Definition per january 2019:
The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, [1] [q 1] is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". [2] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." [q 2]
Discussion: Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 30#Definition (january 2019)
Added/moved upward & copy-edited per 6-8 february 2022:
Views that "the historical Jesus did not exist" are rejected as fringe theories by virtually all scholars of antiquity. [q 3] [3] [4] [web 1]
Discussion: no discussion; no objetions raised diff
Added january 2019; copy-edited per consensus at talkpage february 2022:
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," [5] and was revived in the 1970s. Proponents broadly argue that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. [q 2] [q 4] Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." [q 5] A view closer to the mainstream position is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus. [6] [7] [q 6]
Discussion: Talk:Christ myth theory#Rejection of Paul's "Christ of faith" is not 'mythicism" (february 2022)
Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him.
The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin.
When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins.
The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all.
The radical solution was to deny the possibility of reliable knowledge of Jesus, and out of this developed the Christ myth theory, according to which Jesus never existed as an historical figure and the Christ of the Gospels was a social creation of a messianic community.
This view 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,...
In particular these rationalist organisations helped to promulgate the quasi-dogma of the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and thus to foster the 'Christ-myth' school of thought, to be encountered later in this study.
The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ- myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory.
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.
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,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era.
Defence of biblical criticism was not helped by revival at this time of the 'Christ-myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare.
Scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G. A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually — perhaps entirely — fictional in nature (i.e., “legendary” as we are using the term). Indeed, it might be more accurate to refer to this position as the mythic-Jesus thesis rather than the legendary-Jesus thesis inasmuch as in common parlance “myth” tends to connote a story that is without any historical foundation, while “legend” tends to connote a fititious story that revolves around an ostensibly historical figure. In any event, this view holds that we have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus. Some scholars we could include in this category, such as Robert Price, would back of this thesis slightly and argue that we simply lack suffient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed. Here, a sort of “Jesus agnosticism” emerges.
"[Per] Jesus mythicism, Earl Doherty, defines the view as follows: it 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." [Earl Doherty (2009), Jesus: Neither God nor Man: The Case for a mythical Jesus (Ottawa, ON: Age of Reason Publications), vii–viii.] In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.
The basic theory comes in two varieties, the strongest of which suggests that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical person but was an invention of early Christian writers to serve as a vehicle for Christian teachings. The more modeerate version of the theory holds that Christ did exist in Galilee during the early Christian period, but that stories of his life may be a composite of several different individuals.
I do not doubt the existence of a real Jesus, but I adopt the view that the representation of this figure in the gospels is not historical but mythological. This has caused some to draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of theology. We know little about the former, but I concur with Jung that "this Christ of St. Paul's would hardly have been possible without the historical Jesus.
My reading of Jesus is not to be confused with the tradition known as the "Christ Myth Theory."
...there is a vast difference between rejecting the historical nature of the gospels and denying Jesus' existence. One can say that the gospel stories of Jesus are "mythic" while at the same time believing that Jesus existed as a first-century Jew. One simply must acknowledge that the Jesus whom early Christians remembered and described in the gospels was already a figure creatively imagined by Christians as someone more than human - and in that sense mythicized.
But mythicists say more. Not only was Jesus constructed in particular ways by early Christians, he actually did not exist or - by exerting no influence - functionally did not exist.
Definition per january 2019:
The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, [1] [q 1] is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". [2] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." [q 2]
Discussion: Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 30#Definition (january 2019)
Added/moved upward & copy-edited per 6-8 february 2022:
Views that "the historical Jesus did not exist" are rejected as fringe theories by virtually all scholars of antiquity. [q 3] [3] [4] [web 1]
Discussion: no discussion; no objetions raised diff
Added january 2019; copy-edited per consensus at talkpage february 2022:
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," [5] and was revived in the 1970s. Proponents broadly argue that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. [q 2] [q 4] Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." [q 5] A view closer to the mainstream position is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus. [6] [7] [q 6]
Discussion: Talk:Christ myth theory#Rejection of Paul's "Christ of faith" is not 'mythicism" (february 2022)
Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him.
The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin.
When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins.
The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all.
The radical solution was to deny the possibility of reliable knowledge of Jesus, and out of this developed the Christ myth theory, according to which Jesus never existed as an historical figure and the Christ of the Gospels was a social creation of a messianic community.
This view 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,...
In particular these rationalist organisations helped to promulgate the quasi-dogma of the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and thus to foster the 'Christ-myth' school of thought, to be encountered later in this study.
The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ- myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory.
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.
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,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era.
Defence of biblical criticism was not helped by revival at this time of the 'Christ-myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare.
Scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G. A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually — perhaps entirely — fictional in nature (i.e., “legendary” as we are using the term). Indeed, it might be more accurate to refer to this position as the mythic-Jesus thesis rather than the legendary-Jesus thesis inasmuch as in common parlance “myth” tends to connote a story that is without any historical foundation, while “legend” tends to connote a fititious story that revolves around an ostensibly historical figure. In any event, this view holds that we have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus. Some scholars we could include in this category, such as Robert Price, would back of this thesis slightly and argue that we simply lack suffient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed. Here, a sort of “Jesus agnosticism” emerges.
"[Per] Jesus mythicism, Earl Doherty, defines the view as follows: it 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." [Earl Doherty (2009), Jesus: Neither God nor Man: The Case for a mythical Jesus (Ottawa, ON: Age of Reason Publications), vii–viii.] In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.
The basic theory comes in two varieties, the strongest of which suggests that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical person but was an invention of early Christian writers to serve as a vehicle for Christian teachings. The more modeerate version of the theory holds that Christ did exist in Galilee during the early Christian period, but that stories of his life may be a composite of several different individuals.
I do not doubt the existence of a real Jesus, but I adopt the view that the representation of this figure in the gospels is not historical but mythological. This has caused some to draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of theology. We know little about the former, but I concur with Jung that "this Christ of St. Paul's would hardly have been possible without the historical Jesus.
My reading of Jesus is not to be confused with the tradition known as the "Christ Myth Theory."
...there is a vast difference between rejecting the historical nature of the gospels and denying Jesus' existence. One can say that the gospel stories of Jesus are "mythic" while at the same time believing that Jesus existed as a first-century Jew. One simply must acknowledge that the Jesus whom early Christians remembered and described in the gospels was already a figure creatively imagined by Christians as someone more than human - and in that sense mythicized.
But mythicists say more. Not only was Jesus constructed in particular ways by early Christians, he actually did not exist or - by exerting no influence - functionally did not exist.