Pakeha and Ian,
I think there's a bit of confusion, probably caused by me not being very clear on something.
The point about the physical finding of a Jesus is that it would be harder to handle than not finding a body, but not impossible.
It would present new issues that would require address (which I'm certain would be done), whereas never finding a body requires zero work as that is already the current condition.
The only way that a physical find would not require more work in justification than not finding any physical body would be if the remains were really out of place in their condition or contained some other really important "unearthly" characteristic that made it quite obvious that this wasn't a normal set of human bones.
It is not that it would plow the religion into non-existence, but that it would be more challenging than the current state as it would require address where non is required today.
Keep in mind that the original reason for this tangent was that I was remarking on the problems and humor of physically finding such a figure for:
a: 'no one' (group) really wants a "real" Jesus; the various groupings just want their 'solution'.
b: anything we find would only cause obstacle to the religion, not pave open some 'easy-button' road.
The first archaeologist who ever thinks they found Jesus somewhere will have all of my pity, for they would soon be socially slaughtered in a number of ways.
Ian,
Regarding David.
We have two pieces of archaeological evidence supporting David's existence. Both refer to the 'house of David', neither elaborates anything more than just that phrase, and we have no archaeological evidence of any kingdom being present during the time in question.
If there was a real David who was a King, then that figure was quite extensively inferior to the Biblical legend by several calibers; they would at most be something around a tribal leader and not a King of some grand nation since no such nation or kingdom has been found to exist anywhere in the Levant area matching the period and Hebraic culture.
However, more to the point, David isn't really a comparison to Jesus.
Job? Somewhat.
The book of Daniel? A bit, in regards to the apocalyptic tangents.
But David or Solomon? No; quite different figures and stories than that being told of the Jesus figure.
Pakeha,
This is, I think, a legitimate way to see the Jesus narratives, as being very much a literary product of the Roman Empire post70.
That is a very strong possibility.
One riddle that I like to work on is where these texts come from, and who came up with them (culturally speaking).
We really don't have that answer, oddly, and no one really spends time trying to figure it out.
Most just start with some axiom that they were Hebrew works, or they are Greek copies of Hebrew works, or they are a mix of both with Hellenistic add-on's, and call it done.
I don't think that suffices. "Hellenistic" is a very large mass of differing cultures, as well as Hebrew post-diaspora is very different from pre-diaspora.
My current inquiry is working through examining what constructs are similar, and where were those constructs popular (this is following the textual dispersion considerations that I previously posted about, where I look for how would these tales travel if a starting point of Judah is our axiom, based on the known cultures who have sympathy with which texts of the gospel sets).
To that end, I am slowly moving over the Mediterranean and looking for which regions valued Job, Daniel and Zoroastrianism (or put another way; where were Romanized Jews mixed with "gentiles" densely, and do those pockets show favor of the three traditions, and do those pockets favor any of the structures of the gospel texts)?
One area that has the most of my interest in this, so far, is Asia Minor.
They are uniquely positioned for mixing these variables, but some problems do exist with starting there so I am not satisfied quite yet on their culture's placement quite yet (though there is definately something interesting about how close that region is by proxy to a: Judea, b: Tarsus, and considering the regions rich history of religious hysteria and cultural mixing and matching - one of the largest theaters in the Roman empire existed here and was frequently used for ritual showcases).
As to Hagiography.
I'm not certain if that is the case or not.
It might be possible, but that does lean more toward there being a Jesus physically existent than not (which I don't think can be claimed well enough to use as an axiom), whereas the first order to me is to recognize that a new literary form is being presented as a whole - not in part, or in compilation dispersed in a bunch of other texts, but that as a whole, this was a new form; which is rather clear.
It is definitely mixed and related to other literary forms, as should be expected, but it is distinctly a style and form unto itself.
