The Christ myth theory is rejected by mainstream scholarship as fringe:

James D. G. Dunn (1974) Paul’s understanding of the death of Jesus in Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Robert Banks, ed., Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, pp. 125–141, citing G. A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians (1971)): “Perhaps we should also mention that at the other end of the spectrum Paul’s apparent lack of knowledge of the historical Jesus has been made the major plank in an attempt to revive the nevertheless thoroughly dead thesis that the Jesus of the Gospels was a mythical figure.” An almost identical quotation is included in Dunn, James DG (1998) The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D.G. Dunn, Volume 1, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., p. 191, and Sykes, S. (1991) Sacrifice and redemption: Durham essays in theology. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36.

Grant (1977, p. 200) Classicist-numismatist Michael Grant stated in 1977: “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars’. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’, or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

Weaver (1999, pp. 71): Walter Weaver, scholar of philosophy and religion: “The denial of Jesus’ historicity has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles, nor did it in the first part of the century.”

Robert E. Van Voorst, New testament scholar:

Van Voorst (2000, p. 16), referring to G. A. Wells: “The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.”

Van Voorst (2003, p. 658): “debate on the existence of Jesus has been in the fringes of scholarship…for more than two centuries.”

Van Voorst (2003, p. 660): “Among New Testament scholars and historians, the theory of Jesus’ nonexistence remains effectively dead as a scholarly question.”

Tuckett (2001, pp. 123–124): “[F]arfetched theories that Jesus’ existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible.”

Burridge & Gould (2004, p. 34): “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.”

Wells (2007, p. 446) G. A. Wells, mythicist admitted “by around 1920 nearly all scholars had come to regard the case against Jesus’s historicity as totally discredited”

Price (2010, p. 200) Robert M. Price, former apologist and prominent mythicist, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars to the point that they “dismiss Christ Myth theory as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings.”

Johnson (2011, p. 4) Paul Johnson, a popular historian: “His life has been written more often than that of any other human being, with infinite variations of detail, employing vast resources of scholarship, and often controversially, not to say acrimoniously. Scholarship, like everything else, is subject to fashion, and it was the fashion, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for some to deny that Jesus existed. No serious scholar holds that view now, and it is hard to see how it ever took hold, for the evidence of Jesus’s existence is abundant.”

Martin (2014, p. 285) Michael Martin, skeptic philosopher of religion: “Some skeptics have maintained that the best account of biblical and historical evidence is the theory that Jesus never existed; that is, that Jesus’ existence is a myth (Wells 1999). Such a view is controversial and not widely held even by anti-Christian thinkers.”

Casey (2014, p. 243) Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that “the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications.”

Gray (2016, p. 113–114) Patrick Gray, religious studies scholar, “Christian and non-Christian scholars alike now almost universally reject the “Christ myth” hypothesis. That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty. [Note 4:] Although it remains a fringe phenomenon, familiarity with the Christ myth theory has become much more widespread among the general public with the advent of the Internet.”

Gullotta (2017, pp. 312, 314), historian of religion: “Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles.” “In short, the majority of mythicist literature is composed of wild theories, which are poorly researched, historically inaccurate, and written with a sensationalist bent for popular audiences.”

Hurtado (2017) Larry Hurtado, Christian origins scholar: “The “mythical Jesus” view doesn’t have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the “mythical Jesus” may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of “mythical Jesus” claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly).”

Marina (2022) Marko Marina, ancient historian: states that Richard Carrier’s mythicist views have not won any supporters from critical scholars or the academic community and that mythicist theory remains as fringe