Christ myth theory

[T]here have always been scholars who either wondered whether or positively doubted that Jesus of Nazareth, the man toward whom Christ-following orients itself, actually existed. Such doubts and propositions are all welcome in historical research, along with every other hypothesis about the nature (thoughts, intentions, actions, teaching) of this Jesus, if he did exist.... History is not religion, and its practitioners cannot be preachers, advocates, or polemicists. While Christ myth theory and Jesus myth theory are used as synonyms, they don't really have the same meaning.

One of the biggest problems with the "Christ myth" is what it actually means is all over the freaking map largely because Volney and Dupuis had different views regarding the Christ myth, which resulted in a large range of ideas being called "Jesus myth theory", "Christ myth theory", or "Ahistorical Jesus" (including ones that accept Jesus existed as a human being). Alternatively, Neil Godfrey gives the following definition:

Which echoes the 1909 definition given by

Modern origins
Discounting the idea that docetism is part of the Christ myth, the concept goes back to the 1790s with the ideas of and of.

However, Volney and Dupuis did not agree on a definition of the Christ myth. Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account, which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths. Volney, on the other hand, allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated in a mythology that compiled organically. So from nearly the get-go, the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought:
 * 1) There was no human being behind the person portrayed in the New Testament.
 * 2) Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology.

For the most part, the no human being behind the New Testament version is presented as the Christ myth theory, ignoring Volney's confused memories of an obscure historical figure version.

In fact, as the John Frum cargo cult shows, even in as short a time as some 11 years after a message starts being noticed by unbelievers, the question of the founder being an actual person or a renamed existing deity is already unclear, and in a few more years, the oral tradition has forgotten the possible human founder (illiterate native named Manehivi who caused trouble using that name from 1940 to 1941 and was exiled from his island as a result) and replaced him with a version (literate white US serviceman who appeared to the village elders in a vision on February 15, late 1930s) better suited to the cult.

Academic criticism of the Christ myth
Strauss arrived at a Christianity depersonalized and anonymous, reducing Jesus to nothing more than a gifted genius whom legend had gradually deified. In this account, the Christian faith could be explained without reference to the Jesus of history. Strauss in this way firmly stayed on the side of the negative critique. He did not arrive at a historical core of the life of Jesus… Arguably every modern biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the god called Lord Jesus Christ, holds that Christ is a myth, and per said myth: historicists argue that Jesus Bar-Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage and biblicists argue that the literary named Jesus, of the gospel series (a genre of ) was based on a real historical person.

The academic criticism of Christian dogma in the belief of Jesus' immortality and incarnation is commonly held to originate in 1835 with In 1941,  promoted the abstraction of the Christ myth by

It makes as much sense to call Strauss (who denied the fantastical assertion of a Christ's existence, i.e. the fictional lord of the Christian church) a "Christ mythicist"… as it does to call someone a "Unicorn mythicist" for denying that Unicorns exist. A 1910 syndicated news report noted "the mythical theory of Strauss".

Meanings of "Christ myth theory"
[W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about.
 * Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community. (Effectively Dupuis' position)
 * The Christ myth may be a form of modern docetism.
 * Jesus agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it, including the very existence of the Jesus described, can be shown to be historical or not historical.
 * Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings, possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name", being added later. (Effectively Volney's position)
 * The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.
 * Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.
 * The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price and Eddy-Boyd, while Richard Carrier has used them as examples of an ahistorical Jesus.
 * Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." A Jesus who died of old age, only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups, or was killed outside the 26-36 CE reign of Pontius Pilate would fit under this version.
 * The Christ myth is "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. For Ehrman a Jesus who existed but didn't found Christianity would be a "mythical" Jesus. (This would make Remsburg's position "mythic" even though he accepted Jesus existed as a human being because Remsburg believed Jesus preached a form of Judaism which was turned into Christianity by his followers.  It would also make Isræl Knohl's Jesus who used ideas and the followers from a previous 1st BCE messiah "mythical".)
 * "This view [Christ Myth theory] states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." Remsburg held to the idea that Jesus the man existed (in some manner) but the various accounts that survive tell us nothing truly historical about that person.  There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" -- George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few.  King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories, as told, are almost certainly fictional in nature.
 * Christ myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."
 * Jesus actually existed "but had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" In other words Jesus either took over an already existing Christian movement or his movement was turned into Christianity after he died.  Michael O. Wise, points to a messiah in 72 BCE while Israel Knohl points to a messiah who died 4 BCE who could have left movements in their wake that Jesus directed into what became Christianity by the 2nd century.

has argued that he would prefer his ahistoricity position to be called ‘New Testament Minimalism’, stressing, as he sees it, the continuity with an approach found in the Hebrew Bible scholarship of, and others.

What has been branded “ by its critics is actually a methodology, an approach to the evidence: primary, secondary, archaeological, biblical. Minimalism is in fact the conclusion derived from following that methodology. In short, this methodology is the study of a region or era by applying normative methods to the primary archaeological evidence and only then interpreting biblical literature in the light of that primary evidence. The alternative “maximalism”, in short, reverses this process and starts with the assumption of the historicity of the biblical narrative (post demythologization), and then interprets the archaeological evidence through that narrative.

The “minimalism”/“maximalism” viewpoints is an example of a complete reversal of the consensus over a twenty-year-plus time period. Many of the attacks made against “minimalism” then are similarly made now against "mythicism".

Per Thompson, "The proper question [of the historicity of Jesus] is rather a largely literary question than an historical one. Until we have texts, which bear evidence of his historicity, we can not do much more with that issue. We can and must, however, ask what the texts mean—as well as ask what they mean if they are not historical (a minimalist question)."

Etymology
The original meaning of "Christ mythicist", was someone who like David Strauss asserted that the historicity of second-god was false. But in the modern era, it has now evolved to mean someone who believes in the literal truth of the myth of second-god as set out in the epistles and gospels of the New Testament.

The historicity of second-god was held to be true under pain of death for much of the earlier history of the Christian world and during much of the latter it would likely affect ones career prospects to assert that it was not true. In the modern era the historicity of second-god is false; is now the majority opinion of most secular scholars, yet there is a quixotic passion among some to continue using the term "Christ myth theory".

Arguably the Jesus ahistoricity theory should be the antithesis of the Jesus historicity theory. But no historicity defense (peer reviewed; published in a respected academic press; etc.) enumerating the historicity theory and defense is currently available.

In current mainstream secular and non-secular (i.e. devotees of Jesus) scholarship on the question of the historicity of Jesus: But
 * A historical Jesus is a possible solution.
 * A mythical Jesus (perhaps even as a "Noble Lie") is a possible solution.
 * A fictional Jesus is irrational and not a possible solution.

Meaning of fiction
In the "Jesus: Fact or Fiction?" debate between Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin, Price states that "there are four senses in which Jesus Christ may be said to be a fiction":


 * 1) "The central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual", i.e. the Jesus of the Gospels is little more than "a  of theologians, a symbolic 'Uncle Sam' figure."
 * 2) "The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him" to the point that "even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more."
 * 3) "Jesus as the personal savior, with whom people claim, as I used to, to have a 'personal relationship' is in the nature of the case a fiction, essentially a psychological projection, an 'imaginary playmate.'"
 * 4) "Christ is a fiction in that Christ functions, in an unnoticed and equivocal way, as shorthand for a vast system of beliefs and institutions on whose behalf he is invoked."

Again many apologists either forget or ignore the more moderate definitions in favor of those that turn the Jesus Myth theory into a strawman.

Arthur Drews
In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. [...] If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness.

John M. Robertson
"[John] Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs" (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.
 * 1) The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.
 * 2) An historical Jesus may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and thereby met his death" ; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts.
 * 3) Or a Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation may have been slain as a human sacrifice at some time of social tumult; and his story may have got mixed up with the myth.
 * 4) The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

John Remsburg (Remsberg)
John Resmburg's 1909 The Christ has a list of 42 historians during or shortly after the supposed times of Jesus who should have, but did not record anything about Jesus, his apostles, or any supposed acts that we find only in the Bible making him a popular source for armchair Christ Mythers generally in the Jesus didn't exist as a human being vein. The problem is that is not what Resmburg was doing:

Resmburg's work was to show the total disconnect between the records we have and a possible human Jesus; it did not support the idea Jesus didn't exist as a human being.

G. A. Wells
Wells accepted that there was a 1st century Jesus in both Jesus Myth (1996) and Jesus Legend (1999) — yet these books were labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis, defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually — perhaps entirely — fictional in nature" (sic) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 The Jesus Legend Baker Academic on pp. 24.

Other people on both sides of the issue have similarly labeled these books as Christ myth books:
 * 1) "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book The Jesus Myth by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists."
 * 2) "Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus...
 * 3) "In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A Wells; the most recent is the Jesus Legend (1996)".

Based on his 2014 book, Carrier uses "ahistoricity" (i.e. not Christ myth, but not historical either) to classify G.A. Wells work.

Books by contemporary scholars defending ahistoricity:
 * George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988)
 * Who Was Jesus? (1989)
 * The Jesus Legend (1993)
 * The Jesus Myth (1998)
 * Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)
 * Did Jesus Even Exist? (2006)

Wells himself in his The Jesus Legend stated "[In Did Jesus Exist] I agued that Paul sincerely believed that the evidence (not restricted to the Wisdom Literature) pointed to a historical Jesus who had lived well before his own day; and I leave open the question as to whether such a person had in fact existed and lived the obscure live that Paul supposed of him. (There is no means of deciding this issue.)

This sampling over the course of 100 years shows the problem with defining the terms "mythist" and "Christ Myth theory"--the terms have been used with people that had accepted the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus in the 1st century, but did not accept the Gospels as an accurate description of the life of that man as well as those who say there is no flesh and blood Jesus to be found.