但後來發現, 原來Bart Ehrman都唔係無的放矢, 因為近年網上興起有Jesus mythicism, 愈來愈多人倡議耶穌並不存在. 老實講, 呢個話題冇乜特別秘密, 大家都掌握同樣的資訊, 差別在於如何運用常識同歷史研究的方法去解讀這些資訊, 係methodology的問題. 我本人係唔能夠理解Jesus mythicism的, 就正如我唔能夠理解點解有人會話耶穌係一種迷幻磨菇一樣, 理論上係可以咁倡議, 甚至乎可以好似John Allegro咁寫本書嚟談論, 不過我係唔能夠理解的. 最近喺網上見到Butler University的James F. McGrath寫咗一段文字, 就係我心裡對Jesus mythicism的想法, 歷史研究唔係護教學, 唔係要去"搵"證據支持一個自己想支持的論點, 而係觀察現有的資訊, 找出最能夠暢順解釋所有資料的scenario:
[Y]ou've just illustrated one of the key similarities between young-earth creationism and Jesus mythicism. Both think that simply by showing that an alternative scenario is possible, they have refuted mainstream scholarship. But no historian will deny that the existence of Jesus, like everything else in history, cannot be determined with absolute certainty. The question is what is more likely, and when placed in those terms, there can be no serious doubt that some sort of historical figure of Jesus (however obscured by myth) and some form of biological evolution have the weight of evidence and theory in their favor. The biggest challenge for mythicism is that it has yet to find a proponent who offers not only challenges to specific arguments by mainstream historians, but presents a scenario for the creation of a purely mythical Jesus as well as the New Testament Gospels and other writings, a scenario that is not only possible but more persuasive than ones involving an actual Jesus.