Historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

This does not mean that Jesus did not exist, but that, due to his characteristics, he is not a "historical" character.

Keep in mind that the same criteria you use to affirm that Jesus of Galilee did not exist would disqualify the existence of a certain Thales of Miletus. However, no one doubts that such a philosopher existed. Where is the difference?

We can however have a sneaking suspicion that some stuff attributed to Thales may be mis-attribution in all that time.

Probably the easiest is the fight that supposedly stopped because of the eclipse that Thales predicted. It's self-contradictory even in Herodotus, since elsewhere he has one of the combatant kings there being dead for 10 years at that point.

Actually even easier is his calculation of the year length. Egypt's civil calender is AT LEAST 2000 years older than Thales -- but may go all the way back to the predynastic era --- and already had the duration of the year at 365 days. Because, you know, for an agricultural civilizations it was kinda important to know that kinda stuff. Thales, who is reported to have spent time in Egypt, yeah, gets credited with something that he totally didn't invent.

The angles of an isosceles triangle, same story. More than 2000 years before Thales was even born, the Egyptians already knew that if you have a right angle with length x for one side, and y for the other (as would happen if you take a perpendicular through an isosceles triangle), it's the same angle. It was in fact how they measured angles. They didn't measure angles in degrees, but used what we nowadays would call the tangent of that angle: the ratio of the two perpendicular lines. They called it the sekhed, and they KNEW it's always the same angle if it has the same sekhed. They built the pyramids with that. E.g., the great pyramid has a sekhed of 9/10 for the sides.

Thales's accurate predictions of weather for a whole year, with what year would be great for olives and whatnot, yeah, probably didn't happen either. Because never mind the meteorological models, but he wouldn't even have the data from all over the place to put in such models.

Etc.

So again we have a historical guy called Thales which may or may not have actually done anything that our Thales is credited with. I.e., the Thales we get from the ancient authors may well be a very different person from the Thales who actually lived in the 6'th century BCE.

 

[David Mo]

We can however have a sneaking suspicion that some stuff attributed to Thales may be mis-attribution in all that time.

Probably the easiest is the fight that supposedly stopped because of the eclipse that Thales predicted. It's self-contradictory even in Herodotus, since elsewhere he has one of the combatant kings there being dead for 10 years at that point.

Actually even easier is his calculation of the year length. Egypt's civil calender is AT LEAST 2000 years older than Thales -- but may go all the way back to the predynastic era --- and already had the duration of the year at 365 days. Because, you know, for an agricultural civilizations it was kinda important to know that kinda stuff. Thales, who is reported to have spent time in Egypt, yeah, gets credited with something that he totally didn't invent.

The angles of an isosceles triangle, same story. More than 2000 years before Thales was even born, the Egyptians already knew that if you have a right angle with length x for one side, and y for the other (as would happen if you take a perpendicular through an isosceles triangle), it's the same angle. It was in fact how they measured angles. They didn't measure angles in degrees, but used what we nowadays would call the tangent of that angle: the ratio of the two perpendicular lines. They called it the sekhed, and they KNEW it's always the same angle if it has the same sekhed. They built the pyramids with that. E.g., the great pyramid has a sekhed of 9/10 for the sides.

Thales's accurate predictions of weather for a whole year, with what year would be great for olives and whatnot, yeah, probably didn't happen either. Because never mind the meteorological models, but he wouldn't even have the data from all over the place to put in such models.

Etc.

So again we have a historical guy called Thales which may or may not have actually done anything that our Thales is credited with. I.e., the Thales we get from the ancient authors may well be a very different person from the Thales who actually lived in the 6'th century BCE.

Of course. While certain statements of Thales are held to be authentic (water is the beginning of all things), others can be held in suspense. I did not know that Thales had said something about the angles of a triangle. Won't you confuse him with Pythagoras? (Another that is also doubtful).

But I meant that I know of no one who denies that Thales existed on the same grounds that some mitistas give for denying that Jesus the Galilee existed.

 

[David Mo]

Conspiracy theory is the weakest part of mysticism.
.

"Mythicism". Sorry.

 

[HansMustermann]

Of course. While certain statements of Thales are held to be authentic (water is the beginning of all things), others can be held in suspense. I did not know that Thales had said something about the angles of a triangle. Won't you confuse him with Pythagoras? (Another that is also doubtful).

But I meant that I know of no one who denies that Thales existed on the same grounds that some mitistas give for denying that Jesus the Galilee existed.

I'm not sure how those same arguments would even apply. Did anyone claim to have messages revealed from Thales in visions? Was there a mystery cult of Thales that I missed?

 

[HansMustermann]

Of course. While certain statements of Thales are held to be authentic (water is the beginning of all things), others can be held in suspense. I did not know that Thales had said something about the angles of a triangle. Won't you confuse him with Pythagoras? (Another that is also doubtful).

Thales supposedly proved that the two angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. Also that if you draw two intersecting lines, the opposite angles are equal.

 

[David Mo]

I'm not sure how those same arguments would even apply. Did anyone claim to have messages revealed from Thales in visions? Was there a mystery cult of Thales that I missed?

Okay, this is a difference. Thales, unlike Pythagoras or Jesus, is not a religious character.

This is a sufficient argument to admit his historicity? What if there were political motives in the invention of Thales of Miletus?

 

[HansMustermann]

It's enough to not say that the same ground apply. Since you've read Doherty and Carrier, you know that their arguments for MJ rely quite crucially on the religious and visions part. Which, as you say, is not applicable to Thales.

Whether DIFFERENT arguments can be applied to make Thales ahistorical, that is another question. But if you put up a well reasoned argument for why Thales was a later invented figure, I will give it an open minded consideration. I can be persuaded if the argument makes sense.

 

[dejudge]

This isn't a study of religious origins; it is a delusional conspiracy theory. Not only is evrrything a lie, but people don't even believe the lies, forgeries and corruption from which their religion was formed. This is a freakish marginal position, and it is not surprising that "plenty people" reject it.

You have already admitted that the NT, including the Epistles, is riddled with impossible events which are really a pack of lies.

Multiple packs of lies about the conception, birth, baptism, miracles, trial and resurrection of the supposed Jesus are found in the NT.

You have no historical evidence for Jesus and Paul so must must appeal to whatever plenty people believe.

It is already known that hundreds of millions of people believe Jesus existed and that they never ever have been able to present one shred of historical evidence for their believe.

 

[HansMustermann]

I would add that "oh that's just CT" is kinda rich from any HJ proponent, considering that Mark -- which tends to be VERY used to cherrypick a HJ -- is itself one huge conspiracy theory. ALL OVER THE PLACE, when Mark says that his Jesus did something, or sent his disciples to do something, or whatever, he asks everyone to keep it secret, and apparently they did. Not just the apostles or inner circle, or even the initiates of some mystery cult, or even newly converted Xians as a whole. Random men, women and children on the street witness some miracle healing (which apparently the HJ gang is inclined to believe actually happened), or someone just preaching, or Jesus delivering a smart answer to some question, but they're told to keep it a secret and of course they do.

It's not just a CT, it's the most ludicrious CT in recorded history. Even the medical conspiracy only says that doctors keep that secret from self interest. Or the Flat Earth CT only says that scientists are keeping the secret; the rest of us are apparently just gullible. NO other CT I ever heard of goes the length to make even thousands of random bystanders all keep a secret, just because someone told them to. Mark does just that.

By the time of Matthew, things aren't THAT secret any more, although even he has the Jews be part of a CT to keep the resurrection secret. By the time of John, eh, it's plenty clear that nobody is asking that kind of questions, so John goes the opposite direction: his Jesus might just as well be handing out "I'm the messiah, biatch!" business cards, because that's all he ever talks about. But Mark feels like he has a need to tell the reader every other paragraph why they've never heard about any of that.

Of course, it's also pretty clear WHY Mark goes the mass CT route. Mark is the first to come up with such a biography, and is obviously afraid that people would ask stuff like, "so why has nobody else heard about some guy being openly welcomed as the new king of Jerusalem by the crowds?" Well, Mark's answer was, because he told them not to tell anyone

I.e., because Mark is lying and he knows it.

 

[David Mo]

It's enough to not say that the same ground apply. Since you've read Doherty and Carrier, you know that their arguments for MJ rely quite crucially on the religious and visions part. Which, as you say, is not applicable to Thales.

Whether DIFFERENT arguments can be applied to make Thales ahistorical, that is another question. But if you put up a well reasoned argument for why Thales was a later invented figure, I will give it an open minded consideration. I can be persuaded if the argument makes sense.

The religious or mythical content of an ancient writing is a valid reason to doubt everything that is attributed to a character from the religious or mythical content. Not of his mere existence, inasmuch as it is stripped of the doctrinal agenda.

Therefore, Thales of Miletus can only be said with relative certainty of two or three things, some of which are difficult to interpret. For example, that everything that exists has a soul. The rest is doubtful.

Therefore, one can rightly doubt almost everything of the life and miracles of Jesus the Galilean , but not of independent of religious agenda things, such as that he was executed by the Romans.

For this reason, I believe that the mythicists go further than their assumptions allow.

 

[dejudge]

You will never ever be able to present a single shred of historical evidence for Paul and Jesus from your mainstream or any other "stream".

This does not mean that Jesus did not exist, but that, due to his characteristics, he is not a "historical" character.

Your statement that Jesus is not a "historical character" does not mean that Jesus did exist

Keep in mind that the same criteria you use to affirm that Jesus of Galilee did not exist would disqualify the existence of a certain Thales of Miletus. However, no one doubts that such a philosopher existed. Where is the difference?

Your claim is simply baseless. The evidence used to determine the existence/non-existence of Thales cannot be transferred to the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth . It is just mind-bogginly void of logic to assume Jesus was a figure of history because Thales may or may not have existed.

It is so basic.

A lack of historical evidence of existence is the fundamental criteria to argue against the historicity of Jesus and Paul coupled with the fact that stories about Jesus and Paul are found to be either implausible, impossible, fiction or products of forgeries or corrupted writings.

 

[smartcooky]

Your claim is simply baseless. The evidence used to determine the existence/non-existence of Thales cannot be transferred to the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth . It is just mind-bogginly void of logic to assume Jesus was a figure of history because Thales may or may not have existed.

Agree.

The "If Thales then Jesus" mantra is a tired old canard that liars for jeebus often fall back on when they have been rat-cornered!

It holds no evidentiary value as regards proving the historicity (or otherwise) of Jesus.

 

[David Mo]

Your statement that Jesus is not a "historical character" does not mean that Jesus did exist


Your claim is simply baseless. The evidence used to determine the existence/non-existence of Thales cannot be transferred to the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth . It is just mind-bogginly void of logic to assume Jesus was a figure of history because Thales may or may not have existed.

It is so basic.

A lack of historical evidence of existence is the fundamental criteria to argue against the historicity of Jesus and Paul coupled with the fact that stories about Jesus and Paul are found to be either implausible, impossible, fiction or products of forgeries or corrupted writings.

What "historical evidence" do we have that Thales of Miletus existed?

When I say that Jesus was not a "historical" character, I mean that his life took place outside the mainstream of the politics and culture of 1st century Palestine. The powers attributed to him by the Gospels are manifestly legendary and the only more or less contemporary fragment that refers to him is a forgery (Flavius Josephus). That is why it is perfectly logical that he did not leave the historical traces that can be expected from characters such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. It is absurd to deal with Jesus the Galilean like a historical character, as you do and it is also done in the opposite direction.

It is a situation similar to that of Thales. Nor was he a historical character in the same sense. The only difference that Hans has established correctly is that Thales does not seem to be a religious figure (we really know practically nothing about him), while Jesus was and, what is worse, remained so until now.

This introduces an additional reason for suspicion about the religious content of the Gospels. Even about the existence of Jesus. But at this point the suspicion is not definitive.

Of course, the possibility does not imply existence. But the possibility is an argument against a strong mythicism. Therefore, I am skeptical on this point. I have a minimalist position: of Jesus of Galilee one can hardly say anything. This infuriates the mythicists (I don't know why) but doesn't satisfy the believers. They need to know their myth and this is impossible.

 

[smartcooky]

What "historical evidence" do we have that Thales of Miletus existed?

None, but you have yet to demonstrate that relevance of that fact to the alleged existence of a Historical Jesus

When I say that Jesus was not a "historical" character, I mean that his life took place outside the mainstream of the politics and culture of 1st century Palestine. The powers attributed to him by the Gospels are manifestly legendary and the only more or less contemporary fragment that refers to him is a forgery (Flavius Josephus). That is why it is perfectly logical that he did not leave the historical traces that can be expected from characters such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.

Wait! A person...

a. whose alleged birth allegedly caused the King of Judea to order the execution of all male children two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem, and

b. who allegedly performed miracles seemingly at will, and

c. who allegedly, by coming through the East Gate of the Temple Mount on Palm Sunday on a donkey (and thereby co-opting the Jewish messiah prophecy) upset the Jews so much that they wanted him killed

... would not have been at all newsworthy at the time? NONE of this made it into contemporaneous writings in that area - and you believe this would be expected?

Really?

The first one is particularly problematic as the story only appears in Matthew... the other gospels do not mention it at all. As early as AD94, the historian Josephus makes no mention of it in his Antiquities of the Jews, writings that note in some detail most of Herod's wrongdoings, including the murder of three of his sons

 

[HansMustermann]

The religious or mythical content of an ancient writing is a valid reason to doubt everything that is attributed to a character from the religious or mythical content. Not of his mere existence, inasmuch as it is stripped of the doctrinal agenda.

Therefore, Thales of Miletus can only be said with relative certainty of two or three things, some of which are difficult to interpret. For example, that everything that exists has a soul. The rest is doubtful.

Therefore, one can rightly doubt almost everything of the life and miracles of Jesus the Galilean , but not of independent of religious agenda things, such as that he was executed by the Romans.

For this reason, I believe that the mythicists go further than their assumptions allow.

Look, let me be even clearer.

1. It's not just that it's religiously MOTIVATED. The bigger problem is that only real connection to Jesus is to the Jesus that Paul hallucinated. Therefore Paul's Jesus can be just that: a hallucination. The same, as you've noticed, does NOT apply to Thales. NONE our sources claim that Thales's theorems came from someone having a vision of Thales, much less end up with visions being the only real connection.

2. Almost EVERYTHING that Mark gives us about Jesus is falling into at least one of the following three categories, and most of them more than one:

a. Stuff that is flat out miraculous, and can't have really happened

b. Stuff that is a reworking of stories about Adam, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, etc, to make a symbolic point

c. Stuff that is a repeat or otherwise there to create that "Markan sandwiches" structure (or in more scholarly terms, the structures of "inclusio" and "chiasm")

Once you remove ALL THREE categories, not just the miraculous stuff, you're pretty much left with a big fat nothing about Jesus. (Price actually says that point blank, and, you know, that guy actually taught bible studies.) We don't actually know if he said or did anything at all.

He MIGHT have tried to do or claimed to have done the symbolic stuff in category B. After all we know of at least three different guys in Josephus that were essentially ceremonially re-enacting stuff that Joshua did. Or maybe not. Because if it's possible for one guy to come up with the idea "oh, I'll enact what Darth Vader did", it's also possible for some other guy to go, "oh, I'll say he did. That'll convince the detractors." Or dream or hallucinate someone who did. We don't really know if Jesus actually did any of that, or someone else was picking his role for him posthumously.

The same, as you notice, does NOT apply to Thales. None of the stuff attributed to him fits a pre-made role. (Unlike, as you also correctly note, Pythagoras.) Thales is not re-enacting (symbolically or otherwise) the role of the guy who discovered that opposite angles are equal. He's credited with being the first one who even thought of actually mathematically proving it. As I was saying, Egyptians knew that, but they seem to have taken it as just common sense and thousands of years of experience confirming it is so, but they didn't actually prove it.

Hell, not only the exact theorems aren't a reenactment, but even the role of mathematical philosopher didn't even exist before him. He's not symbolically reenacting the first guy to apply philosophy to geometry, he actually IS the first guy we know of that did that.

Ditto for the other two categories. There may be other reasons to doubt that Thales actually came up with those theorems, but they're neither miraculous, nor repeated to form any particular structure.


Anyway, as I was saying, there may be other valid reasons to doubt the existence of Thales. I don't know any myself, but I'll give them a fair consideration if anyone makes a well reasoned argument. But saying that you can doubt Thales on the SAME grounds that mythicists doubt Jesus, is just flat out false. I can't even imagine how someone who's actually read Doherty or Carrier could come out the other side thinking that the same arguments could possibly apply to Thales.

 

[HansMustermann]

None, but you have yet to demonstrate that relevance of that fact to the alleged existence of a Historical Jesus



Wait! A person...

a. whose alleged birth allegedly caused the King of Judea to order the execution of all male children two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem, and

b. who allegedly performed miracles seemingly at will, and

c. who allegedly, by coming through the East Gate of the Temple Mount on Palm Sunday on a donkey (and thereby co-opting the Jewish messiah prophecy) upset the Jews so much that they wanted him killed

... would not have been at all newsworthy at the time? NONE of this made it into contemporaneous writings in that area - and you believe this would be expected?

Really?

The first one is particularly problematic as the story only appears in Matthew... the other gospels do not mention it at all. As early as AD94, the historian Josephus makes no mention of it in his Antiquities of the Jews, writings that note in some detail most of Herod's wrongdoings, including the murder of three of his sons

I'd also add that it's not just the stuff that JESUS allegedly did or claimed that should have been noteworthy, but stuff other people did too.

E.g., Josephus also makes a point of noting any excesses or irregularities of the Roman governors. Because as I was saying, one of the points he's trying to make is that the Jews on the whole are not some bunch of completely irrational religious nutcases, but people like everyone else, and a lot of the conflicts were just in response to being provoked. The early Xians may be exonerating the Romans of everything, but Josephus is the polar opposite. You may think that writing for Vespasian would make him more on the side of the Romans, but actually he has no problem saying that Vespasian is the real deal, and the Emperors before him (which nobody liked at all) and their governors were crap. It just makes Vespasian's decision to grab the throne look more justified.

And Pilate in particular was the focus of not only Josephus, but of a LOT of people. And not only to write about it in some history, but they wrote to complain to the Emperor at the slightest excuse to complain.

And most of what Pilate does in the gospels should have been VERY noteworthy for a lot of people.

Dressing a rebel in purple and proclaiming him the king of the Jews? Hell, riling everyone by hinting that he can crucify a king of the Jews? THAT didn't interest anyone? Really?

Never mind that the dressing in purple and crown made of a branch were actually making it a mockery of the Roman Emperor, so even more noteworthy. If you were dead set on bad-mouthing someone to the Emperor, wouldn't you use such a low hanging fruit as, "hey, he just did a mockery of your coronation with a condemned criminal, and then crucified the guy he had dressed up as emperor"? The symbolism of THAT simply escaped everyone? In a year when Tiberius had just had to deal with Sejanus' plot against him, and was in full paranoid mode, executing everyone who was even suspected of being against him, nobody thought of using that against Pilate? Really?

For that matter, doing a crucifixion on a holy day? In all the complaints about how the Roman governors and specifically Pilate riled the people by going against local religious customs, THAT doesn't make the cut to be written down by anyone?

Giving a corpse to a stranger? Really? Nobody connected the dots that he's doing something flat out illegal there? In all the things that they find noteworthy and complaint-worthy about him, actually breaking the law didn't make the cut?

Etc.

 

[David Mo]

None, but you have yet to demonstrate that relevance of that fact to the alleged existence of a Historical Jesus

Relevance in what sense. Usefulness?

Wait! A person...

a. whose alleged birth allegedly caused the King of Judea to order the execution of all male children two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem, and

b. who allegedly performed miracles seemingly at will, and

c. who allegedly, by coming through the East Gate of the Temple Mount on Palm Sunday on a donkey (and thereby co-opting the Jewish messiah prophecy) upset the Jews so much that they wanted him killed

... would not have been at all newsworthy at the time? NONE of this made it into contemporaneous writings in that area - and you believe this would be expected?

Really?

The first one is particularly problematic as the story only appears in Matthew... the other gospels do not mention it at all. As early as AD94, the historian Josephus makes no mention of it in his Antiquities of the Jews, writings that note in some detail most of Herod's wrongdoings, including the murder of three of his sons

No. That's what I've already answered:
"The powers attributed to him by the Gospels are manifestly legendary and the only more or less contemporary fragment that refers to him is a forgery (Flavius Josephus)"

 

[David Mo]

Look, let me be even clearer.

1. It's not just that it's religiously MOTIVATED. The bigger problem is that only real connection to Jesus is to the Jesus that Paul hallucinated. Therefore Paul's Jesus can be just that: a hallucination. The same, as you've noticed, does NOT apply to Thales. NONE our sources claim that Thales's theorems came from someone having a vision of Thales, much less end up with visions being the only real connection.

You had been very clear. What you are saying now only adds to what you have already said. Paul's visions or Mark's religious agenda invalidate everything that naturally falls into them. I had already granted that to him. Or are they not religious? What we know of Thales comes fundamentally from Aristotle who had his own metaphysical agenda. We do not know if his reference to souls would not be part of that agenda. The concept of soul is very important to Aristotle. In any case, we trusted Aristotle because he had a "scientific" spirit, when in fact, he had a whole metaphysical theory behind him, within which Ionian physicism fit as a stage of philosophy overcomed by his.

However, it is true that Aristotle's authority seems more grounded than that of the evangelists. I grant you that because religion illusions are stronger that metaphysical illusions... usually.

Now, having eliminated everything that corresponds to the Markan religious agenda, there remains some fact that is not explained from it, such as crucifixion, a humiliating punishment that no inhabitant of the Hellenized world would have associated with a god.

As for Paul's silence, which on the other hand affirms that Jesus existed in the flesh and was crucified, it does not mean any more that Paul was not very interested in the earthly life of Jesus and what mattered to him was his divine character. It is logical that the accounts in the Gospels did not interest him. Probably in his time they were not canonized and their sources are contradictory in the few data that they match each other.

 

[David Mo]

I'd also add that it's not just the stuff that JESUS allegedly did or claimed that should have been noteworthy, but stuff other people did too.

E.g., Josephus also makes a point of noting any excesses or irregularities of the Roman governors. Because as I was saying, one of the points he's trying to make is that the Jews on the whole are not some bunch of completely irrational religious nutcases, but people like everyone else, and a lot of the conflicts were just in response to being provoked. The early Xians may be exonerating the Romans of everything, but Josephus is the polar opposite. You may think that writing for Vespasian would make him more on the side of the Romans, but actually he has no problem saying that Vespasian is the real deal, and the Emperors before him (which nobody liked at all) and their governors were crap. It just makes Vespasian's decision to grab the throne look more justified.

And Pilate in particular was the focus of not only Josephus, but of a LOT of people. And not only to write about it in some history, but they wrote to complain to the Emperor at the slightest excuse to complain.

And most of what Pilate does in the gospels should have been VERY noteworthy for a lot of people.

Dressing a rebel in purple and proclaiming him the king of the Jews? Hell, riling everyone by hinting that he can crucify a king of the Jews? THAT didn't interest anyone? Really?

Never mind that the dressing in purple and crown made of a branch were actually making it a mockery of the Roman Emperor, so even more noteworthy. If you were dead set on bad-mouthing someone to the Emperor, wouldn't you use such a low hanging fruit as, "hey, he just did a mockery of your coronation with a condemned criminal, and then crucified the guy he had dressed up as emperor"? The symbolism of THAT simply escaped everyone? In a year when Tiberius had just had to deal with Sejanus' plot against him, and was in full paranoid mode, executing everyone who was even suspected of being against him, nobody thought of using that against Pilate? Really?

For that matter, doing a crucifixion on a holy day? In all the complaints about how the Roman governors and specifically Pilate riled the people by going against local religious customs, THAT doesn't make the cut to be written down by anyone?

Giving a corpse to a stranger? Really? Nobody connected the dots that he's doing something flat out illegal there? In all the things that they find noteworthy and complaint-worthy about him, actually breaking the law didn't make the cut?

Etc.

Everything you write over and over again only proves that almost everything written in the Gospels, especially the passion story, is legendary. I don't know why you repeat it over and over again if it's something I said a few comments ago.
What that doesn't prove, unless you add something special, is that Jesus the Galilean didn't exist as a little prophet who was executed by the Romans.

For Josephus cannot be invoked one way or the other. The existence of a manipulated text only proves the falsity of what has come to us. Not that Josephus never mentioned Jesus. Maybe to blame him like a messianic rebel.

 

[HansMustermann]

What I am saying that it proves is that even if he existed, the little guy who got killed doesn't really bear any resemblance to the guy in the gospels. He didn't say the same things (as I was saying even HJ scholars say no more than 30% can be plausibly said by the same person), he didn't do the same things, he didn't visit the same places, his life didn't happen in that order, and the circumstances of his death bear no resemblance to Mark's account. Even the people around him were nothing like those in Mark. And as I've said somewhere else, may or may not have even actually been called Jesus. It may be a role name. Essentially, that if he existed, his relationship to the gospel Jesus may be as thin as Lovecraft's mom's to Abdul Al Hazred.

And that's too thin for me to call that guy "the historical Jesus."

But, as I was saying, if someone is ok with saying that Lovecraft's mom IS "the historical Abdul Al Hazred", then I will cheerfully grant that that standard would also allow for a Jesus that's just about that historical. And I'm perfectly ok with such a figure possibly existing.

Hell, even Carrier, Doherty, Price and the gang don't say it's impossible for such a guy to have existed. They think it's less probable than their purely mythical Jesus, but certainly not impossible. Hell, not even particularly improbable. Sure, less probable than their MJ, but certainly not the kind of improbability like being struck by lightning while holding the lottery ticket that won the jackpot.

Edit: what anyone needs though to claim that something merely POSSIBLE did actually exist, is evidence. Because the space of what's possible is necessarily greater than the space of what is real. Because the former necessarily includes the latter. But, again, if they merely want to claim it's possible, they don't need anything else, and won't really find any opposition.