The increasingly common view of Jesus among New Testament scholars as of 2007 is that “historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus” but “the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament”. Some scholars maintain there were several possible “Jesus” candidates with no indication of which of them (if any) is “the” historical Jesus. Ironically, based on some of the definitions provided, these could be said to qualify as Christ Myth Theory positions.
A small minority, past and present, believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories, representing an extreme in the other end of belief. It should be noted that at least one anthropology paper states in both its abstract and main text “there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived”. In June 2014, Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 1-909697-49-2 became “the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review”.
I think, at the very most, you could make the argument that there were several self-claimed, prophet-like figures doing the rounds at about the time that Jesus was supposedly stomping about and that later sources, none of whom can be considered primary and almost all of whom had a vested interest in misleading people concerning the historicity of the figure, attributed mythical properties to one, or more likely more than one, of the dim memories of those self-claimed prophets.
But to deal directly with your claim see the section of the rationalwiki:
