What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Beelzebuddy]

What does the historicity of Jesus have to do with whether or not there is any god?

You might try asking the people who keep using the historicity of Jesus as evidence that there is a god. It's not an uncommon argument for this type to vacillate between "if we strip away some (all) of the narrative details of the New Testament, we're left with something that might plausibly have happened" and "since we know Jesus existed, some (all) of the narrative details must also have happened as written."

It's a bit like someone arguing that Camelot, Galahad and Modred all existed because you can't prove that King Arthur wasn't some thug in Wales.

Now about this time you're going to protest that you're saying nothing of the kind, and that it's a strawman to accuse you of it. That's completely correct, you're not, but you are enabling that kind of wooly thinking. Despite the fact that this thread has brought up a wide spectrum of possibilities, from deliberate mythological conspiracy to spliced-together legends of many people's actions, most of the argument is still presenting it as a dichotomy. Either Jesus the Christ existed, in any form, or He did not.

Given that dichotomy, Hans is arguing for a mythological Jesus, principally because (correct me if I'm wrong here) even if a real person or persons did form the heart of the Jesus narrative, we know enough about the circumstances to conclude they wouldn't resemble Lil' J in any way, shape or form. The historical facts of his birth, travels and death could not have been written by anyone alive in that area at the time. His deeds either didn't happen, or weren't notable enough for the scrupulous record keepers of the period to make a note of. His theology had been mashed together sometime between Paul and Nicaea, from shards of wildly different cults with no common theological base.

What we know of as "Jesus" is a thick shroud of sermonizing, myths, and post-hoc validations of OT prophecy, completely masking out whoever or whatever is underneath. Whoever it is you want to put forth as historical, he will in no way have been the Christ.

 

[Craig B]

@Beelzebuddy

I quite like your post, but it doesn't answer the specific question you undertook to address: what does the historicity of Jesus have to do with the existence of God? Others, you correctly assert, infer that because some sort of Jesus existed, then God must exist. You deny the existence of Jesus. Then what if anything does that say about the existence of God?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I quite like your post, but it doesn't answer the specific question you undertook to address: what does the historicity of Jesus have to do with the existence of God?

I don't think it has anything to do with it. But it's misleading to paint it as a totally secular question, as eight bits has, because plenty of people think it has everything to do with it.

 

[eight bits]

You might try asking the people who keep using the historicity of Jesus as evidence that there is a god.

I've heard arguments based on the alleged non-historical aspects of Jesus' career mentioned as bearing on the existence of his God or himself being divine in his own right. These arguments depend on Jesus being a historical figure, but also depend on other propositions, which aren't historical in character, being true as well.

I suppose someone could say that a historical Jesus who wasn't God incarnate or the prophet of Allah wouldn't "count." These aren't historical attributes, though, so I think it would be an unwieldy criterion for "historical person who counts."

"if we strip away some (all) of the narrative details of the New Testament, we're left with something that might plausibly have happened" and "since we know Jesus existed, some (all) of the narrative details must also have happened as written."

Yes, but that has the obvious counterargument in opposition to a Christian opponent that Peter and Paul are both said to do the same kinds of things as Jesus is said to have done, and Jesus' mother is professed by a majority of Christians to have risen from the dead (or to have avoided death entirely) and ascended to heaven. So, treatng similar cases similarly, we conclude that Peter, Paul and Mary are God, too.

The defeater for that conclusion is to argue some difference among the cases, and that difference is outside the scope of historical inquiry.

Now about this time you're going to protest that you're saying nothing of the kind, and that it's a strawman to accuse you of it...

Other people's wooly thoughts about a possible historical Jesus aren't my problem, nor the problem posed to the community in the thread. People think wooly thoughts about all sorts of characters, real and imagined. That has nothing to do with which characters are real.

Retrospective mythologizing is possible for any real person, because myths are constructed from the archetypal components of the template biography that we all share. Any biography at all can be "spun." Knowing that somebody spun their favorite hero's story is uninformative about whether the hero actually lived.

But it's misleading to paint it as a totally secular question, as eight bits has, because plenty of people think it has everything to do with it.

"Misleading?"

I have never disputed that the "historical and counting" aspect of the OP question turns on interest in Jesus as a religious figure. In my 10-fold list (post 1221), seven of the ten proposed points concern him participating in religious activities or figuring in the religious teaching of others who survived him.

It may be helpful to recall that about a third of the living people whose religious commitments depend on a historical Jesus are Muslims who believe that Jesus was a religious teacher, and not in any way divine nor raised from the dead. A Jesus who arguably fit the religiously motivated and historically decidable expectations of about a billion people would, in my opinion, "count."

 

[maximara]

I've heard arguments based on the alleged non-historical aspects of Jesus' career mentioned as bearing on the existence of his God or himself being divine in his own right. These arguments depend on Jesus being a historical figure, but also depend on other propositions, which aren't historical in character, being true as well.

I suppose someone could say that a historical Jesus who wasn't God incarnate or the prophet of Allah wouldn't "count." These aren't historical attributes, though, so I think it would be an unwieldy criterion for "historical person who counts."



Yes, but that has the obvious counterargument in opposition to a Christian opponent that Peter and Paul are both said to do the same kinds of things as Jesus is said to have done, and Jesus' mother is professed by a majority of Christians to have risen from the dead (or to have avoided death entirely) and ascended to heaven. So, treatng similar cases similarly, we conclude that Peter, Paul and Mary are God, too.

The defeater for that conclusion is to argue some difference among the cases, and that difference is outside the scope of historical inquiry.



Other people's wooly thoughts about a possible historical Jesus aren't my problem, nor the problem posed to the community in the thread. People think wooly thoughts about all sorts of characters, real and imagined. That has nothing to do with which characters are real.

Retrospective mythologizing is possible for any real person, because myths are constructed from the archetypal components of the template biography that we all share. Any biography at all can be "spun." Knowing that somebody spun their favorite hero's story is uninformative about whether the hero actually lived.



"Misleading?"

I have never disputed that the "historical and counting" aspect of the OP question turns on interest in Jesus as a religious figure. In my 10-fold list (post 1221), seven of the ten proposed points concern him participating in religious activities or figuring in the religious teaching of others who survived him.

It may be helpful to recall that about a third of the living people whose religious commitments depend on a historical Jesus are Muslims who believe that Jesus was a religious teacher, and not in any way divine nor raised from the dead. A Jesus who arguably fit the religiously motivated and historically decidable expectations of about a billion people would, in my opinion, "count."

But let's look at those points:

(1) That he was an individual man.
(2) That he was born to a Jewish woman.
(3) That he was killed by the authority of Pontius Pilate.

In addition to those, I think most of the following would need to be true for the Gospels to have any useful relevance to this man:

(4) That he was a preacher for at least a few months full time.
(5) That he had some affiliation to John the Baptist (Josephus seems to think John was real).
(6) That he had disciples of his own, or shared some with John the Baptist.
(7) That some of those disciples survived him.
(8) That some of those survivng disciples preached John or Jesus in Judea at mid-century.


Points 3 and 6 are questionable if you consider Robin Hood for a moment. King Richard I and King John were real but that doesn't mean that Robin Hood really belonged to the 1189–99 period as the earliest accounts mention a "King Edward" (ie no earlier then 1239).

Similarly we have earlier accounts (Dead Sea Scrolls) of a Christ like figure (Teacher of Righteousness) in the 1st century BC which matches Mead's 1903 theory based on the Talmud. So why isn't it possible that Jesus was this c100 BC Teacher of Righteousness moved to a more recent time?

There is nothing to say the "brother" James Paul met wasn't a brother in the spiritual sense (assuming this part int he account is even true). Moreover why doesn't Josephus mention James in the Testimonium Flavianum and waits until much later in the work to mention him?

More importantly why did the early Christian community believe James the Just died c69 CE by thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen when Josephus has him dieing of simply stoning c62?

Finally why are there no records about Paul's fate? Even Acts doesn't tell us. We know that Paul existed but in something of this scale there should be Roman records of his actions...but we have none. Why?

 

[eight bits]

max

Points 3 and 6 are questionable if you consider Robin Hood for a moment

There're all uncertain propositions. They were offered as an estimate and enumeration of what would make me confident that some historical man "counts." Whether or not they are in fact true of any historical person is unknown.

So why isn't it possible that Jesus was this c100 BC Teacher of Righteousness moved to a more recent time?

Maybe it is possible. If it were true, then would that Jesus "count?" I think maybe not. Christian creeds would be false, and flatly about a matter of fact. Islam might salvage appearances, depending on how people think your guy died, etc. That's not a slam dunk, though.

Moreover why doesn't Josephus mention James in the Testimonium Flavianum and waits until much later in the work to mention him?

As to the TF, I think it's not part of the original work, say no more. I am unpersuaded that the "second mention" is a relevant James-Jesus pair.

That would also answer your question about the difference between Christian beliefs about their James and Josephus' report about his James. Sometimes a simple answer is appealing: they aren't the same guy, IMO, given that they died at different times and in different ways.

Finally why are there no records about Paul's fate?

Paul is hardly alone in that. He mentions lots of Jesus-people in his letters, and I can't think of any of them for whose death we have records.

We know that Paul existed but in something of this scale there should be Roman records of his actions...but we have none. Why?

Do you think that Paul did something that ought to have interested any high-level authority? He seems to me like a local nuisance, often at or near the scene when trouble happens, but he comes across as well-meaning and the very fact that he spreads it around reduces his menace. There's not much clandestine about his activities, unlike Christians a generation or two later.

 

[nudger1964]

And again, nudger just what do you consider to be the seed of reality behind the story of the historical Jesus?
Paul's accounts?
.

The fact you keep asking who's account I give store to shows I have failed dismally to get over my point to you.
I do not trust the writings of Paul, I do not trust the accounts of the Gospels - I do not put any faith in the supposed account of Josephus or any other single source - and I've got bored of writing "Historiography" so often

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, according to Paul himself, he may fought wild beasts in Ephesus (1 Cor 14:32) which was a death sentence, unless he was a professional Bestiarius. But that was a slave job, so I doubt they'd let a slave travel around as he sees fit. He was also apparently stoned once (and if we believe the traditional chronology, that wasn't in Judaea, so it would be kind of a noteworthy event), and had the crap beaten out of him with rods no less than three times. (2 Cor 11:25.) Some of his letters may also (debatably) hint at an imprisonment in Rome, though as I was saying, that's highly debatable, and he seems free to travel around afterwards.

And not only the Romans find him a nuissance, but supposedly king Aretas IV Philopatris of the Nabataeans pretty much besieges a major city like Damascus just to get Paul. Since Damascus was a major trade center and, having just changed hands, it still had a lot of people that had relatives and friends or at least trade partners in the Roman empire, you'd think such an incident would be mentioned somewhere.

He also mentions persecuting the church (though again there still is some debate as to the exact Greek meaning of the words there) to the extent that people in three provinces breathe a big sigh of relief when he gives it up. That wouldn't be just a nuissance, but a felony spree.

And then there's Acts, where Paul is brought before various governors, and even manages to request an appeal before Nero... before his case is even heard. Pretty stupid move, really, since according to Acts neither the governor nor the king find anything deserving a punishment and would have set him free, if he hadn't already requested that he be tried by Nero.

And not only that, but in Acts one of the governors that get to try Paul was Gallio. More precisely: Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus. He was the brother of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, a.k.a., Seneca The Younger. You'd think that a guy who wrote a LOT about ethical topics, how to lead a good life, etc, might show some interest in the bizarro case that his brother had to deal with. In fact the early Christians thought so too, and forged a whole correspondence between Seneca and Paul.

But that's, you know, Acts, so it may well be entirely fiction.

At any rate, either Paul lied (and you know I'm not opposed to that version, to say the least), or he did annoy lots of people from around half the frikken Mediterranean to the point where plenty even want him dead by stoning or at least to beat the crap out him with rods. You'd think there'd be some mention of a guy like that.

 

[pakeha]

Both Paul and those practices apply to Jesus because the "story" came from somewhere, and historians are applying those practices to give the best fit as they see it.
As to what those practices are - i suspect you know perfectly well
Its examining the sources you do have and using knowledge of language, context, culture relating them to what other perspectives you have and building a picture of the most plausible account as to how they relate to each other

The fact you keep asking who's account I give store to shows I have failed dismally to get over my point to you.
I do not trust the writings of Paul, I do not trust the accounts of the Gospels - I do not put any faith in the supposed account of Josephus or any other single source - and I've got bored of writing "Historiography" so often

Well, nudger, why not tell us what sources you feel merit having historiography applied to them?

 

[maximara]

The fact you keep asking who's account I give store to shows I have failed dismally to get over my point to you.
I do not trust the writings of Paul, I do not trust the accounts of the Gospels - I do not put any faith in the supposed account of Josephus or any other single source - and I've got bored of writing "Historiography" so often

Pakeha does have a point. With any scientific endeavor you need a starting point for your criteria and history is a science (abet a social one)

I again bring up John Frum because he is the best modern example of how you can have a religious movement without a clear founder. So I repeat Pakeha's basic question: just what is your criteria?

 

[nudger1964]

Scholars of History have different techniques to deal with different subject matter, and different historical time frames You cannot apply the same techniques for assessing modern history as you use for ancient history - or rather they dont - it might be your opinion that they should.
The question was nonsensical for ancient History. You apply historiography to any and every source you have

 

[pakeha]

Scholars of History have different techniques to deal with different subject matter, and different historical time frames You cannot apply the same techniques for assessing modern history as you use for ancient history - or rather they dont - it might be your opinion that they should.
The question was nonsensical for ancient History. You apply historiography to any and every source you have

Great.
And to make sure we're singing off the same page of the same hymnbook, please let us know just what sources YOU consider worth using historiography on- you've already said you trust neither Paul nor the Gospels nor Josephus as single sources.

What are the points of these sources you think the historical Jesus can be based on?

 

[Craig B]

... Points 3 and 6 are questionable if you consider Robin Hood for a moment. King Richard I and King John were real but that doesn't mean that Robin Hood really belonged to the 1189–99 period as the earliest accounts mention a "King Edward" (ie no earlier then 1239).

No, he was born in that year, but became King only in 1272. So that's the terminus post quem for these accounts.

Similarly we have earlier accounts (Dead Sea Scrolls) of a Christ like figure (Teacher of Righteousness) in the 1st century BC which matches Mead's 1903 theory based on the Talmud. So why isn't it possible that Jesus was this c100 BC Teacher of Righteousness moved to a more recent time?

There may have been a noteworthy Jesus alive at that time, but if so, he cannot be the Jesus mentioned in the gospels, although stories about him might have influenced the stories about the Nazarene Jesus. If there was not a Jesus who was crucified by the Romans during the time of Pontius Pilate, there was no Gospel Jesus.

Finally why are there no records about Paul's fate? Even Acts doesn't tell us. We know that Paul existed but in something of this scale there should be Roman records of his actions...but we have none. Why?

We don't really know the "scale". There was a riot in Jerusalem from which he was rescued by the Romans. Such disturbances were not uncommon. See the account in Acts 23:27-29. The Romans weren't concerned about the questions of Jewish law that sometimes provoked disorder. Why should such petty incidents, or the formation of small groups of sectarians, create records important enough to have survived? Records held in Jerusalem would in all probability have been destroyed in the subsequent rebellion or in the siege and sack of the city in 70CE.

 

[tsig]

The fact you keep asking who's account I give store to shows I have failed dismally to get over my point to you.
I do not trust the writings of Paul, I do not trust the accounts of the Gospels - I do not put any faith in the supposed account of Josephus or any other single source - and I've got bored of writing "Historiography" so often

So individually they might be false but when you add them up you can find the truth?

 

[nudger1964]

So individually they might be false but when you add them up you can find the truth?

No, thats not it at all. There is no "truth" you can find from what we have ... merely a best plausibility fit for *why* it was people were saying what they said when and where they said it.

 

[maximara]

There may have been a noteworthy Jesus alive at that time, but if so, he cannot be the Jesus mentioned in the gospels, although stories about him might have influenced the stories about the Nazarene Jesus. If there was not a Jesus who was crucified by the Romans during the time of Pontius Pilate, there was no Gospel Jesus.

But there are "historical" candidates for Robin Hood and King Arthur far outside the traditional time frames of their stories (as much as 200 years in either direction). Why is such a thing impossible for Jesus?

In one sense there already is no Gospel Jesus because that Jesus is as much about the supernatural miracles he did as it is about his teachings.

I again point to John Frum. The literate white February 15, 1931 US serviceman cannot be found. The best history can do is an illiterate native named Manehivi who caused trouble using the name "John Frum" in 1941 and was exiled from the island as a result. Note the discrepancies in terms of nationality, literacy, time, and race.

And the first detailing of this was in 1957, only 16 years after Manehivi and yet the followers of John Frum insisted the literate white February 15, 1931 US serviceman was the only John Frum. If we are to assume that Manehivi was the "real" John Frum then transformation of man into nearly unrecognizable myth can happen in as short as 16 years!

In fact, everything the Christian apologists claim couldn't have happened regarding Christianity appears to have happened with the John Frum cargo cult – it evolved from the preexisting beliefs without a clear definitive founder. Even though history does record a flesh and blood John Frum in 1941 the diffidence between him in terms of literacy, nationality, race, and even decade from the one the cult describes are such that they might as well be two different people who just happen to have the same name.

Furthermore, as seen with the Prince Philip Movement there are variants of the cult that connect the mythical John Frum to real living people (Prince Philip is the brother of John Frum in this variant) something the Christian apologists claim couldn't have happened with Jesus.

We don't really know the "scale". There was a riot in Jerusalem from which he was rescued by the Romans. Such disturbances were not uncommon. See the account in Acts 23:27-29. The Romans weren't concerned about the questions of Jewish law that sometimes provoked disorder. Why should such petty incidents, or the formation of small groups of sectarians, create records important enough to have survived? Records held in Jerusalem would in all probability have been destroyed in the subsequent rebellion or in the siege and sack of the city in 70CE.

But according to Acts 25 Paul appealed to Caesar himself, a point reiterated in Acts 27:24. The riot in Jerusalem would have not effected the records in Rome!

 

[Craig B]

But there are "historical" candidates for Robin Hood and King Arthur far outside the traditional time frames of their stories (as much as 200 years in either direction). Why is such a thing impossible for Jesus?

In one sense there already is no Gospel Jesus because that Jesus is as much about the supernatural miracles he did as it is about his teachings.

If the "Robin Hood" stories are English folk tales inspired by the war between "King Edward" and William Wallace in Scotland, then there was no Robin Hood. The latter is a complete invention in that case, to whom some of the deeds of other people have been attributed. If a Jesus ben Stada or ben Pandera existed at some other time a hundred years before or after the days of Pilate and no Jesus ben Joseph in the days of Pilate, then there was no Gospel Jesus. If a Jesus ben Joseph did live then, and was taken and executed, but in fact was unable to walk on water and raise the dead, then there was a Gospel Jesus, but the accounts of his deeds have been exaggerated.

ETA If there was no person named or nicknamed Arthur fighting the invading Saxons after the fall of the Roman Empire, but it is all Welsh folk tales inspired by the late Roman general Maximus trying to conquer Gaul and make himself Emperor a century before, then there is no King Arthur.

We know nothing about what happened to Paul in Rome. Therefore we don't know the scale of his activities there. So it should not surprise us that there is no authentic record of his presence, and that he is not mentioned by authors writing at or about that time.

 

[HansMustermann]

Maybe. But we're still talking about several judicial proceedings, and not in the Jerusalem that would be later destroyed either. Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, etc. SOMEONE decided Paul has to stay put in Rome. SOMEONE sentenced him to fight wild beasts in Ephesus. Etc.

Plus, they're not quite trivial events either, if you think about the laws and customs and mores at the time. In fact they're more extraordinary events than some miracles in acts, and people should have taken notice of them. I mean: SOMEONE stoned a guy outside their jurisdiction. SOMEONE decided to basically enslave a free man so he could be sent to fight beasts in the arena. (Even when free citizens acted as gladiators of their own free will, they had to technically be someone's slave for the duration of the match. There was no way technically to be in an arena and not be a slave.) SOMEONE crucified a Roman citizen, if we take Paul's delusional BS literally, which would a MAJOR outrage. Not only just illegal, but, you know, something that was very rare and passed for a MAJOR outrage when it happened. We're talking about a once a century kind of outrage. Ancient Rome wasn't some lawless wasteland where that kind of crap happens on a whim and everyone just shrugs and ignores it. SOMEONE would have been interested in that.

And he survived a stoning and a crucifixion. Now that's two miracles right there. You'd think more people than the Christians would take notice.

And he performed miracles too! And I don't just mean in acts, but he himself says he convinced people by doing miracles. Hell, he even somehow mysteriously sends a guy to Satan for disagreeing with him. You'd think THAT would get some attention, don't you think?

Even official reports from at least one governor, IF we believe Acts. But again, that's kinda a big IF.

Now maybe each of them, you know, some people didn't find worth mentioning (although we do find a mention of at least one other citizen being crucified mentioned as an abuse of power, so obviously not everyone thought it's a trivial.) Or didn't get transcribed, or something.

But, you know, what are the odds? Even if each particular incident were, dunno, only about 50-50 that ANYONE in whole city would find worth mentioning, although really, a lot of people should care about it... by the time you have, say, 10 such events, it's less than 0.1% that NOBODY would mention them.

So, you know, 0.1%... that sounds kinda improbable to me. And I don't mean in the sense of "implausible to me", but actual probabilities. If all that crap, even with the most generous estimates, only has a chance of 1 in 1000 to have happened, then, you know, quite literally it probably didn't happen.

ETA: mind you, I'm not (necessarily) going for a "there was no Paul" angle, but something doesn't quite add up there. Either Paul was delusional, or lying, or whatever, but something is awfully wrong about him in any case.

 

[HansMustermann]

Hans



Yes, I've heard of it. Some people think more of it as a guide to truth than I do. I gather that you're one of them. Fine with me, but taste in heuristics is much like other tastes: there's not much to discuss when differences crop up.

Actually, there is, since we're talking about people doing a specific job on a specific domain. You're of course free to apply any heuristics you wish when you're doing it for yourself or for some personal incredulity arguments. But someone who even pretends to do, say, science without applying Occam, or to do history while not having heard of historical necessity, is a whole other deal. In fact, they're doing respectively pseudo-science and pseudo-history.

See, when trying to pass stuff for normal scholarship on domain X, you have to actually play by the rules that have been proven as working on domain X. Which actually is even easier, since logic and statistics work just the same on any domain, so if an inference mode is broken, it's just broken. It's no longer a matter of choosing whatever heuristic appeals to you most. If you use any other rules than the ones ones that have been shown to work, you're just a crackpot. Plain and simple.

It doesn't matter what domain X is. It could be doing medicine without applying the rules for what a medical study should be like, or doing physics without applying Occam, or history without using the normal history rules or whatever. It's just not a personal choice any more. You either do the valid heuristics, or you can just go through that second door on the right, the one marked "crackpots".

Or briefly: I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as following personal preferences when it comes to logic or statistics. In fact, the very notion that when it comes to either it's just a matter of personal views and preferences is itself a hallmark of the crackpot.

 

[maximara]

If the "Robin Hood" stories are English folk tales inspired by the war between "King Edward" and William Wallace in Scotland, then there was no Robin Hood. The latter is a complete invention in that case, to whom some of the deeds of other people have been attributed. If a Jesus ben Stada or ben Pandera existed at some other time a hundred years before or after the days of Pilate and no Jesus ben Joseph in the days of Pilate, then there was no Gospel Jesus. If a Jesus ben Joseph did live then, and was taken and executed, but in fact was unable to walk on water and raise the dead, then there was a Gospel Jesus, but the accounts of his deeds have been exaggerated.

ETA If there was no person named or nicknamed Arthur fighting the invading Saxons after the fall of the Roman Empire, but it is all Welsh folk tales inspired by the late Roman general Maximus trying to conquer Gaul and make himself Emperor a century before, then there is no King Arthur.

We know nothing about what happened to Paul in Rome. Therefore we don't know the scale of his activities there. So it should not surprise us that there is no authentic record of his presence, and that he is not mentioned by authors writing at or about that time.

But all this is at odds with I. Howard Marshall's two different criteria for Jesus being "historical":

1) Jesus existed as an actual man rather than a fictional creation ala King Lear or Dr Who.

2) The Gospel stories are reasonably accurate rather then unsupported legend ala Kin Arthur.

Furthermore George Walsh in The Role of Religion in Historysaid: "[W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory."

Which leaves the issue of 1st century Jesus being plugged into a already pre-existing Jesus myth. In the "Outlaw" section of his Medieval Lives series Terry Jones shows that some elements of the Robin Hood ballads can be traced all the way back to William the Conqueror (1066-1087).... and idea supported by those who see Hereward the Wake (c1035 – c1072) as the ultimate origin for the Robin Hood ballads.

The way the Folville gang (c1340) were transformed from a bunch of medieval mobsters into near Robin Hoodish personages shows that such things do happen.

GA Wells' current theory with its two Jesus (one legendary and the one that inspired the Q Gospel but was not crucified) fits this bill.

Which leaves us with a Jesus in the right time who preaches much of what in the Gospels but whose crucifixion is a total fabrication so that he fits the already existing Jesus myth floating around. Would such a Jesus fit the bill as historical?