`:::::::: Right, but if Wells sees Paul's Jesus as a myth that borrowed elements from the historical Galilean preacher, is that really a historical Jesus theory? Wells, in contrast to Burton Mack, seems to insist on these figures not being linked, but surely this link is crucially important if we are to talk about the historical man behind the central figure of Christianity. I would therefore conclude that this article could safely say that the Christ myth theory is the same as the non-historicity thesis, because the real complications seems to lie in how one defines non-historicity, i.e., what one really means when saying ``Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person``. I this light, Van Voorst clearly has every right to say Wells accepts a historical Jesus, but there are just as good reasons to say Wells is still a myth-theorist. The point is that (whatever you call the theory) the non-historicity claim is not entirely unambiguous.     `