I’ve noticed that people are citing various individuals as “leading experts” in the field of mythicism, when they truly are not. On the contrary, most are ignorant of the massive body of mythicist literature dating back hundreds of years. Therefore, they should not be touted as “experts,” as this assessment is misleading as to what mythicism is really about.

As far as I know, of the prominent people writing in English in the field of questioning whether or not Jesus is a mythical figure, only Zindler, Price and I are experts on the mythicist literature itself and therefore its history.

Earl Doherty, Ken Humphreys, Raphael Lataster and Christian Lindtner also have a good grasp on it, although I do not believe they (or Price) have studied it as extensively as Zindler and I have. We seem to be a dying breed, to be replaced by those who simply doubt but who are not experts on this literature and in this field specifically.

I should add that there are many relative unknowns who are MUCH more knowledgeable about the field of mythicism than several individuals in the public eye.

These would include people on my forum such as Freethinkaluva, Robert Tulip, Tat and GodAlmighty. Miguel Conner also is much more of an expert in the mythicist literature than these others in question. I think it does a great disservice to these individuals who have put in the hard work and long hours to become familiarized with this massive body of literature in multiple languages to give such credibility and place of honor to these other individuals.

Please see, for example, FTL’s work here:


Simply questioning whether Jesus existed or is mythical figure does not make one an “expert in mythicism.” That sort of false association is akin to saying that someone with an interest in brain surgery is a brain surgeon.