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.

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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).
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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?”
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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).
20. 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.”
21. 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).
22. 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.”
23. 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.”
24. 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.
25. 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).
26. 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.
27. 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).
28. 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.
29. 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.”
30. 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.
31. 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).
32. 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.”
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.”
36. 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.
37. 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.”
38. 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.”
39. 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.”
40. 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.)
41. 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).
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.”
45. Nina Livesey. Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Oklahoma with a PhD in the same from SMU Dallas, specializing in Pauline literature, with many publications thereon. She has published a Cambridge study questioning the historicity of Paul, though remains a Jesus historicist; but she does not regard doubting Jesus to be ridiculous, agreeing that it warrants inquiry.
46. C.J. Cornthwaite. Host of Footnote Famous with a PhD in Christian Origins from the Toronto School of Theology. He’s not convinced of mythicism but does think it’s a theory worth considering and not dismissing out of hand (and that’s even without yet having read any of the peer reviewed studies finding for doubt).
47. Luzia Sutter Rehmann. Professor of Theology at the University of Basel, with a doctorate in same from the University of Kassel, with over a hundred publications in New Testament history, admitted her doubts in a 24 December 2024 episode of WDR Zeitzeichen, “Jesus von Nazareth: Fakten, Mythen und eine Frage des Glaubens,” in minute 13, where she says “I’m not sure if Jesus lived” (Ich bin nicht sicher, ob Jesus gelebt hat), “There might have been someone,” (Es könnte jemanden gegeben haben), “but perhaps also several, perhaps many, from whom this image was then woven into the Gospels.”
48. Radosław Czarnecki. PhD in religious studies from the University of Wrocław and member of the Polish Society for the Study of Religions (Polskiego Towarzystwa Religioznawczego), with publications in Polish magazines and journals. Endorses at least the plausibility of Polish rationalist Grzegorz Roman’s view that Jesus is “a non-historical figure” (3:34), at most “a composite figure, a synthesis of two—or perhaps several, even a dozen or so—individuals” (34:30) and therefore “the very demand to prove the existence of this Jesus as a historical figure is, in itself, nonsensical” (25:15).

Which makes forty-eight 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 alive as of 2014 are to be listed here. But already at nearly fifty, that’s quite a large number to be doubting the consensus in a niche (and highly faith-biased) subfield.

-:-

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