` :::Ok, after doing a quick review of the sources, it seems the authors associated with the ``strong`` position are: :::* Robert M. Price :::* Earl Doherty :::* George Albert Wells :::Feel free to add more, if you can think of any.  From what I can tell, Doherty is not taken seriously even among other JMH proponents, and Price and Wells, while leaning toward the ``strong`` position, allow for the possibility of a historical Jesus figure of some sort; in fact, their positions on this have softened somewhat.  I really don't see how this can be construed as a serious intellectual movement, even a discredited one, as it doesn't really seem like many scholars have even put too much weight on the subject.  In fact, as I've said elsewhere, the most interesting aspects have to do with the mythological persona of Jesus, to which the fact of a literal historical person is almost entirely irrelevant.  As Burton Mack says:   :::If we want to render a cultural critique, it is the relationship of the Christ of the gospel to the cultures that pattern our social constructions that needs to be addressed.  Skirting the narrative gospels to get ``back`` to the historical Jesus will not work.  No reconstruction of the historical Jesus can account for the narrative gospel in the first place, or challenge the narrative gospels and the portrayal of Jesus they present in the popular imagination.  The current quest for the historical Jesus does not raise questions about the supposed reasons for the importance of the historical Jesus.  It does not raise questions about the effective difference Christianity makes as a social presence and cultural influence in our world.  It has not asked what it is about the Christian gospel and religion that is inappropriate, inadequate, troubling, or even dangerous as we face the social and cultural issues of our time.  New Testament scholars have not found a way to broach, much less discuss questions such as these in the public forum.  The quest for the historical Jesus actually avoids these questions.  It seeks, on the model of the Protestant reformation, to leap-frog over the ``wrongheaded`` myths and rituals of the Christian churches to land at the beginning where the pure, clean impulse of an uncontaminated Jesus can rectify and rejuvenate Christian faith.  That is mythic thinking with an apron-string attachment to Christian mentality.  It will not produce a scholarly account of Christian origins.  And it will not produce a rejuvenated (Christian) spirituality unbeholden to the gospel accounts.`` (Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy, pp. 39-40)   :::And that's a viewpoint that I think most every Bible-critical scholar - whether ``strong`` or ``weak`` on the JMH - would put at the forefront of their views, and would seek to emphasize over the relatively marginal debates about historicity.    `