There are legitimate reasons to doubt Jesus existed, even as a mundane man whose legend became exaggerated (which is, definitely, always plausible too). These reasons have survived peer review—twice. And yet a common fallacy deployed against this fact is that “no relevant experts take this seriously.” This is already a fallacy. Once there is a multiply-corroborated peer-reviewed challenge to a consensus, that means it’s substantial enough that the consensus needs to be re-examined on the new evidence and analysis presented. It might survive that examination. But you still have to do it. You can’t just say “no one takes it seriously” as an excuse to not even conduct that examination (see my remarks on this in What I Said at the Brea Conference).
Nevertheless, here I will dispatch the mere premise of this argument, the claim that “no one takes it seriously.” Below is a continually-updated list of all those bona fide experts—scholars with actual and relevant PhDs (many even sitting or emeritus professors) alive as of 2014—who do take it seriously. I previously maintained this list in response to Bart Ehrman’s deployment of this fallacy. But the number of scholars who meet even his absurdly narrow criteria—and even more so any genuinely pertinent criteria—has grown so large it needs its own page now. So here it is.
In the following list I present in bold text those historians who either doubt the historicity of Jesus or have admitted to being agnostic about it (as in, they are unsure whether he existed or not). All the other scholars listed are convinced Jesus existed—they still don’t think “Mythicism” is probable (the idea that Jesus is entirely, and not just partially, mythical)—but they have gone on record admitting that at least some theories of the origin of Christianity without a real Jesus can be plausible enough that the debate is worth taking seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand as crackpot.
- Thomas Brodie. A now-retired Professor of Biblical Studies who confessed his doubts in Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery (Sheffield Phoenix 2012); see my discussion in Historicity News and Brodie on Jesus.
- Richard Carrier (myself). An independent scholar with a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia University and multiple peer-reviewed publications, including the academic study On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reasons for Doubt (Sheffield Phoenix 2014). My colloquial summary, Jesus from Outer Space, outlines in simple terms the underlying logic of that peer-reviewed study. My anthology Hitler Homer Bible Christ includes all my pertinent peer-reviewed journal articles up to 2014. And my study of the methodology, which was peer-reviewed by professors of both mathematics and biblical studies (a requirement I set in my contract), is Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Prometheus 2012).
- Raphael Lataster. An independent scholar with a PhD in Religious Studies from the University of Sydney, who explained his doubts in his peer-reviewed assessment of the debate in Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (Brill 2019).
- Robert M. Price. An independent scholar with two pertinent PhDs, in Systematic Theology and New Testament Studies. He has multiple publications explaining his doubts, e.g. The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (American Atheist 2012).
- Thomas Thompson. A retired yet renowned Professor of Biblical Studies and Second-Temple Judaism, who originated the now-consensus doubts about the historicity of Moses and the Patriarchs, and explained his similar doubts about Jesus in The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Basic Books 2009) and Is This Not The Carpenter? The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (Routledge 2017).
- Philip Davies. A Professor of Biblical Studies (now deceased) with a PhD in the field from Oxford, who publicly argued that doubting historicity was a respectable academic position; and then privately admitted that in fact he actually doubted the historicity of Jesus. This was posthumously confirmed by correspondence with Raphael Lataster and myself (e.g. see Lataster 2019).
- Hector Avalos. At the time a sitting Professor of Religion at Iowa State University (now deceased), with a PhD in Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Studies from Harvard, who declared his agnosticism about historicity to me personally, and then publicly in the Ames Tribune on 2 March 2013.
- Arthur Droge. A sitting Professor of Early Christianity, previously at UC San Diego and later the University of Toronto, with a PhD in the field from the University of Chicago, who explained his agnosticism at the 2008 Amherst conference on the historical Jesus, and in its associated 2009 article for CAESAR, “Jesus and Ned Lud[d]: What’s in a Name?”
- Carl Ruck. A Professor of Classical Studies at Boston University, with a PhD in ancient literature from Harvard, who confessed his doubts on a Mythvision interview in May 2022 (in minute 31).
- David Madison. An independent scholar with a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University, who publicly confirmed his agnosticism in Q&A during the GCRR 2021 e Conference on the Historical Jesus.
- J. Harold Ellens. A Professor of Biblical Studies at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary of Detroit (now deceased) with a history of numerous honors, publications, and positions in the field, including a PhD in Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins from Michigan University. In Sources of the Jesus Tradition (Prometheus 2010) he repeatedly expressed his doubts as to the historical existence of Jesus (see comment for quoted examples).
- Nicholas Peter Allen. A Professor of Ancient Languages and Text Studies at North-West University with two PhD’s (in Art History and Ancient Greek Studies) and a considerable body of relevant publications. In his book The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told (2022) he defends considerable doubt that Jesus existed, allowing only for its sparse possibility.
- Rodney Blackhirst. A Lecturer in Philosophy and Religious Studies at La Trobe University (and prior to that, Biblical Studies) with a Ph.D. in ancient religion from La Trobe and several publications in the field. He has been known to endorse Joseph Atwill’s crankery, and has said some dubious things, but has subsequently explained that he actually has many disagreements with Atwill, and only thinks theories like it are worth pursuing. And though he doesn’t “discount the possibility” of a historical Jesus, “his own leaning is towards a mythical” one.
- Derek Murphy. An author with a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from National Taiwan University. He wrote Jesus Potter Harry Christ (2011) arguing Jesus was not historical but a product of folklore.
- Marian Hillar. A Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies and Biochemistry at Texas Southern University. Though he only has an M.D. and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry (which ordinarily I would not allow to qualify), he is an internationally renowned expert in religious studies (especially Renaissance Christianity), and published an excellent and prestigious peer-reviewed study of the pre-history of the Christian idea of the Trinity, From Logos to Trinity: The Evolution of Religious Beliefs from Pythagoras to Tertullian (Cambridge University Press 2012), in which he declares the quest for the historical Jesus a failure and quotes Earl Doherty’s thesis favorably (pp. 135–37); elsewhere he has said there is “evidence that there was no particular figure of Jesus.”
- Christophe Batsch. A retired professor of Second Temple Judaism (and of Roman, Slavic, and Middle Eastern Studies at Université de Lille) with a PhD in the same and a considerable publication record. In a chapter he contributed to Juifs et chrétiens aux premiers siècles (CERC 2019) he declares his agnosticism, calling the question of historicity “strictly undecidable” (rigoureusement indécidable), and says those who claim to have proved or disproved the existence of Jesus “only express a spontaneous and personal conviction, devoid of any scientific foundation” (ne font qu’exprimer une conviction spontanée et personnelle, dénuée de tout fondement scientifique), so whether any material goes back to a real man is plausible but unknown.
- Charlotte Touati. A professor of theology and religion at the University of Lausanne, with a Ph.D. in theology from the University of Strasbourg (and a Ph.D. in Literature from the University of Neuchâtel). She confirmed in private correspondence that she believes there is no good evidence for a historical Jesus.
- Herman Detering. A lifelong pastor and independent scholar with a PhD in Theology and New Testament studies under Dr. Walter Schmithals at Humboldt-Universität Berlin. His doctoral dissertation argued that Paul was a rhetorical invention, and though he suspects Jesus existed in some sense, he conceded doubt still needed to be taken seriously.
- Zeba Crook. A Professor of Religious Studies at Carleton University, with a PhD in theology (like Bart Ehrman, and most Biblical scholars nowadays) from St. Michael’s College. He defends the historicity of Jesus but has publicly explained that it’s nevertheless plausible to doubt or debate it (Facebook, 30 December 2017 and 2 January 2018).
- Kurt Noll. A sitting Professor of Religion at Brandon University, with a PhD in theology from the Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. He is a historicist who admits it’s nevertheless plausible to theorize Jesus might not have existed, as he explains in a chapter he contributed to Is This Not the Carpenter, “Investigating Earliest Christianity Without Jesus.”
- Emanuel Pfoh. A sitting Professor of History at the National University of La Plata. He is a historicist who admits it’s nevertheless plausible to theorize Jesus might not have existed, as he explains in a chapter he contributed to Is This Not the Carpenter, “Jesus and the Mythic Mind: An Epistemological Problem” (cf. p. 92).
- James Crossley. A sitting Professor of the Bible at St. Mary’s University with a PhD in the field from the University of Nottingham. He is a historicist who nevertheless wrote in the preface to Lataster 2019 that “scepticism about historicity is worth thinking about seriously—and, in light of demographic changes, it might even feed into a dominant position in the near future.”
- Justin Meggitt. A Professor of Religion on the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge with a PhD in New Testament Studies from Cambridge. He is a historicist who nevertheless concluded in a 2019 article in New Testament Studies (“‘More Ingenious than Learned’? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus”) that questioning historicity “does not belong to the past and nor is it irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.”
- Darren Slade. President of the Global Center for Religious Research, with a Ph.D. in theology and church history. He is a historicist who confirmed to me personally, and publicly at the GCRR 2021 eConference on the Historical Jesus [link not functioning at present], that questioning historicity nevertheless deserves to hold a respectable place in Jesus studies.
- Steve Mason. A Professor of Ancient Mediterranean Religions and Cultures at the University of Groningen, with a PhD in ancient Judaism from St. Michael’s College. He is a historicist who has published on the historical Jesus but has nevertheless said that serious proposals that Jesus didn’t exist “should be considered and tested,” not rejected out of hand, and that “it may be” that Jesus didn’t exist (Harmonic Atheist, October 2020, at 28:30).
- Richard C. Miller. An Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Chapman University, with a Ph.D. in Religion from Claremont Graduate University in LA and a prominent peer reviewed monograph in the field: Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (Routledge 2014). He is a historicist who nevertheless wrote a foreword supporting the Mythicist anthology by John Loftus and Robert Price, The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist? (Hypatia 2021). There he declares there are only two plausible positions in the field now regarding Jesus: that he is entirely a myth, or nothing survives about him but myth. He later confirmed this in a short video at MythVision.
- John Kloppenborg. A sitting Professor of Religion at the University of Toronto with a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies. He has remarked that though he sees no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus, he nevertheless doesn’t think the evidence is conclusive enough to render doubt preposterous (Mythvision, August 2022, minutes 7:30-11:00).
- Tom Dykstra. An independent scholar with a Ph.D. in the History of Renaissance Christianity who has nevertheless published peer reviewed works in New Testament studies. He is a historicist who nevertheless grants the plausibility of the mythicist position in a 2015 article for the Journal of the OCABS (“Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship”). See my article Dykstra on Ehrman & Brodie.
- Fernando Bermejo-Rubio. With a PhD in the History of Religion from UNED, he has held numerous professorships of Christian history (including at the University of Madrid) and built an extensive publication record in the field. In his book La invención de Jesús de Nazaret he points out that mythicism needs to be taken more seriously. In Gesù Resistente Gesù Inesistente he and Franco Tommasi together wrote (translating from the Italian), “Unlike many of our colleagues in the academic field, who ignore or take a contemptuous attitude towards mythicist, pro-mythicist or para-mythicist positions, we do not regard them as inherently absurd” but “Instead, we think that, when these are sufficiently argued, they deserve careful examination and detailed answers.”
- Francesca Stavrakopoulou. A Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. She’s said the historicity of Jesus is only “possible,” not certain (Twitter October 2016); or that it’s more probable. But she agrees mythicism is plausible enough to be debatable.
- Burton Mack. A renowned Professor of Early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California (now deceased), with a PhD in the field from the University of Göttingen. In a chapter from his earlier book A Myth of Innocence that he contributed to an anthology edited by Jacob Neusner (and thus with Neusner’s endorsement), The Christian and Judaic Invention of History (Oxford University 1990) Mack recommends that experts pay more attention to Mythicist work (naming G.A. Wells specifically). Though Mack says it lies on the “fringes of the discipline,” he mentions it specifically as among things the field should be taking more note of (p. 24).
- Gerd Lüdemann. Was a Professor of New Testament at multiple universities and before his retirement held numerous prominent positions in the field, with an extensive publication record and doctorates in theology and New Testament from the University of Göttingen. In Jesus Mythicism: An Introduction by Minas Papageorgiou, when asked about it Lüdemann says that, although he is still convinced Jesus existed in some sense, “I do admire Arthur Drews and the Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity.”
- Christopher Hartney. A Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies at the University of Sydney with a PhD in Religion and an extensive publication record. In his review of his student Raphael Lataster’s early work questioning the historicity of Jesus, Hartney finds such doubt plausible and warranting reply.
- Carole Cusack. A Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Sydney with a PhD in Religious Studies and a significant publication record on the study of religion. In her review of her student Raphael Lataster’s early work questioning the historicity of Jesus, Cusack agrees such doubts are plausible enough to engage and consider.
- Matti Kankaanniemi. An independent scholar with a Ph.D. in Theology from Åbo Akademi University, and multiple related publications. He recently gave a presentation at the Society of Biblical Literature 2022 Annual Meeting in which he defends a (minimalist) historicist position but admits doubters “deserve more attention from the mainline scholarship than what they have received.”
- Norman Simms. An Associate Professor of Comparative Literature in the Department of English at the University of Waikato (now deceased) with a Ph.D. in the subject from Washington University, and who has a vast publication record, including papers on ancient religion and Judaism; he also taught courses on the historical Jesus. He wrote “we know nothing about [the] real man” and “I cannot say for sure Jesus existed, but I think the early material at least suggests there was indeed a Jew called Jesus” from whom he “suspects” some few sayings originated (“The Jewish Jesus: Who Says So?” in Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis, ed. Zev Garber, Routledge 2014, pp. 91–92). His wording indicates he agreed doubting is at least plausible.
- Juuso Loikkanen. A postdoctoral researcher in Systematic Theology at the University of Eastern Finland, with a PhD in Systematic Theology from the same, and numerous academic publications in the subject of theology. In an article published in Theology & Science he joined two other theologians (listed next) in arguing that scholars need to admit that “the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty and that peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.”
- Esko Ryökäs. An Adjunct Professor in Systematic Theology at the University of Eastern Finland, with a PhD in theology from Åbo Akademi University, and numerous academic publications in the subject of theology (including work in ancient history). In an article published in Theology & Science he joined two other theologians (listed above and below) in arguing that scholars need to admit that “the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty and that peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.”
- Petteri Nieminen. A Professor of Medical Biology at the University of Eastern Finland, with PhD’s in medicine, biology and theology, the latter also from UEF, and numerous academic publications in that subject. In an article published in Theology & Science he joined two other theologians (listed above) in arguing that scholars need to admit that “the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty and that peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.”
- Thomas Römer. For years a Professor and eventually Dean of Old Testament Studies at the University of Lausanne and since moved on to other prestigious posts, with a PhD in Theology from the University of Geneva, and an impressive publication record. He wrote an approving preface to Nanine Charbonnel’s mythicist book Jésus-Christ, sublime figure de papier (BERG 2017) in which he admits historicity is an overwrought assumption in the field. (I do not list Charbonnel herself only because her PhD, publication record, and professorships are all in modern philosophy, and her book is not a peer-reviewed monograph, and all her peer-reviewed work is unrelated.)
- Uriel Rappaport. Professor of Jewish History (now emeritus) at the University of Haifa with a considerable publication record, particularly on subjects in Roman history. In his book John of Gischala: From the Mountains of Galilee to the Walls of Jerusalem (University of Haifa 2013), he writes, “I shall not enter into the question of the real existence of the ‘historical Jesus’,” because the Gospel Jesus “is not a real historical figure, even if there had been a person of that name from whom the familiar figure represented by the Gospels emerged,” indicating he is not even certain there was one (pp. 146–47 n. 2), concluding Jesus was thus “a dramatic character” (p. 9 n. 2) for whom it is unknown “whether he was a historical individual or a character that was formed and fashioned by his followers” (p. 10 n. 1).
- Milad Milani. Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies at Western Sydney University with a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Sydney. In his review in the Journal of Religious History of Raphael Lataster’s academic study Questioning the Historicity of Jesus, Milani finds the whole debate over Jesus mostly amusing but concludes Lataster is an astute scholar and the book “offers an opportunity to both rethink the study of Jesus” and to “delve into a thorough and detailed examination of Jesus scholarship,” while earlier he remarked that “Jesus the man—if he existed—died,” statements affirming at least the plausibility of doubting it.
- David Trobisch. An expert on Paul and the Bible, with a ThD from Heidelburg under the renowned Gerd Theissen, he has held multiple professorships in New Testament studies and even the curatorship of the Green Collection and the Museum of the Bible. In the anthology Resonanzen: Gerd Theißen zum 80. Geburtstag (Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2023) Trobisch contributed “Was, wenn alles nur erfunden wäre? Über Literatur und Resonanzerfahrung” (“What If It Was All Made Up? On Literature and Reader-Response”) in which he posits the possibility that Jesus was a fiction invented for literary and religious purposes, comparing him to Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes. He does not outright say there was no Jesus; but he clearly considers that plausible.
- Clint Heacock. Host of the Mindshift Podcast and long-time teacher and seminarian with a PhD in Theology and Religious Studies from the University of Chester. On the Sensibly Speaking podcast he acknowledged Jesus might not have existed, cautioning “if you accept that he was a historical figure” and saying Jesus “allegedly served his time on Earth.” And on the Graceful Atheist show he admits “there’s a lot of questions around the Gospels and the historicity of Jesus.”
Which makes forty-four relevantly qualified experts now who concur mythicism is at least plausible. A third of them are even outright doubters. There are surely many others who simply haven’t gone on the record—just like Davies, who feared backlash from admitting his doubt publicly while alive. If you find public statements placing any more scholars in either category, do let me know in comments below. Though please note that only scholars with relevant PhDs are to be listed here.
-:-
Further Links of Interest
- List of Responses to Defenders of the Historicity of Jesus
- How to Successfully Argue Jesus Existed
- Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus
- On Evaluating Arguments from Consensus
And…
- Things Fall Apart Only When You Check
- Some Controversial Ideas That Now Have Wide Scholarly Support
- An Ongoing List of Updates to the Arguments and Evidence in On the Historicity of Jesus
It’s “plausible” that Peter and “The Twelve” (mentioned in 1 Corinth 15) never knew an historical Jesus. They may have only heard stories of this “Jesus” that had been circulating – a “Jesus” that was this Jewish Wise Man, maybe a miracle worker, who taught about love and justice and equality and the coming Kingdom of God. A totally mythological – or, really, “legendary” Jesus. Yet, Peter and The Twelve – as a lot of Jews – believed this “Jesus” was a real person.
Then, the story develops, and Jesus is killed by some corrupt, local Sanhedrin.
And – then – Peter gets his “vision from God”. Jesus has been “raised from the dead”. Meaning something like “his spirit has been raised up and exalted”. Jesus “lives” – in our hearts. Blablabla.
That’s plausible.
Is it “likely”? That’s another question.
But, just because someone might consider an idea “plausible” doesn’t, in itself, really mean squat.
That scenario is too improbable to credit. See my discussion of like scenarios in OHJ, Chapter 3.3. It has a vanishing prior, and no evidence. So it’s out of account.
If someone publishes a theory like that that passes peer review, I’ll attend to it. But until that happens, it’s not viable.
There is a difference between possible and plausible. Most possibilities are not plausible (e.g. Jesus was a literal space alien; the entire history of Christianity and all its literature was invented by a single anonymous monk in the 12th century). So it’s not enough to list possibilities. You have to establish they are plausible (which means, generally, having a probability at least above 1 percent). But yes, plausible still does not get you to probable. As that requires evidence that one theory is more probable than all competing theories (at least individually, if not combined).
From reading your posts, I became aware of Hector Avalos “The End of Biblical Studies”, which I have now completely read.
Along with all of your books and articles, I’m glad to add this work to my growing library of scholars who have made such enormous contributions to this particular topic.
This list will be particularly of interest to me as I intend to read any additional research and works.
If the Christian community was truly interested in spreading the truth, they would not attempt to hide behind claimed historicity without adequate and contemporary evidence. They won’t tell what they do not want people to know, you have to find this out (somehow) for yourself (and frankly, that took many years as I didn’t know where to look). You have to step outside of the entire culture to find the facts vs the hearsay.
They would also willingly admit the numerous flaws, errors, contradictions, omissions and interpolations that make the Bible a seriously flawed work, versus the claims of inerrancy (hardly) and what this actually means for the very concept of Christianity today. I understand their reasons, but I don’t accept their excuse. They know they are in error, teaching errors and propagating dishonesty and deception, the very vipers Christ allegedly warned us against.
I moved on, but having the resources available to demonstrate what is actually true, real and valid is of enormous help.
Thank you for the work that you do, it is much appreciated.
Every book Avalos wrote is of tremendous value in its topic. The field is definitely better off for having had him in it.
But do be aware, there is a difference between Christian apologists (who are defending a Faith) and historicity apologists (who are a broader group of people, many of whom are largely comfortable with destroying the Faith).
The Jesus “son of God” stuff is rejected by the mainstream consensus. So the mainstream consensus left to challenge is not the Jesus of Faith anymore, it’s the many reconstructions of a mundane Jesus behind the myths.
So when I speak of Mythicism, I’m talking about challenging even the mundane Jesus stuff. The supernatural Jesus stuff has already been dumped. Insofar as that mythical Jesus is all we meant, all mainstream scholars are “mythicists” (call them “Gospel Mythicists”). But the subject here today is full Mythicism: going one step beyond where the mainstream has dared to go.
Which matters, because the mundane Jesuses reconstructed by historians are not implausible. So atheists have no skin in that game. It doesn’t matter if one of those Jesuses existed. So when I doubt even that, I am not doing so because I think those reconstructions are implausible. They’re totally plausible. In OHJ (Ch. 12) I even give them a collective 1 in 3 chance of being true. I just think the evidence proffered for them is weak, and suggestive of something else.
Here is Neil Godfrey’s list.
https://vridar.org/whos-who-among-mythicists-and-mythicist-agnostics/
Neil lists Burton Mack. Wikipedia says Burton Mack was John Wesley Professor emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.
Doesn’t he qualify for your list?
Thanks for including that link. I’m aware of that list, and it is useful, but my list is deliberately limited to qualified experts (since the usual retort is that they are not; so I am refuting that specific claim with my list). Godfrey’s list aims to dispel the claim that Mythicists are all angry ex-Christians and societal fringers, which his list refutes.
Keep the specific recommendations coming though. I had not had Mack on my list because I couldn’t verify his position (there are others on that list who also haven’t made clear public statements, or whose credentials I can’t ascertain or verify, so I can’t use them either; I would need more clear information). But now that Amazon has a Look Inside of the pertinent text, I don’t need a library to confirm what he said, so I will be adding him now. Thanks to your reminder!
Another one from Neil Godfrey’s list who should be added to your list is Gerd Lüdemann.
Lüdemann had a doctorate in theology (D.Theol.) from the University of Göttingen, was a professor of New Testament studies at multiple universities, and served as co-chair of the SBL Seminar on Jewish Christianity and as a member of the editorial board of The Second Century: A Journal of Early Christian Studies.
https://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/person_e.htm
As Godfrey notes, in the book “Jesus Mythicism: An Introduction” by Minas Papageorgiou, the author interviews Lüdemann about his views. Lüdemann states that he believes that a historical Jesus existed, but also says “I do admire Arthur Drews and the Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity.”
I had already put a query over to Godfrey for data on this and was just waiting for that. This saves time. Thanks. I can add it now!
In the chapter by J. Harold Ellens in the book “Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth,” edited by R. Joseph Hoffman, Ellens seems to indicate that he is a historicity agnostic:
“…the report on Jesus in the Gospels contends that he lived with a vivid concept of reality that would call his sanity into question. This Jesus is not a historical person but a literary character in a story, though there may or may not be a real person behind that story.”
He alludes to this same “maybe Jesus existed, maybe he didn’t” theme at least four more times in the same chapter:
“As noted already, the Jesus with whom we have to deal on the pages of the New Testament is only a literary character in a story, not a person we can identify in history.”
“…it is necessary to ask what it might have been about the historical Jesus, if there was one at all, that made it possible to generate such a remarkable literary work around him as the main character…”
“It was not the historical Jesus who did that. It was the literary character of Jesus, from the narrative drama of the Gospels and from the confessional myths and transcendental vision made of it. What did the man, if there was a man, behind that story have that made that drama and its myth so vitalizing?”
“But what was it about that historic Son of Man (bar enosh, ben Adam), real or imagined, behind the literary character that made it possible for him to generate and carry the transcendental weight and power of that myth?”
As to his qualifications, Ellens had a PhD in in Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins from the University of Michigan:
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/63842
Note that while the title page of his dissertation says that his PhD is in “Near Eastern Studies,” he states at the bottom of page “v” in the Acknowledgements that it is specifically in “Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins.”
Thank you. I especially appreciate the work you put in documenting quotations and sources.
I’ll add Ellens. I can’t believe I missed that one!
Are you sure Detering can be counted as falling into the “doubters and agnostics” category? According to Neil Godfrey, although Detering’s case for the non-historicity of Paul implied the non-historicity of Jesus as well, Detering nevertheless believed in the historicity of Jesus on other grounds.
Detering wrote: “But — did a historical figure named Jesus exist at all? … Obviously, we must doubt his existence. And nevertheless the theories put forward until now radically disputing the historicity of Jesus seem insufficient to me… So the solution of the entire problem obviously cannot be to fully delete a man named Jesus from history.”
See discussion here: https://vridar.org/whos-who-among-mythicists-and-mythicist-agnostics/#comment-118485
Thank you. That will move him to the second half of the list.
I’ve listened to alot of talks by Dr. Robert Eisenman and he seems agnostic at times about a historical Jesus to me – I’m sorry but I’m away from my books and research materials (health issues ah such is old age) so do not have one specific quote but I sure got that impression from listening to many talks by him…perhaps someone could reach out to him.
TY
Eisenman is a crank and IMO probably insane. But he does have a somewhat relevant PhD. However, he is a Jesus historicist. His whole schtick is Jesus dynasty nonsense (plus a bunch of wildly convoluted “Bible Code” conspiracy theories).
Hi Richard. Francesca Stavrakopoulou discusses whether Jesus existed on the BBC Big Questions show in an episode entitled Did Man Create God? She addresses the host’s question about Jesus’ existence at around 35:16, and she comes in and out at various moments throughout the rest of the episode and addresses various points related to the historicity of Jesus. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PTRGuwb1M
Do you think anything there changes the assessment here?
(I had seen that show a long time ago; but she says “probably” Jesus existed and even at one moment “possibly” Jesus existed. So I have taken this as corroborating her Twitter statements that I link to.)
I don’t think her comments in this TV segment necessarily contradict what she said on Twitter where she says Jesus “possibly” existed in response to the thread where somebody asks for a “bottom line” answer. But the TV clip adds some nuance.
On the TV segment, when asked if Jesus existed, she says “possibly…probably…probably a figure like Jesus existed.” I think she’s in part poking fun at Christian apologetics generally. She questions his use of the Bible as a historical document where later she says in response to him that she “wouldn’t call them (New Testament accounts) records” and disputes his dating of them. She also says “lots of people thought they saw Elvis” when the Christian apologist talks about eyewitness accounts.
In the context of the show which is entitled “Does Evidence Undermine Religion”, the subject of the resurrection comes up, and the Christian apologist admits this is key to his faith. Stavrakopolou also says about Jesus’ existence, “great if he did, who cares if he didn’t, from my perspective as a historian.” She also talks about resurrections not being exclusive to Christianity.
I think she’s saying that whether Jesus existed is a historical question to be privileged and people’s personal, spiritual beliefs shouldn’t matter in the assessment of the evidence. She discusses how the word “truth” is a loaded word as opposed to “falsity”, further demonstrating her privileging empiricism and evidence over faith, belief, and metaphysics.
So I would say that she tacitly takes mythicism seriously, which is the point of the above list, but it remains to be seen what number she might put on “possibly…probably.” It’d be great to see her engage on this topic a bit more. But I think one of her ancillary points is that the existence, death and resurrection of Jesus is crucial for a believing Christian but should be a historical question in general.
Thank you for the analysis.
In his youtube lecture
“Hector Avalos: How Archaeology Killed Biblical History – Part 1 of 2” he expresses doubts about the historicity of Jesus
Thanks. He also did so elsewhere (as linked). Hence he is included in the above list.
In the abstract of his paper, “Questioning the Quests: Usefulness of the Concept of Quest in the Historical Jesus Research,” presented at the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Matti Kankaanniemi wrote: “There is a rather small but vocal and articulative contemporary No Quest, represented especially by Carrier, Price, Thomson and Wells, which might deserve more attention from the mainline scholarship than what they have received.”
I’m not sure who he means by “Thomson,” but I assume it’s supposed to be Thomas Thompson.
The quote can be found in the abstract given here:
https://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/abstract.aspx?id=61710
However, that page does not give his name. To find the abstract in connection with his name, go to this page:
https://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Congresses_ProgramBook.aspx?MeetingId=41
and search for “Kankaanniemi” in the “Last Name” field.
Kankaanniemi has a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Åbo Akademi University:
https://jyu.finna.fi/Record/jykdok.1190598?lng=en-gb
Good find. Thank you for all the resources as well. This is enough to add him.
I found a better link for you to include in your list, so that readers do not have to use the SBL website’s search engine to locate the presentation.
This link:
https://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Congresses_ProgramBook.aspx?MeetingId=41
should be replaced with this link:
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/Meetings/SBL_ProgramBook_AM_2022.pdf
That new link has his name listed along with the title of his presentation, the section of the SBL to which his presentation belonged, the date, etc.
Thank you. I agree, that would be better; even though a reader has to search the PDF, it’s still more usable.
Hi dr. Carrier, I have found that this acadenic, Christophe Batsch, is a Jesus Agnostic, if not a mythicist, having read his article where he argues for Christianity being born after the 70 CE, as result of a collection, worked artificially in Alexandria, of the sayings and acts of various Messiahs, “among them possibly even the sayings of a charismatic Galilean”.
https://www.academia.edu/42447127/Des_vies_de_J%C3%A9sus_%C3%A0_la_destruction_du_temple_de_J%C3%A9rusalem_Hypoth%C3%A8ses_historiographiques_sur_l%C3%A9mergence_du_jud%C3%A9o_christianisme
Well spotted. Thank you. I’ll look into that and if it checks out I’ll add him.
Hi Dr. Carrier, I have found another prof (University of Haifa) who appears to be a Jesus Agnostic.
Uriel Rappaport writes:
I shall not enter into the question of the real existence of the ‘historical Jesus’, but the figure that emerges from the gospels is certainly one that is of a theological design and is not a real historical figure, even if there had been a person of that name from whom the familiar figure represented by the Gospels emerged.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/2383453/JOHN_OF_GISCHALA_From_the_mountains_of_Galilee_to_the_Walls_of_Jerusalem_2013_An_English_translation_of_the_Hebrew_edition_of_2006
https://iias.huji.ac.il/people/uriel-rappaport
Best prosecution,
Giuseppe Ferri
Thank you for finding that and sourcing it for me. I’d like his statement to be clearer, but it’s just about good enough to qualify. So I will add it.
Really there are clearer claims:
Thirdly, it is doubtful if there are any historical facts regarding Jesus, whose life history is in the domain of theology and myth(JOHN OF GISCHALA,From the mountains of Galilee to the Walls of Jerusalem, 2013. An English translation of the Hebrew edition of 2006, available on academia.edu, p. 146)
The reduction of the ‘Jesus phenomenon’ to its Galilean origin does not contribute to a deeper understanding of Jesus but limits the horizon of historical research unnecessarily, and in fact diminishes the stature of this real or mythical man.
(p. 160)
I found better ones. But still could be more explicit. At any rate, best and clearest remarks are now in the article. This brings us to forty scholars who admit doubting historicity is at least plausible.
Prof David Trobisch appears to be a Jesus Agnostic and a Paul Agnostic. It seems that the Marcionite priority alone raises the doubt about the historicity of both.
See here. https://www.academia.edu/101329132/_Was_wenn_alles_nur_erfunden_w%C3%A4re_%C3%9Cber_Literatur_und_Resonanzerfahrung_?email_work_card=title
I’d have to see exact quotes (and in context). If you can acquire a copy of this, please send it to me at richard.carrier@icloud.com (I can read the German, so a direct PDF or equivalent will do).
I have sent you an email with the subject “David Trobisch”.
Thank you!
I hate the “nobody in the field takes it seriously” brush off | the same thing can be said about Darwin I assume or other groundbreaking scientific claims in history. Also the stigma that comes with it in a field where many scholars need to make proclamations of faith etc
And you have some big names in that list that at the very least do not outright dismiss the theory as childs play similar to flath earth etc
I really want to read your newest book on historicity but Im in ecuador now and shipping is high
That’s true but I would warn against analogies like that. Darwin had vastly more evidence than anyone has vis Jesus. So resistance to his theory is on a different order of magnitude. When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, almost no evidence exists and all of it is deeply compromised or problematic—no matter which side is right.
This means neither mythicists nor historicists can claim to be Darwin in that scenario (or Galileo or any other analog like that). What is astonishing is that historicists won’t even admit that. Even though it isn’t seriously disputable.
Has RFW weighed in? I read ‘Origins’ curious how she’d discuss historicity, and while that wasn’t the point of the book, it seemed like she was very careful never to assume historicity, with statements like “Paul is our earliest source for evidence of the Jesus movement”, where other scholars might say, “… for the life of Jesus.”
I haven’t checked Robin Faith Walsh’s exact words in each case, but by report she’s been asked that in interviews, and remains diplomatically vague as to my thesis but leans toward historicity, albeit without overconfident bombast. She’s avoided saying anything clear enough to warrant listing her here. But if you find any statement from her that would, do let me know.
Dr Carrier
You might want to add the name of Michel Onfray, the prolific French philosopher and atheist to the list of those scholars who take Mythicism seriously. The most relevant work is Theorie de Jesus. Biographie d’une idee. (Bouquins, 2023). Ibn Warraq
Thank you for the notice. But Onfrey doesn’t qualify for this list. It only contains “all those bona fide exerts—scholars with actual and relevant PhDs,” and a mere degree in philosophy doesn’t count for that. This is the same reason, as I also note in the list, that “I do not list [Nanine] Charbonnel” either. But it’s still useful to know about them. Among philosophers one could also include Stephen Law, for example, as taking mythicism seriously. And there are others.
If you are interested, Chrissy Hanson just uploaded an insane bibliography of the Christ Myth Debate, and has a ton listed here that you don’t have.
https://www.academia.edu/122552862/THE_CHRIST_MYTH_THEORY_A_Bibliography_from_1970_to_the_Present
Thank you. I was familiar. And she appears to be updating her list, as I see new entries there.
Overall, it is “too complete” for my list—as in, it includes amateur and crank stuff, and things too old to qualify.
My list is specifically only of “bona fide experts—scholars with actual and relevant PhDs (many even sitting or emeritus professors) alive as of 2014.” Because only that is relevant to the view of the field today. I also document each statement of agreement that mythicism is plausible. Hansen is not doing that, either.
What would be very useful to me is this:
Start with the list beginning with “Allegro, John Marco” (Hansen annoyingly provided no page numbers, but if you PDF her document, you will find this list starts on page 16), look up the listed literature, and get me an actual quote and page number for any explicit statement that mythicism is at least plausible or to be taken seriously. Only that can merit inclusion on my list.
Obviously, skip everyone I already list; and skip anyone published before the 21st century (so, for example, don’t bother with Allegro); and of who remains, first confirm they have some relevant PhD (for example, Allegro fails to meet that criterion as well).
Then, find the work listed, and follow Hansen’s breadcrumb to pull a relevant quote from it, if there actually is one.
And do that all the way to the end of that list (at “Zhang, Wenjian,” whose work is too old to qualify, and whose credentials I cannot even discern). Her ensuing sections (3.2 and 3.3) can be skipped (everyone on it is either not qualified or already on my list).
With that data, I can update my list.
As I find time, I might work the list this way myself, but my initial impression is that most of her entries won’t make my list, so it is not a high priority for me. But I welcome anyone who puts the time in to check any of it for me themselves.
I realise that being a semi-retired sports- and newscaster with a podcast (as well as being one of the most annoying people on the internet) generally doesn’t count very far as qualifications in this area…
However, Keith Olbermann would not be high on my list of random media figures to say this this sort of thing in public.
(It’s only about 20 seconds.)
https://youtu.be/JatnjLQej78?si=ADOa-Wfim2RpHTFO&t=1380
Of course, he’s a professional contrarian who may be basing his opinion on the crankest of arguments – and he no longer has an on-screen career to preserve – but I still find it quite surprising in the current culture.
Are you aware of any other public figures who have even dared to say something like this?
That is indeed astonishing. But, alas, he lacks the qualifications required for the above list.
Heh heh, alas yes.