Talk:Christ myth theory

Confusing double (triple?) negative

This is just a grammatical edit request from a new user.

Under the heading: Lack of surviving historical records

The first sentence under the Mainstream subheading

"No ancient sources, even by enemies of Christianity, never claimed that Jesus never existed."

I think it's an easy enough resolution to remove the "never" I've italicized, assuming I'm correctly understanding the intended meaning. Brosenberg01 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Improper Citations

Please properly cite sources instead of showing a ton in a note for clarity and transparency. ArielStatswithanr (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Fringe is an Inherent Subjective Judgement Call

The fringe label violates Wikipedia's stance on maintaining neutrality. It needs to be removed regardless of whether its true or not. (How commonly accepted can it be if people keep trying to remove it?)

There needs to be a broad consensus on whether its commonly accepted or rejected to apply such a label. Some cherry-picked Jewish and atheist scholars do NOT represent whole communities. Especially not when said communities categorically reject the existence of Jesus in any form.

This categorical rejection means that there's a VERY high burden of proof required to support these claims. Find WIDESPREAD support that exists beyond the context of collaborating with Christian scholars. Find polls. Use the sources in the "Rejection of Jewish" article as a starting point to see what Jewish scholars say when they're NOT involved in Biblical Studies.ArielStatswithanr (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

See policy on fringe theories - WP:FRINGE. Multiple sources clearly state that it is not an accepted theory. Even the mythicists admit that it is fringe (see discussion above + refs for "fringe" in article). Ramos1990 (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Polls? As in 'public opinion'? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Outside of Carrier [Price has flipped flopped on the issue many times, and Doherty is not a scholarly source], there is virtually no scholar arguing that Jesus never existed.

One scholar in a crowd of hundreds is very much fringe. AustinEmme (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it fringe?

The present article is generally framed in an absolute way that I think diminishes the importance of the subject. If the question is simply did a person named Jesus exit? Who somehow or another inspired Paul and the Gospels, then there is apparently little debate. Most scholars, I understand, say "yes", such a Jesus existed. But did that Jesus do or say more than a tiny fraction of the things that are attributed to him? That seems like the more important Christ-myth issue. On that, there is certainly much more reasonable debate. For that reason, I'm not sure that what might be called "Christ mythology" should be considered "fringe". Just my thoughts. And, as a disclaimer, I'm no historian. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

See wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion on my opinion. Of course, I'm interested in the article at hand. I'm curious as to people's thoughts. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not a wp:forum, it is a place to discuss how to improve the article, not air our opinions on the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I am discussing the article. Please re-read my comment. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It does not matter what you think, we only go by what RS say. We cannot act on your feelings. So untill I see an argument not based on OR, I am out of here with a form no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There are many: The Quest of the Historical Jesus — Albert Schweitzer. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. London: A. & C. Black, 1910.

The bibliography can be long, but let's not shut-down discussion of the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is about non-existence hypotheses which are considered fringe in academia. For the article on debates on what Jesus said or did see the Historical Jesus article. There you will find diverse views Historical Jesus scholars have from multiple quests since Albert Schweitzer. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

See Quest for the historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Then can we discuss sentences like this one in the intro? "The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth ...". I don't think "historical Jesus" is the right terminology. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

With this edit , Slatersteven has undone my good-faith edit intended to remove the confusing use of the term "historical Jesus". As Ramos1990 has noted above, this article is not about "historical Jesus" per se (there is another article on that subject), but instead, about the idea that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed. If other editors have opinions my edits on this subject, please weigh in. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s not confusing. It's about whether he was a real, historical figure or a made-up story. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s ok to say historical Jesus because it specifies a real historical figure as a result of the quests from other interpretations of him in the article. It’s why Historical Jesus studies even uses such a term in relation to the quests. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a very clear term. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Joshua, what is a clear term? "historical Jesus"? Do you think it is appropriately used in the lede? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Ramos, it was you who alerted me to the separate article on historical Jesus. Do you feel that the term "historical Jesus" is clearly used in the lede of this article on Christ-myth theory? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It is pretty clear to me that "historical Jesus" refers to how current scholars see Jesus after the 3 quests (virtually all scholars agree he existed, but there are no general agreement on who he was among scholars - the second paragraph, which was a compromise a few years back). The term is linked on the first paragraph of this article, by the way. Mythicists on the other hand deny Jesus existed and come up with their own hypotheses of how he was invented. Obviously different starting points. The third paragraph highlights CMT's history along with Robert Price's (godfather of mythicism) summary of the core arguments used by mythicists of all stripes.

So not sure what is confusing to you. The lead has been stable for a few years. You mentioned in a few places, you are not really familiar with the topic. Please familiarize yourself with some of what the sources say (see Notes a-k in the lead for example, have lots of quotes for context). The CMT is controversial and since mythicists or sympathizers are almost always the ones trying to minimize the consensus view on his existence (censor it in some way) or complain about there being no evidence of his existence (challenging fringe status, questioning the consensus view on existence), then this is where we are at. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. Ramos calmly states that "Mythicists on the other hand deny Jesus existed". Ramos then references Price, who actually stated that only the most radical mythicists hold the view that Jesus was a purely mythological character ("Jesus atheism"). Price himself (and other "founders") are actually "Jesus agnosticists", who actually hold that whether there was a historical Jesus is unknowable, and that if he did exist, virtually nothing can be known about him. Not the same thing, at all. Ramos then lumps Earl Doherty with the radical mythicists, whereas Doherty actually defines the CMT as "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." Compare that to mainstream consensus. Wdford (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Mainstream scholars are neither Jesus mythicists or Jesus agnostics. They are not that nihilistic about history. They usually argue that at least Jesus was crucified and was baptized at the core plus other things. Unlike Price or Doherty. It’s why surveys of mythicism by Ehrman, Casey, or others never claim Price or Doherty are in the mainstream. In fact in the same source by Price, he explicitly clarifies that his view is controversial denialism as the bottom line: "At the outset of a controversial essay, let me try for a moment to make it easier for readers to resist the temptation to dismiss what I say based on tired stereotypes. I will argue that it is quite likely there never was any historical Jesus." And Doherty himself admits on his own thesis "When The Jesus Puzzle was published in 1999, the theory that no historical Jesus ever lived was still generally regarded as fringe." And Doherty even comments "Mainstream critical scholarship's ongoing quest for "the historical Jesus" is yet to arrive at any secure or consensus result. Agreement on what Jesus said and did, on whether he was a Jewish Wisdom teacher, an apocalyptic prophet, a revolutionary, a Cynic-style sage, or any of a number of other characterizations is far from being achieved as at any previous stage of the perennial attempt to separate the glorified Jesus of faith from the elusive Jesus of history." Ramos1990 (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that CMT proponents are not mainstream scholars, or vice versa. I agree that mainstream scholars usually argue that at least a historical man named Jesus was crucified and was baptized - although many also agree that the supernatural stories were fiction, "with no historical substance." Wdford (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment

I \sout{am proposing} would like to propose an RFC: Should the lede of this article use language such as to emphasize that the subject of this article is about the myth that a person, Jesus of Nazereth, never existed, and, at the same time, avoid language characterizing this article as being about a "historical Jesus"? It is noted that presently that lede makes several references to "historical Jesus", that there are separate articles on Jesus in history, Historicity of Jesus, and Historical Jesus, and that those articles are concentrated on the teachings, deeds, influence, etc. of Jesus, rather than merely about the once existence of a person, Jesus of Nazereth, to whom, with history, much has been attributed. In particular, a recent rollback ] by User:Slatersteven would be undone. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to put forward an RfC you need to follow correct procedure and also pose a neutral question. This does neither of those things. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

In what respect is it not neutral? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

In an ideal RfC I can not tell the opinion of the proposer from the question. Here I can easily tell that you want to not treat Jesus as an historical figure. To create an RfC, see here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not treating Jesus as anything. I am proposing language for the lede to clarify that the subject of the article is about the myth that a figure, Jesus of Nazereth, never existed. And, by the way, the RFC guidelines suggest that the matter of an RFC first be discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. I'm doing that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I had assumed the discussion above was the WP:RFCBEFORE as I was mistaken please carry on. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I modified the first sentence of this section to clarify things. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

the myth that a person, Jesus of Nazereth, never existed - no, that's not clear language; you're effectively saying that the CMT itself is a myth. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you. Nonetheless, I offer an alternative and, in a search for clarity, invite others to provide their own alternatives: Should the lede avoid language characterizing the subject of the article as being about an "historical Jesus"? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The article lead is very clear to me that it is about the non-existence of Jesus theories. The historical Jesus material meets WP:FRINGE policy requirement a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. It contextualizes these non-historical theories relative to mainstream views because they intersected historically with the quests for Jesus and are now discarded among experts for over a century. Plus the article has sections about mainstream views so to mention it in the lead is appropriate. Wikipedia is not a place for the promotion of fringe theories in general WP:PROFRINGE. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This discussion keeps recurring, because certain editors refuse to fix the obvious problem. The obvious problem is that there are two different versions of the CMT. One version is that there was never a Jesus-person at all, and that everything is pure myth. This is indeed fringe, and correctly so. The other version, which is held seemingly by most CMT proponents, is that a historical Jesus-person probably did exist, but that the religion built around him is NOT historical, and the supernatural stories were fiction (and some were perhaps borrowed from pagan myth etc). These two versions are obviously NOT the same. In fact, the second version is very close to mainstream academic consensus anyway. Those who wish to quash the issue, therefore conflate the two versions, and they seek to ridicule the entirety of the issue using the valid arguments against the first version, while trying to steer away from the obvious validity of the second version.

The problem was eventually "solved", after a long struggle, by properly explaining that mainstream scholars have "no consensus" about the historicity of other major aspects of the gospel stories, and by positioning this as the second paragraph. For a long time, this crucial detail was hidden away. There are still editors who resist fiercely. Wdford (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that, yes there was a historical person called Jesus (at least 72 of them). But there is only one anyone gives a damn about (the subject of a whole series of books, called the new testament). As such, this page is about Jesus, not any others. A mythical person. So (all very deep thought) we need to know what question the RFC will ask. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Per guidelines for an RfC, I've posted a request at the Teahouse: , thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

First sentence

Presently, the first sentence reads: "The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is the fringe view that the story of Jesus is a work of mythology with no historical substance."

This is not a good sentence. Insofar as Christ-Myth theory is the theory that Jesus never existed, then the first sentence should say so. Right now, reference to the "story of Jesus" being a work of "mythology" and "without historical substance" is entirely ambiguous and bound to be conflated with discussion of the historical Jesus.

Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be much better if the first sentence actually clarifies the theory in the words of those whose theory it is. The first sentence should read: "The Christ myth theory is the view that either the Jesus of the Bible did not actually exist or, if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Wdford (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, the issue is whether he was as presented in the New Testament. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The New Testament only? That seems overly focused. What is wrong with "he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"? Please be specifc. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Because this is about Jesus, not Chrstianity. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

However, the only thing that distinguishes this Jesus from all the other historical men named Jesus in that time period, was that this particular Jesus is the central figure of the Christian religion.

Why don't we stick closer to the actual theory as proposed by the proponents themselves - "it is the view that no historical Jesus existed as presented in the New Testament or, if a historical Jesus did exist, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Wdford (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

No it's the claim of supernatural powers. And, no, and I do not agree RS say this. So a firm no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence is clear, and nuanced; 'Jesus didn't exist' is a simplification. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The CMT is actually that "the Jesus as presented in the New Testament didn't exist". Earl Doherty used the wording "that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed," and that "no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." Bart Ehrman, who is an RS, simplified Doherty's summary - and twisted it in the process. Obviously, the Jesus of the Bible stories became the central figure of the subsequent Christian religion because of claims about divinity - and supernatural powers. Nobody is claiming that the Christian religion does not exist. Wdford (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Joshua, can you please suggest possible changes? Wdford has suggested changes, even incorporating "New Testament" as suggested by Slatersteven. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

No. The intro consists of three sentences which form a whole, with a scholarly definition, and a definition taken from a proponent. That's balanced; no need to change this. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It's interesting that the scholarly definition is different to the definition taken from a proponent. And they don't even allow the proponents to define their own theory, and rather use a twisted version thereof. So two different inaccurate definitions. And also interesting that they try to obscure the fact that the myth definition is actually a range of different views. But this is considered to be "balanced". Wdford (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's my suggested first sentence, incorporating "New Testament" as suggested by Slatersteven, and making clear that at least part of CMT is that Jesus never existed: "Christ myth theory is the view that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or that the traditions and narratives about him depicted in the New Testament are predominantly mythical rather than historical." Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more accurate and clear to say: "Christ myth theory ranges from the view that the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament never existed at all, to the view that he may have existed but that many of the traditions and narratives about him as depicted in the New Testament are not historical." Wdford (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a very good suggestion. Looking forward to progress on this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua and Slatersteven in that no change is needed as the whole paragraph provides context as scholars and a proponent understand CMT. Doherty’s definition and his whole book never argue that a Jesus did exist. Even his definition clearly states “Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.” He clearly says it started with a mythical figure, not a historical figure who was mythologized. Ehrman correctly quotes and interprets Doherty, and even distances himself from Doherty (Ehrman believes in Bultmanns historical Jesus who was mythologized in some sense by the way). For Ehrman to distance himself shows there is a significant difference between his view and Doherty’s view. They are not the same. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you also against an RfC? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You have already made one right above this one. And you have opened a few section threads over the same matter. It starting to look like WP:FORUMSHOP, quite honestly. And they replied to you on Teahouse about WP:EDITORTIME. The simplest way for the first sentence, if there is a need for clarification, is just to say that 'CMT refers to fringe views centering on the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth' or something as flat as this. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Ramos, you mean something like this? "Christ myth theory ranges from the view that, while Jesus of Nazareth may have existed, many of the traditions and narratives about him as depicted in the New Testament are not historical to the fringe view that he never existed at all." Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not a definition; it's a description of contents. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I already quoted Doherty and Price. Neither argues for Jesus existing, they argue for the opposite. Here is more of Doherty “Virtually nothing about Jesus in the Gospels, John especially, has the ring of reality, of a distinctive flesh and blood person. He is simply a mouthpiece, a formula figure to embody a sect's message.”. One of his core points in Jesus Puzzle is "..Paul's Christ Jesus is an entirely supernatural figure, crucified in the lower heavens at the hands of demons." Other scholars like Eddy and Boyd observe the same "Scholars such as Wells, Doherty, and Price argue that Paul’s view of Jesus was not anything like the recent, contemporary Galilean figure we find in the Gospels. His view of Jesus—which is the earliest view we have-was rather that of a vague cosmic savior figure who existed in the unknown, distant past and/or the mythic spiritual realm." I would stick with the current article wording (they reflect the sources more accurately), over the WP:SYN that has so far been proposed. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Doherty has his own opinions, but his “definition” of the CMT also includes the views of those who believe differently to himself. This reality is being obscured here – as usual.

The lede is supposed to summarise the information of the article. In the article, it records that Wells accepted that the Jesus of the gospel stories was partly based on a historical figure, and that two Jesus narratives were fused together, namely Paul's mythical Jesus, and a historical Jesus from a Galilean preaching tradition, whose teachings were preserved in the Q source. This reality was included by Doherty, but is being obscured here.

In the article, it records that Price claims that the Jesus of the New Testament is a "composite figure" of a variety of historical Jesuses, some of them possibly based on myth, some of them possibly based on a historical "Jesus the Nazorean", and that the historical Jesus has become obscured behind the dogma. This reality was included by Doherty, but is being obscured here.

In the article, it records that Thompson stated specifically that he has never argued that Jesus had never existed, and reiterated his position that the issue of Jesus' existence cannot be determined one way or the other. This reality was included by Doherty, but is being obscured here.

On the other side, Vermes has written that Christianity lost sight of the real Jesus and that Paul, John and their churches replaced him by the otherworldy “Christ of faith." Ehrman wrote that “the Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time." This reality, once again, is being obscured here. How similar are Vermes and Ehrman to Wells and Price etc?

Accusations of WP:SYN are untrue, but sadly they are no longer unexpected. Wdford (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Ehrman, Vermes, and the later Wells (what you wrote on Wells is his view after he rejected mythciism in the 1990s - he was a mythicist prior to that) all believed in historical Jesus and they wrote about who he was (crucified, baptized, etc). Ehrman's survey in Did Jesus exist?, along with others like Casey, Van Voorst, Eddy and Boyd; clearly distinguish such views (that try to recover and restore the historical Jesus) from the views of CMT proponents (who never really argue for a historical Jesus - e.g. Doherty, Price, Thompson, who either make such explicit clams against the existence of any historical figure (already quoted) or just argue for historical nihilism "Vanishing point" stuff). The second sentence in the lead already captures what you seem to want from a RS - Ehrman "...is the view that "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Its already there, captures your range of CMT, its short and to the point. And if you read Ehrman, immediately right after this sentence, he elaborates on the the significant differences between CMT and his own view of an apocalyptic prophet. Ehrman clarifies that Albert Schweitzer's view is sometimes mistaken and quoted by CMT proponents and proceeds to clarify that even Schweitzer argued strongly against CMT in the second edition because to him Jesus was too historical! No scholar ever argues that Ehrman, Vermes etc are CMT proponents or that they espouse CMT views. Ehrman distinguishes mainstream "liberal views", from CMT views.

Initially, I thought your proposed wording (about NT Jesus) was not bad, but realized that CMT proponents do not limit their rejection to the New Testament Jesus, but reject Jesus as presented in Josephus, Tacitus, Church Fathers, etc as well. Even placing him in other times and places. Ehrman's quote in the second sentence sounds more accurate in light of this. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Wording like "predominantly mythical rather than historical" or "many of (...) are not historical" (my italics) is too ambiguous. How much is predominantly or many? If it would be a matter of quantity then quite quickly CMT would start overlapping with mainstream scholarly consensus. Which is not how CMT as a concept is used. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can you make a specific suggestion regarding the first (or first couple) sentences, then? Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)