proponents argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity. Most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence, although they agree that all material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value.

The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. Notable proponents include Bruno Bauer; Arthur Drews in the 20th century; and more recently G.A. Wells, Alvar Ellegård, and Robert M. Price. The idea has come to modern public attention through the work of writers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the French philosopher Michel Onfray.

Arguments used to support the theory emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the 1st century. Some proponents contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism and draws on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other gods, especially those figuring in myths about dying and rising deities.

Overview
The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that in one way or another question the authenticity of the existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels. One viewpoint is that there was no real historical figure Jesus and that he was invented by Christians. Another viewpoint is that there was a person called Jesus, but much of the teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references, and he may have lived long before the first century. Yet another view holds that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is a composite character constructed from multiple people over a period of time.

Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the notion that Jesus never existed has little scholarly support, and although a few modern scholars adhere to it, they remain a distinct minority; most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe that his existence can be established as a historical fact.

Supporters of the other various Christ myth theories point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus during his lifetime and the relative scarcity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century, and dispute the veracity of the existing accounts about him. Some scholars such as G. A. Wells do not deny the possibility of the existence of Jesus, yet consider the Christian Gospels as fiction.

Philosopher George Walsh argues that Christianity can be seen as originating in a myth dressed up as history, or with a historical being mythologized into a supernatural one: he calls the former the Christ myth theory, and the latter the historical Jesus theory. Biblical scholars Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd break the spectrum of opinion into four positions; they call the first three the "legendary-Jesus thesis," namely that the picture of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is mostly or entirely historically inaccurate.


 * 1) The Jesus myth theory: the gospels describe a virtually, and perhaps entirely, fictitious person. There are no grounds for supposing that any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history. This view is represented to varying degrees by Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, and Robert Price.
 * 2) There is enough evidence to conclude that Jesus existed, but the reports are so unreliable that very little can be said about him with confidence. This view is represented by Rudolf Bultmann and Burton Mack.
 * 3) Historical research can reveal a core of historical facts about Jesus, but he is very different from the Jesus of the New Testament. His sayings and miracles are myths. Robert Funk and Crossan represent this view, one that Eddy and Boyd write is increasingly common among New Testament scholars.
 * 4) The gospels are reliable historical sources, and critical historiography should not rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrence, a view represented by John P. Meier and N.T. Wright.

New Testament scholar Robert Price writes that the Jesus myth theory is based on three pillars: first that there is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources. second that the Pauline epistles, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus and finally that story of Jesus shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods.

History and development of myth theories
Throughout the centuries, the Christian gospels had been viewed in Europe as the definitive account of the life of Jesus, but early in the 18th century, friction between the church establishment and some theologians, coupled with the growing emphasis on rationalism, resulted in discord between the English deists and the church, and John Toland, Anthony Collins and Thomas Woolston planted the seeds of discontent.

The beginnings of the formal development of the Christ myth theory can be traced to late 18th-century France, and the works of Constantin-Volney and Charles Dupuis. The more methodical writings of David Friedrich Strauss caused an uproar in Europe in 1835, and Strauss became known as the founder of Christ myth theory, his approach having been influenced by the epistemological views of Leibniz and Spinoza. Strauss did not deny the existence of Jesus, but believed that very few facts could be known about him and characterized the miraculous accounts in the gospels as "mythical". At about the same time in Berlin, Bruno Bauer supported somewhat similar ideas. Although both Strauss and Bauer drew on Hegel, their views did not coincide, and often conflicted. Karl Marx, a student and at the time a close friend of Bauer, was significantly influenced by him, as well as Hegel and Strauss, setting the stage for the denial of Jesus within communism.

By the beginning of the 20th century, John Remsburg had written a book to explore the range and origins of the Christ myth, and thereafter Arthur Drews, William B. Smith and John M. Robertson became the most recognized proponents of the Christ myth theory. However, these authors were not performing purely atheist attacks on Christianity, e.g. Drew did not consider religion as outdated, but argued for a different form of religious consciousness. W. B. Smith argued for a symbolic interpretation of gospel episodes and contended that in a parable such as Jesus and the rich young man the rich young man never existed and symbolically referred to the land of Israel. Smith also argued that Jesus never healed anyone physically, but only spiritually cured them of their paganism. J. M. Robertson on the other hand viewed the gospel accounts as a collection of myths gathered by a large number of anonymous authors, over time.

When Marxist–Leninist atheism became part of the state ideals in communist Russia in 1922, the theories of Arthur Drew gained prominence there. The communist state not only supported the Christ myth theory but embellished it with scientific colloquialisms, and school textbooks began to teach that Jesus never existed, making Russia a bastion of Jesus denial. These ideas were rebuffed in Russia by Sergei Bulgakov and Alexander Men, copies of whose book began to circulate underground via typewriters in the 1970s to reintroduce Christianity to Russia.

Existence
A very small number of modern scholars question the very existence of Jesus and hold him to have been an invented character, while most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible. Rober Price is one of the few modern scholars who continue to question the existence of Jesus.

The historical existence of Jesus as a person is a separate issue from any religious discussions about his divinity, or the theological issues relating to his nature as man or God. Leading scientific atheist Richard Dawkins specifically separates the question of the existence of Jesus from the attribution of supernatural powers to him, or the accuracy of the Christian gospels. Dawkins does not deny the existence of Jesus, although he dismisses the reliability of the gospel accounts. This position is also held by leading critic G. A. Wells, who used to argue that Jesus never existed, but has since changed his views and no longer rejects it.

Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines, and that classical historians, as well as biblical scholars now regard it as effectively refuted. Walter P. Weaver, among others, states that the denial of Jesus’ existence has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles.

A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical. Separate non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of 1st century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars. Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.

In the context of historical theories, the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist is a rather recent topic, and in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. While theological differences existed among early Christians regarding the nature of Jesus (e.g. monophysitism, miaphysitism, Docetism, Nestorianism, etc.) these were debates in Christian theology, not about the historical existence of Jesus.

While the accuracy of the Christian gospel accounts is the subject of wide ranging debates, most modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be the two historically certain facts about him, James Dunn stating that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent". Dunn states that these two facts "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.

Although scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it, e.g. both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story. Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.

Chronology
George Albert Wells has written that Paul of Tarsus may have thought of Jesus as someone who lived nearly a century earlier rather than him and that the sources for the Christ-myth are largely in Jewish Wisdom-literature rather than in pagan mythology.

However, a number of different approaches have been used by scholars to estimate the year of the death of Jesus, and almost all corroborate it with the reign of Pontius Pilate. The late 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, writing in Antiquities of the Jews (c. 93 AD/CE), and the early 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus, writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD/CE), also state that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus.

Most modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus a historical event. Most modern scholars also view Josephus' account (in Antiquities 18.5.2) of the execution of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas, and the marriage of Herod and Herodias to be authentic. Given that John the Baptist was executed before the defeat of Herod by Aretas IV of Nabatea in the year 36 AD/CE, and based on the scholarly estimates for the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias between 28-35AD/CE, Josephus establishes a key connection between the time frame of the ministry of Jesus and his execution.

The estimation of the date of the conversion of Paul places the death of Jesus before this conversion, which is estimated at around 33-36 AD/CE. The estimation of the year of Paul's conversion relies on a series of calculations working backwards from the well established date of his trial before Gallio in Achaea Greece (Acts 18:12-17) around 51-52 AD/CE, the meeting of Priscilla and Aquila which were expelled from Rome about 49 AD/CE and the 14-year period before returning to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1.

Argument from silence
Proponents of the Christ myth theory often present argument from silence that if the Gospel accounts were historically accurate then there should have been non-Christian sources to corroborate the events of Jesus' life. Biblical scholar L. Michael White writes that so far as we know, Jesus did not write anything, nor did anyone who had personal knowledge of him. There is no archeological evidence of his existence. There are no contemporaneous accounts of his life or death: no eyewitness accounts, or any other kind of first-hand record. All the accounts of Jesus come from decades later; the gospels themselves all come from later times, though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions. The earliest writings that survive are the Pauline epistles, thought to have been written 20–30 years after the dates given for Jesus' death. Paul was not a companion of Jesus, White writes, nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus before his death.

The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (who died in the year 50) wrote about contemporary events and was very critical of Pontius Pilate's brutalities, but unlike Josephus did not refer to Jesus. Justus of Tiberias who was also a contemporary of Jesus also did not mention him. Robert Van Voorst lists four separate reasons for the silence of contemporary sources. First that Jesus was not seen as the Messiah by the Jew at large at the beginning and late as hostility between Jews and Christians escalated, one approach to reduce his appeal was to ignore him through silence. Secondly, Jesus was not seen as a threat at the beginning and hence no attention was paid to him. The third reason is that the late Jewish writers were not interested in Jesus, but only in Christianity when it came to b seen as a threat to Judaism. Finally, the recording of history was not a focus of Rabbinic litaearture whose main aim was the exposition of religious laws.. Van Voorst states that Josephus only referred to Jesus because he was writing for a Roman audience who were already aware of the Christian movement. Eddy and Boyd also argue that Jesus was most likely not appear a significant person to non-Jewish writers of his time, and was probably hardly noticed by the Jewish writers who were his contemporaries.

Inaccuracy of the gospel accounts
In an early book Deconstructing Jesus, Robert Price suggests Jesus may be a composite construct based on multiple real people. Price, who argues it is quite likely there never was an historical Jesus, writes that the Jesus myth theory is based on three pillars:
 * There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
 * The Pauline epistles, earlier than the gospels, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus.
 * The story of Jesus shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. He writes that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels.

Biblical scholars Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd break the spectrum of opinion into four positions; they call the first three the "legendary-Jesus thesis," namely that the picture of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is mostly or entirely historically inaccurate.


 * 1) The Jesus myth theory: the gospels describe a virtually, and perhaps entirely, fictitious person. There are no grounds for supposing that any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history. This view is represented to varying degrees by Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, and Robert Price.
 * 2) There is enough evidence to conclude that Jesus existed, but the reports are so unreliable that very little can be said about him with confidence. This view is represented by Rudolf Bultmann and Burton Mack.
 * 3) Historical research can reveal a core of historical facts about Jesus, but he is very different from the Jesus of the New Testament. His sayings and miracles are myths. Robert Funk and Crossan represent this view, one that Eddy and Boyd write is increasingly common among New Testament scholars.
 * 4) The gospels are reliable historical sources, and critical historiography should not rule out the possibility of supernatural occurrence, a view represented by John P. Meier and N.T. Wright.

Mythical origins of Christian teachings
Volney and Dupuis were the first modern scholars to claim a connection between Jesus and previous solar deities. However, later scholarship showed that various details required for these connections were flawed due to the lack of available accurate information on which to base the theories. Other writers such as John M. Robertson and William Benjamin Smith made similar comparisons between Jesus and solar dieties. However, the earliest known source recognizing the 25th of December as the date of birth of Jesus is by Hippolytus of Rome, written around the beginning of the 3rd century, based on the assumption that the conception of Jesus took place at the Spring equinox which he placed on March 25th, and then added 9th months - festivals on that date were then celebrated. The Chronography of 354 illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome includes an early reference to the celebration of a Nativity feast.

In his 1949 book The Hero with a Thousand Faces Joseph Campbell advanced the theory that a single myth stood behind the stories of Krishna, Buddha, Apollonius of Tyana, Jesus and other hero stories. In his later The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology Campbell stated "(i)t is clear that, whether accurate or not as to biographical detail, the moving legend of the Crucified and Risen Christ was fit to bring a new warmth, immediacy, and humanity, to the old motifs of the beloved Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris cycles."

Some biblical scholars argue against the idea that early material related to Jesus can be explained with reference to pagan mythological parallels. Paula Fredriksen, for example, writes that no serious work places Jesus outside the backdrop of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. Biblical scholarship also generally rejects the concept of homogenous dying and rising gods, the validity of which is often presupposed by advocates of the Christ myth theory, such as New Testament scholar Robert Price. Tryggve Mettinger, former professor of Hebrew bible at Lund University, is one of the academics who supports the "dying and rising gods" construct, but he states that Jesus does not fit the wider pattern.

Pauline epistles
The composition of the letters of Paul is generally dated between 49 and 64 CE, some two to three decades after the conventional date given for Jesus's death. Paul did not know the historical Jesus. He only claims he had known him, 'as of one born out of due time', i.e., as the 'risen' Jesus.

Many biblical scholars turn to Paul's letters (epistles) to support their arguments for a historical Jesus. Theologian James D.G. Dunn argues that Robert Price ignores what everyone else in the field regards as primary data. Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) writes that, according to Paul's letters, Jesus was an Israelite, descended from Abraham (Gal 3:16) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (I Cor. 11:23ff); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (I Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:1, 13, 6:14, etc.), although Jewish authorities were somehow involved in his death (I Thess. 2:15); who was buried, rose the third day and was thereafter seen alive, including on one occasion by over 500, of whom the majority were alive 25 years later (I Cor. 15:4ff). The letters say that Paul knew of and had met important figures in Jesus's ministry, including the apostles Peter and John, as well as James the brother of Jesus, who is also allegedly mentioned in Josephus. In the letters, Paul on occasion alludes to and quotes the teachings of Jesus, and in 1 Corinthians 11 recounts the Last Supper.

Non-Christian sources
The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20.

The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation, Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. 116 AD), book 15, chapter 44. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source, Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine. William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.

Another possible, but less than certain, non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion to his son. Scholars such as Robert Van Voorst see little doubt that the reference to the execution of the "king of the Jews" is about the death of Jesus. Others such as Craig A. Evans see less value in the letter, given its uncertain date, and the possible ambiguity in the reference.

G. A. Wells
Graham Stanton wrote in 2002 that the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated of the proponents' arguments were set out by G. A. Wells, emeritus professor of German at Birkbeck College, London, and author of Did Jesus Exist? (1975), The Jesus Legend (1996), The Jesus Myth (1999), Can We Trust the New Testament? (2004), and Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009). British theologian Kenneth Grayston advised Christians to acknowledge the difficulties raised by Wells, but Alvar Ellegård writes that his views remain largely undiscussed by theologians.

Wells bases his arguments on the views of New Testament scholars who acknowledge that the gospels are sources written decades after Jesus's death by people who had no personal knowledge of him. In addition, Wells writes, the texts are exclusively Christian and theologically motivated, and therefore a rational person should believe the gospels only if they are independently confirmed. Wells also argues that Paul and the other epistle writers&mdash;the earliest Christian writers&mdash;do not provide any support for the idea that Jesus lived early in the 1st century. There is no information in them about Jesus's parents, place of birth, teachings, trial, or crucifixion. For Wells, the Jesus of earliest Christianity was a pure myth, derived from mystical speculations stemming from the Jewish Wisdom tradition and the Gospels to be works of historical fiction. According to this view, the earliest strata of the New Testament literature presented Jesus as "a basically supernatural personage only obscurely on Earth as a man at some unspecified period in the past".

In The Jesus Myth, Wells argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one: Paul's mythical Jesus and a minimally historical Jesus whose teachings were preserved in the Q document, a hypothetical common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Biblical scholar Robert Van Voorst said that with this argument Wells had performed an about-face.

Wells writes that he belongs in the category of those who argue that Jesus did exist, but that reports about him are so unreliable that we can know little or nothing about him. He argues, for example, that the story of the execution of Jesus under Pilate is not an historical account.

Alvar Ellegård
Alvar Ellegård (1919–2008), a professor of English at the University of Gothenburg, developed the ideas of Wells and Couchoud in his Myten om Jesus (1992), arguing that Jesus is essentially a myth and the gospels largely fiction, created to give substance to the ecstatic visions of Paul and the apostles, in which Jesus appeared as the messiah. He argues that the point of Paul's letters to the Jewish diaspora was to show that the Day of Judgment was imminent, messianiac views that were common among Jews at the time. When it became clear decades later that the Day of Judgment was not upon them, Paul's audience wanted to know more about Jesus, and because there was little to guide them, the gospels emerged to complete a picture, using passages from the Old Testament that messianic Jews had long interpreted as heralding the messiah.

Ellegård writes that his position differs from that of Drews and Couchoud. Like G.A. Wells, he believes that Paul's letters show Paul and his audience believed Paul's visions had been about a real person. Ellegård develops arguments proposed by André Dupont-Sommer and John Allegro, and identifies Paul's Jesus as the "Essene Teacher of Righteousness" revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but he argues that this was not Jesus of the gospels.

For Ellegård, the figure Paul had in mind was the founder of the Essene, or para-Essene, congregations Paul was addressing, someone who had probably lived in the 2nd or early 1st century BCE, though Ellegard acknowledges there is no evidence of a Jesus who would fit this description, or evidence that the Teacher of Righteousness was crucified. He accuses modern theologians of failing to live up to their responsibilities as scholars. He argues that their position is dogmatic, often concealed "under a cover of mystifying language," that they often have ties to Christian churches, and that there has been a failure of communication between them and scholars in other fields, leading to an insulation of theological research from scholarly debate elsewhere. He dismisses as an ad hominem argument the criticism of himself and Wells as non-specialists.

Robert M. Price
American New Testament scholar Robert M. Price questions the historicity of Jesus in a series of books, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (2003), and Jesus is Dead (2007), as well as in contributions to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009). Price is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of writers and scholars who study the historicity of Jesus, arguing that the Christian image of Christ is a theological construct into which traces of Jesus of Nazareth have been woven. A former Baptist pastor, Price writes that he was originally an apologist on the historical-Jesus question but became disillusioned with the arguments. As the years went on, he found it increasingly difficult to poke holes in the position that questioned Jesus's existence entirely. Despite this, he still took part in the Eucharist every week for several years, seeing the Christ of faith as all the more important because, he argued, there was probably never any other.

Price believes that Christianity is a historicized synthesis of mainly Egyptian, Jewish, and Greek mythologies. He writes that everyone who espouses the Christ myth theory bases their arguments on three key points:
 * There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
 * The epistles, written earlier than the gospels, provide no evidence of a recent historical Jesus; all that can be taken from the epistles, he argues, is that a Jesus Christ, son of God, came into the world to die as a sacrifice for human sin and was raised by God and enthroned in heaven.
 * The Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods; Price names Baal, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dumuzi/ Tammuz as examples, all of which, he writes, survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods and thereby influenced early Christianity. Price alleges that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels. He argues that if critical methodology is applied with ruthless consistency, one is left in complete agnosticism regarding Jesus's historicity.

Price argues that "the varying dates are the residue of various attempts to anchor an originally mythic or legendary Jesus in more or less recent history" citing accounts that have Jesus being crucified under Alexander Jannaeus (83 BCE) or in his 50s by Herod Agrippa I under the rule of Claudius Caesar (41–54 CE)

Price points out "(w)hat one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage.  But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time."

Later on Price states "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean."

Price acknowledges that he stands against the majority view of scholars, but cautions against attempting to settle the issue by appeal to the majority.

Other scholars and scientists
Thomas L. Thompson, retired professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen, argues in The Messiah Myth (2005) that the Jesus of the gospels did not exist, and that stories about him are a combination of Near Eastern myths and stories about kingship and divinity. He argues that the contemporaneous audience of the gospels would have understood this, that the stories were not intended as history.

A number of modern scientists have written books that question the Christian views of Jesus. These books include The God Delusion (2006) by Richard Dawkins, the former professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University; God:The Failed Hypothesis (2007) by the American physicist Victor Stenger. Stenger's position is that the gospel writers borrowed from several Middle Eastern cults. Using the modern John Frum cargo cult as an example Dawkins states:

"'Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed. (...) John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all.'"

Dawkins, citing G.A. Wells, sees the gospels as rehashed versions of the Hebrew Bible, and writes that it is probable Jesus existed, but that a serious argument can be mounted against it, though not a widely supported one.

Popular media and opinions
In the book God Is Not Great (2007) Christopher Hitchens argued that there is little or no evidence for the life of Jesus, unlike for the prophet Muhammad.

Self-published author Earl Doherty argues in The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009) that Jesus originated as a myth derived from Middle Platonism with some influence from Jewish mysticism, and that belief in a historical Jesus emerged only among Christian communities in the 2nd century. Hector Avalos has stated that The Jesus Puzzle outlines a plausible theory for a completely mythical Jesus." On the other hand, R. Joseph Hoffmann has stated that Doherty's work is qualitatively and academically far inferior to anything so far written on the subject.

Films that refer to the issue are The God Who Wasn't There (2005), Zeitgeist (2007), and Religulous (2008).

A 2005 study conducted by Baylor University, a private Christian university, found that one percent of Americans in general, and 13.7 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans, believe that Jesus is a fictional character.