But he goes on to say its arguments are “pretty silly” and that it is “overwhelmingly” unlikely. So I have to account this as not really taking mythicism seriously.

Kipp Davis has said the same thing, albeit disingenuously, but for the same reason: they are confusing “logical certainty” with “empirical certainty,” correctly disavowing the former (which I am sure you could even press Bart Ehrman to do) in order to defend the latter. They would thus say this of every historical fact. It’s therefore not a meaningful statement here. Because that is not the same thing as saying it is plausible to doubt historicity.

Heh heh, alas yes.

That is indeed astonishing. But, alas, he lacks the qualifications required for the above list.

However, Keith Olbermann would not be high on my list of random media figures to say this this sort of thing in public.

(It’s only about 20 seconds.)
https://youtu.be/JatnjLQej78?si=ADOa-Wfim2RpHTFO&t=1380

Of course, he’s a professional contrarian who may be basing his opinion on the crankest of arguments – and he no longer has an on-screen career to preserve – but I still find it quite surprising in the current culture.

Are you aware of any other public figures who have even dared to say something like this?

Thank you. I was familiar. And she appears to be updating her list, as I see new entries there.

Overall, it is “too complete” for my list—as in, it includes amateur and crank stuff, and things too old to qualify.

My list is specifically only of “bona fide experts—scholars with actual and relevant PhDs (many even sitting or emeritus professors) alive as of 2014.” Because only that is relevant to the view of the field today. I also document each statement of agreement that mythicism is plausible. Hansen is not doing that, either.

What would be very useful to me is this:

Start with the list beginning with “Allegro, John Marco” (Hansen annoyingly provided no page numbers, but if you PDF her document, you will find this list starts on page 16), look up the listed literature, and get me an actual quote and page number for any explicit statement that mythicism is at least plausible or to be taken seriously. Only that can merit inclusion on my list.

Obviously, skip everyone I already list; and skip anyone published before the 21st century (so, for example, don’t bother with Allegro); and of who remains, first confirm they have some relevant PhD (for example, Allegro fails to meet that criterion as well).

Then, find the work listed, and follow Hansen’s breadcrumb to pull a relevant quote from it, if there actually is one.

And do that all the way to the end of that list (at “Zhang, Wenjian,” whose work is too old to qualify, and whose credentials I cannot even discern). Her ensuing sections (3.2 and 3.3) can be skipped (everyone on it is either not qualified or already on my list).

With that data, I can update my list.

As I find time, I might work the list this way myself, but my initial impression is that most of her entries won’t make my list, so it is not a high priority for me. But I welcome anyone who puts the time in to check any of it for me themselves.

https://www.academia.edu/122552862/THE_CHRIST_MYTH_THEORY_A_Bibliography_from_1970_to_the_Present

Thank you for the notice. But Onfrey doesn’t qualify for this list. It only contains “all those bona fide exerts—scholars with actual and relevant PhDs,” and a mere degree in philosophy doesn’t count for that. This is the same reason, as I also note in the list, that “I do not list [Nanine] Charbonnel” either. But it’s still useful to know about them. Among philosophers one could also include Stephen Law, for example, as taking mythicism seriously. And there are others.

I haven’t checked Robin Faith Walsh’s exact words in each case, but by report she’s been asked that in interviews, and remains diplomatically vague as to my thesis but leans toward historicity, albeit without overconfident bombast. She’s avoided saying anything clear enough to warrant listing her here. But if you find any statement from her that would, do let me know.