You ought not to be so haughty about this, especially as the case you oppose is, contrary to your misrepresentations, very strong.

It is rather ironic when you say ‘the early opponents of Christianity didn’t question the existence of Jesus’, when in fact the mythicist case shows, convincingly, that the very earliest Christians, including Paul, had no conception of a historical Jesus at all. That came later, with the Gospel of Mark. In other words, it would be better to say ‘the earliest believers in Christianity didn’t question the historical non-existence of Jesus’ – he was the mythical Son of God, the intermediary between man and the divine, and not a historical person. Even the earliest apologists never speak of Christ as a historical person. One of them, in the Felix Menucius, even laughs at the idea that Christians worship a man nailed to a cross (and no, he doesn’t go on to say ‘because he was really the son of God’ – he just scoffs and leaves it at that, as if he is dismissing some sort of lunatic historicizing process that had then just begun).

You talk about the ‘evidence’ of the historical Jesus. Well, there isn’t any. None. Except the Gospels, which of course were not contemporaneous and are totally unreliable, for obvious reasons. And as I have indicated, earlier Christians appear not to be referring to a historical person. Look at Paul’s writing carefully, without historicist preconceptions. He never attributes sayings to Jesus, but to God or to Scripture. He never mentions anything about the historical details of Jesus’ existence. Why not? We all know religious nuts obsess on such stuff, if they believe in it. But Paul didn’t – because he wasn’t talking about a historical person.

But from your tone, I know I am talking to a closed mind on this. So if anyone else is interested in this, check out Earl Doherty’s Jesus Puzzle web pages at http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm Very extensive, very well argued. Unless you already have some emotional investment in the idea of a historical Jesus (and unfortunately far too many people do, even athiests), you will never accept a historicist interpretation again.