To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure it is. It can't be proven so there is doubt, what is unreasonable is insulting and attacking those who are acknowledging that fact.

What can be proven? What does that term even mean? It's used in mathematics all the time. But, as so many threads I've seen take care to point out, just because evolution is a "theory" doesn't mean we doubt that it might be correct. Science just doesn't use "proved."

I can doubt anything. Including my percepual faculties. The question is how reasonable is it to do so? History, like the other social sciences (if one puts it in that category) and science in general revolves around weighing evidence to test hypothesis. Probabilistic approaches are common as ways of determining whether or not to accept a hypothesis. For example, a great deal of scientific researcher either uses a known or estimated probability distribution and researchers determine whether their results are so unlikely (often the alpha level is is .01) that the probability their results were random chance are very, very, very small.

With history, we do the same thing. If Jesus existed or didn't exist, we have to look at the evidence and test either hypothesis against it to determine if it has any validity.

Every single mythicist argument I've read, from those written by people who have some expertise in something (there are very few), to the far more common popular versions which are based on fundamentally misunderstanding just about all of the issues, fails to adequately explain how we can look at the evidence we have and accept the mythicist hypothesis.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

for some good fuel for thought the Jesus Mysteries.

I haven't read the others but I have read this one. It's mind-boggling. The authors distort every subject they talk about. They misrepresent their sources, they ignore most scholarship, and they manage to come up with what appears to be authoritative ("just look at all those footnotes!") unless one has actually taken the time to look at the footnotes, is familiar with who and what the authors are citing. Everything about the book is set up as if the authors went out of their way to "uncover" the real story by unbiased research. But the only way one can get a bibliography like they do is by carefully selecting it. One is supposed to have a master's in classical civilizations but they somehow still manage to make up greek. Their book is a case study of sensationalism disguised as real scholarship.

If that isn't enough reading than I suggest Robert Eisenamn who is a very well respected scholar but get ready for some serious tomes.

By whom and for what?

The search for the historical Jesus will take you in many different directions.

Yes. But I would suggest reading actual specialists to see what those directions might be.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I haven't read the others but I have read this one. It's mind-boggling. The authors distort every subject they talk about. They misrepresent their sources, they ignore most scholarship, and they manage to come up with what appears to be authoritative ("just look at all those footnotes!") unless one has actually taken the time to look at the footnotes, is familiar with who and what the authors are citing. Everything about the book is set up as if the authors went out of their way to "uncover" the real story by unbiased research. But the only way one can get a bibliography like they do is by carefully selecting it. One is supposed to have a master's in classical civilizations but they somehow still manage to make up greek. Their book is a case study of sensationalism disguised as real scholarship.

By whom and for what?


Yes. But I would suggest reading actual specialists to see what those directions might be.

I know. The moment he mentioned Robert Eisenman I wanted to reach for my revolver. The guy is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[HOLYSHINE7]

Deny the father in front of others, and he'll deny you infront of the angels at the gate. Smh peace god

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's hard to accept the religious claims of a person of whom there's no historical record of his existence. Well, that's one of the reasons.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's hard to accept the religious claims of a person of whom there's no historical record of his existence. Well, that's one of the reasons.

Sure. Except there's a great deal of historical evidence for Jesus. So kind of a moot point.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Sure. Except there's a great deal of historical evidence for Jesus. So kind of a moot point.

I've seen no good evidence for his existence. I spent 30 years believing that there was. I think there's probably an individual that the Biblical Jesus was modeled after, but I don't think it can be proven historically. The Jesus of history has to be taken on just as much faith as the Christ of religion. Like I stated earlier, the only accounts we have are second and third hand accounts that take place dozens of years after the fact. Unless you count the Bible.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I've seen no good evidence for his existence.

And what have you seen? That is (again) this is a question of historicity. Which means addressing historical sources and academic works which deal with those sources (and with the historical Jesus). So what have you "seen" which formed the basis for your conclusion?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

And what have you seen? That is (again) this is a question of historicity. Which means addressing historical sources and academic works which deal with those sources (and with the historical Jesus). So what have you "seen" which formed the basis for your conclusion?

I'm a bit confused by what you're asking. Are you asking for material evidence from the time period involved that says Jesus didn't exist? Or are you asking of what sources I've studied that Christians use to point to the historicity of Jesus, such as Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Josephus?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm a bit confused by what you're asking. Are you asking for material evidence from the time period involved that says Jesus didn't exist? Or are you asking of what sources I've studied that Christians use to point to the historicity of Jesus, such as Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Josephus?

Investigating the question of Jesus' historicity involves a number of different issues. For example:
1) What did ancient historiography look like?
2) What genre do the gospels fall into?
3) What has the 2 centuries of critical scholarship on the subject revealed?
4) What methods are used to determine historicity in general?
5) What theory or theories of historiography are you applying in your analysis?

The NT, Josephus, and other relevant primary sources were all written in greek or latin. Can you read these languages? A great deal of scholarship on the subject is and has been written in french and german. Have your read these? Basically, we're dealing with a subject that studied from a critical historical perspective for over 2 centuries. After that time, there are virtually no historians who argue that Jesus didn't exist. What is it that your study has revealed that their's lack?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Investigating the question of Jesus' historicity involves a number of different issues. For example:
1) What did ancient historiography look like?
2) What genre do the gospels fall into?
3) What has the 2 centuries of critical scholarship on the subject revealed?
4) What methods are used to determine historicity in general?
5) What theory or theories of historiography are you applying in your analysis?

The NT, Josephus, and other relevant primary sources were all written in greek or latin. Can you read these languages? A great deal of scholarship on the subject is and has been written in french and german. Have your read these? Basically, we're dealing with a subject that studied from a critical historical perspective for over 2 centuries. After that time, there are virtually no historians who argue that Jesus didn't exist. What is it that your study has revealed that their's lack?

Your list is a good qualifier of the study of history. But I find that your paragraph lacks those same qualities. Can I read Greek and Latin? I used to be able to read, write, and speak Greek. I've forgotten most. But it served its purpose then. I could do the same, but to a much smaller extent, in Latin, but I never had the interest in it that I did in Greek. I can also read and write and speak Arabic, Spanish, and some Mandarin and Sanskrit. I don't really see the point. It's the same with French and German. I don't really know those, but again, I see no point. Enough has been written in my language, English, to give me enough, from both points of view, to study for a lifetime. I find it funny that you say there are basically no historians who deny Jesus' historical existence. Because I've read many that do. You asked "what is it that my study revealed that theirs lack"? So far, from what you've posted, I'm unbiased. I could care less whether he existed or not. It makes no difference one way or the other to me. So I have no reason to form a presupposition and try to prove that, instead of doing the rational thing and going where the evidence leads.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I will add two more things: 1. there are Christian historians who even doubt that Jesus ever actually existed, and 2. this might be an odd question, but your religion heading says you are an agnostic, so why do you feel the absolute need to try to convince a Buddhist that Jesus existed? I find that quite odd. But maybe that's just me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure I would love to discuss such concepts as the Criterion of Dissimilarity, Multiple and Independent Attestations, the Criterion of Contextual Credibility and Historical Context but when people have it just seems to go over your heads.

That's right, when you don't present evidence and do nothing but insult people, it's everyone else's fault.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your list is a good qualifier of the study of history. But I find that your paragraph lacks those same qualities. Can I read Greek and Latin? I used to be able to read, write, and speak Greek. I've forgotten most. But it served its purpose then.

I can read greek from homer to the patristic "fathers." I can't read modern greek. So if you are speaking of modern greek, it's pretty useless here. As for speaking ancient greek, while there are programs here and there which focus on spoken latin, there's virtually nothing by way of programs/seminars designed around speaking ancient Greek. So apparently among experts in classical languages you were almost unique.

I don't really see the point. It's the same with French and German. I don't really know those, but again, I see no point.

1) All translations are interpretations
2) A great deal of scholarship on the historical Jesus was and is written in French and German (and to a lesser extent Italian).
3) Without an understanding of what ancient history and ancient historical evidence is (which is only possible to a limited extent without the capacity to read greek, latin, and some modern languages in which classical scholarship is written) any analysis of the mythicist hypothesis is pretty worthless.

Enough has been written in my language, English, to give me enough, from both points of view, to study for a lifetime.

There is certainly a lot written in English. Of course, all the academic sources written in English find the notion that Jesus didn't exist either implausible or ridiculous. Which is why we find a lot of sensationalist non-academic sources instead. So again, what have you read on which you base your analysis?

I find it funny that you say there are basically no historians who deny Jesus' historical existence. Because I've read many that do.

For example? And have these historians written anything academic (specialist literature designed for people familiar with the issues) rather than sensationalist books/blogs designed for people who aren't familiar with historical jesus scholarship?

I'm unbiased.

That would make you the only human on the planet who is.

I could care less whether he existed or not.

Which gives you little reason to explore the historical sources and scholarship. I'm quite interested in history (among other things). So the historicity of one of the most influential individuals in history is of great interest to me. Same with a number of other ancient figures, from Homer to Socrates to Buddha.

So I have no reason to form a presupposition and try to prove that, instead of doing the rational thing and going where the evidence leads.

You are proposing a hypothesis: Jesus likely did not exist. This hypothesis must be tested against our available evidence. That's the rational thing. So how are you weighing the evidence, what historical methods or philosophy of historiography or historiographical methods are you using?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I can read greek from homer to the patristic "fathers." I can't read modern greek. So if you are speaking of modern greek, it's pretty useless here. As for speaking ancient greek, while there are programs here and there which focus on spoken latin, there's virtually nothing by way of programs/seminars designed around speaking ancient Greek. So apparently among experts in classical languages you were almost unique.

Homeric, Koine, modern, when it came to Greek, I began with Koine, as I was studying it as a Christian to further my knowledge of Christianity. From there I moved onto patristic, then to Homeric, and decided to go all the way with modern. I wouldn't say unique, so much as obsessed. And having been part of the Greek Orthodox Church, I not only studied it, but had first hand knowledge of it.

1) All translations are interpretations
2) A great deal of scholarship on the historical Jesus was and is written in French and German (and to a lesser extent Italian).
3) Without an understanding of what ancient history and ancient historical evidence is (which is only possible to a limited extent without the capacity to read greek, latin, and some modern languages in which classical scholarship is written) any analysis of the mythicist hypothesis is pretty worthless.

I'm going to tie this part in with the next part. What makes the German and French studies more important than others? And are you suggesting that they were not biased, or went into it without presuppositions?

There is certainly a lot written in English. Of course, all the academic sources written in English find the notion that Jesus didn't exist either implausible or ridiculous. Which is why we find a lot of sensationalist non-academic sources instead. So again, what have you read on which you base your analysis?

And what is your basis for suggesting that English literature on the subject is not worthwhile? Since you believe that he did exist, then certainly you would agree with the English authors who believe he did as well.

For example? And have these historians written anything academic (specialist literature designed for people familiar with the issues) rather than sensationalist books/blogs designed for people who aren't familiar with historical jesus scholarship?

I will gather you a list. And for the record, no, I'm not an internet armchair scholar on the subject, as I will describe more in detail in a moment.

That would make you the only human on the planet who is.

I disagree.

Which gives you little reason to explore the historical sources and scholarship. I'm quite interested in history (among other things). So the historicity of one of the most influential individuals in history is of great interest to me. Same with a number of other ancient figures, from Homer to Socrates to Buddha.

Actually, it gives me more of one. I'm interested in history as well, but only as a hobby, and as an addendum to my main area of study, world religions. That's what I've dedicated the last 16 years of my life to, the study of world religions. Which gives me even more of a reason to try to get to the bottom of the topic.

You are proposing a hypothesis: Jesus likely did not exist. This hypothesis must be tested against our available evidence. That's the rational thing. So how are you weighing the evidence, what historical methods or philosophy of historiography or historiographical methods are you using?

I only proposed the hypothesis after coming to that conclusion based on available evidence. I spent 30 years of my life as a Christian, looking for whatever evidence I could to proof the historical veracity of Jesus of Nazareth, and never found it. Am I bitter? No, not at all. I've found a religion that I agree with more, and fits my worldview better.

Basically, what I'm getting from this, is this: since my evidence is a different source from your evidence (which I've noticed you have yet to produce), and brings me to a different conclusion than your conclusion, then I'm automatically wrong, and my evidence is from faulty and unworthy sources. Like I said, I have no care either way whether he existed or not, it doesn't change my life any either way. And, like I've also stated, I might be wrong with my belief that he didn't exist, and if I seen evidence enough to the contrary of my ideas, I'd be more than willing to change them. And that seems to be the difference between the two of us. I never thought I'd come across an agnostic who was so gung-ho about trying to prove that Jesus existed, but weirder things have happened. Which makes me wonder, who are you really trying to convince? If you want to believe, that's fine. If you want me to believe he existed, show me the evidence, and I'll change my views. But I have the feeling that, even if I produced my evidence, you still would not change your mind, as I also have the feeling that you've already examined the same things I have, and have already judged them as unworthy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Homeric, Koine, modern, when it came to Greek, I began with Koine, as I was studying it as a Christian to further my knowledge of Christianity. From there I moved onto patristic, then to Homeric, and decided to go all the way with modern. I wouldn't say unique, so much as obsessed.

Being able to speak koine greek would very much make you unique. Unlike latin, which has been continiously spoken since it died out, ancient greek has not. Lot's of people can read it. But speaking is something else.

And having been part of the Greek Orthodox Church, I not only studied it, but had first hand knowledge of it.

Which is largely irrelevant.

I'm going to tie this part in with the next part. What makes the German and French studies more important than others?

First, because the beginning of critical historical scholarship was in german. So were most of THE most important works (from Reimarus to Wrede, which, by the way, was a work written in german on the history of historical Jesus studies). So if you limit your sources to English, you miss a vast amoung of important scholarship. There's a reason why students who pursue advanced degrees in biblical studies have to learn other modern languages.

And are you suggesting that they were not biased, or went into it without presuppositions?

Everyone is biased. Everyone goes into everything with presuppositions. Period. That's a fundamental to cogntive processes.

And what is your basis for suggesting that English literature on the subject is not worthwhile?

It is worthwhile. But the scholarship written in english also rejects the mythicist hypothesis. Why? Because any historian who hasn't competely abandoned historiographic methods would. Which is why even in English we can't find academic works supporting the "jesus didn't exist" view. It's also why of the tiny number of English academics who do write non-academic works on supportin this, I can think of only two who are either biblical scholars or historians, and neither has published academic works supporting their view.

I will gather you a list. And for the record, no, I'm not an internet armchair scholar on the subject, as I will describe more in detail in a moment.

I look forward to it.

That's what I've dedicated the last 16 years of my life to, the study of world religions. Which gives me even more of a reason to try to get to the bottom of the topic.

So you'll have no problem citing peer-reviewed journal articles, books published by academic publishing companies, published academic conference proceedings, etc., which support your view.

I spent 30 years of my life as a Christian, looking for whatever evidence I could to proof the historical veracity of Jesus of Nazareth, and never found it.

I spent about 16 years, followed by trying to show that the historical Jesus didn't exist. There simply isn't any reasonable explanation of the evidence to support this.

since my evidence is a different source from your evidence (which I've noticed you have yet to produce), and brings me to a different conclusion than your conclusion, then I'm automatically wrong, and my evidence is from faulty and unworthy sources.

Until you list what your sources are, it's hard to say. I've read a great deal on this subject, and I know the difference between blogs and senationalist books and academic sources. The former exploits the ignorance of those who haven't studied enough to weigh the evidence or secondary scholarship, and the latter can't do that because it is written for those who are well informed

I never thought I'd come across an agnostic who was so gung-ho about trying to prove that Jesus existed, but weirder things have happened.

Proof is the wrong term. And so far here, I've been accused of an ignorant atheist who refuses to acknowledge the possibility of any religious thought to a closet christian fundamentalist. I'm "gung-ho" about accuracy and truth.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Being able to speak koine greek would very much make you unique. Unlike latin, which has been continiously spoken since it died out, ancient greek has not. Lot's of people can read it. But speaking is something else.

Which is largely irrelevant.



First, because the beginning of critical historical scholarship was in german. So were most of THE most important works (from Reimarus to Wrede, which, by the way, was a work written in german on the history of historical Jesus studies). So if you limit your sources to English, you miss a vast amoung of important scholarship. There's a reason why students who pursue advanced degrees in biblical studies have to learn other modern languages.


Everyone is biased. Everyone goes into everything with presuppositions. Period. That's a fundamental to cogntive processes.



It is worthwhile. But the scholarship written in english also rejects the mythicist hypothesis. Why? Because any historian who hasn't competely abandoned historiographic methods would. Which is why even in English we can't find academic works supporting the "jesus didn't exist" view. It's also why of the tiny number of English academics who do write non-academic works on supportin this, I can think of only two who are either biblical scholars or historians, and neither has published academic works supporting their view.


I look forward to it.




So you'll have no problem citing peer-reviewed journal articles, books published by academic publishing companies, published academic conference proceedings, etc., which support your view.





I spent about 16 years, followed by trying to show that the historical Jesus didn't exist. There simply isn't any reasonable explanation of the evidence to support this.


Until you list what your sources are, it's hard to say. I've read a great deal on this subject, and I know the difference between blogs and senationalist books and academic sources. The former exploits the ignorance of those who haven't studied enough to weigh the evidence or secondary scholarship, and the later can't do that because it is written for those who are well informed


Proof is the wrong term. And so far here, I've been accused of an ignorant atheist who refuses to acknowledge the possibility of any religious thought to a closet christian fundamentalist. I'm "gung-ho" about accuracy and truth.

Here's a partial list, as it's been a few years since I've actually read anything about the topic, and can't find some of my sources. However, I will say that you probably will not accept these sources as "historical", as the authors were not historians, they specialized in other fields.
Frederich Engels
Bertrand Russell
Michael Martin
Robert Price
However, I do find it interesting that you mention that the best scholarship on the subject is from French and German sources, as it was in the 19th century, in France and Germany, where the hypothesis that Jesus never existed arose. Now, I am curious about something, maybe you can give me an answer. The "evidence" for the existence of Jesus is the same on both sides, like I mentioned before, people like Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus. What we know is that there are no first hand accounts outside the New Testament that mention Jesus in any way. All of the earliest accounts are second and third hand, written many years after the fact. I, as well as others, take this to be evidence that there was no historical Jesus. You, as well as others, take it to be evidence for the historical Jesus. Same evidence, different interpretations. Maybe second and third hand accounts are fine for you and others, I personally have problems accepting these as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, and would rather there be first hand accounts before I accept the idea that he really existed. So maybe that's where the discrepancy lies. Or, is there other early evidence, first hand accounts, that I've just not been aware of? If so, I'm all ears. You mentioned in an earlier post that you find it necessary to find the truth about the man who is the biggest name in history, who has had more influence on western civilization than possibly any other person. This makes the lack of evidence even more apparent for the idea that he didn't exist. Now, at the time, no one knew how big an impact it would have. But you would think, out of all the historians who lived at the time, and what a big uproar he was apparently making, trouble for both the Jews and Romans, that someone might have went to investigate, and then wrote it down. Wouldn't you agree, as a student of history, that first hand accounts would be the best evidence? And that second and third hand accounts are nothing more than hearsay, which really doesn't prove much at all? For all the scholarly work written in the last two centuries, either pro or con, no one can dispute this basic fact. And this, to me, is better than any scholarly work. It's hard for me to accept that anything can be considered scholarly when it's coming from places and time periods where going against the church meant being an outcast, and are basically relegated to writing things that amount to nothing more than a modern day Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel. Like I said, the early evidence is there, and there's no first hand accounts, and the second and third hand accounts are nothing more than hearsay, and really prove nothing.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Prediction: Alexander the Great

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Here's a partial list, as it's been a few years since I've actually read anything about the topic, and can't find some of my sources. However, I will say that you probably will not accept these sources as "historical", as the authors were not historians, they specialized in other fields.

Not only are most not historians, they are neither modern nor specialists in historical Jesus studies. Engels? Really? And Russell? Of the four you've listed (out of a massive number of academics who are specialists when it comes to the historical Jesus), only one actually is a modern specialist.

However, I do find it interesting that you mention that the best scholarship on the subject is from French and German sources, as it was in the 19th century, in France and Germany, where the hypothesis that Jesus never existed arose.

And this alone shows you aren't very familiar with historical Jesus scholarship. Bauer, Strauss, Frazer, even Reimaurus to a lesser extent (among other lesser historians) questioned the existance of Jesus.

The "evidence" for the existence of Jesus is the same on both sides, like I mentioned before, people like Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus. What we know is that there are no first hand accounts outside the New Testament that mention Jesus in any way.

First, anyone who writes of the gospels as historical sources isn't familar with ancient history.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2805645-post157.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2805647-post158.html

Second, Paul knew Jesus' brother. This same individual is not only attested in the gospels, but also Josephus.

All of the earliest accounts are second and third hand, written many years after the fact.

Years don't matter. Generations matter. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus who knew those who knew Jesus. He also knew Jeus' brother. Mark was written while people who new Jesus were still alive. In fact, much later Papias makes clear that he was concerned with getting information from those who knew Jesus. My father can accurately relate information about people who lived before I was born. Why? He was alive at the time. Luke knew those who knew Jesus. Mark was written a mere 30 or so years after Jesus died, meaning that although it is likely he never knew Jesus, others at that time would have.

I, as well as others, take this to be evidence that there was no historical Jesus.

What other? So far, you've mentioned a few accounts from philsophers at the beginning of the century, and one single biblical scholar among thousands.

But you would think, out of all the historians who lived at the time, and what a big uproar he was apparently making, trouble for both the Jews and Romans, that someone might have went to investigate, and then wrote it down. Wouldn't you agree, as a student of history, that first hand accounts would be the best evidence?

As a student of history, I know that this is extremely rare. Moreover, I know that the romans wouldn't be considered with some Jewish upstart until his followers started to create a real problem. And that's when we start hearing about him from roman historians. And as long as you are bringing up roman historians, what have you read about their historiographic methods?

And that second and third hand accounts are nothing more than hearsay,

So is journalism. Hearsay isn't an issue in history, it's an issure for courts.

So again, what academic sources have you read on (among other related issues)
1) Ancient historiography
2) Ancient historians
3) Ancient historical genres
4) Philosphy of history and historiography
5) Hypothesis testing

Because so far, you've cited a tiny number of sources, most old, and all but one non-specialists. So as far as I can tell (from what you've postec) you came to you conclusion without really looking at the academic sources.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Not only are most not historians, they are neither modern nor specialists in historical Jesus studies. Engels? Really? And Russell? Of the four you've listed (out of a massive number of academics who are specialists when it comes to the historical Jesus), only one actually is a modern specialist.



And this alone shows you aren't very familiar with historical Jesus scholarship. Bauer, Strauss, Frazer, even Reimaurus to a lesser extent (among other lesser historians) questioned the existance of Jesus.


First, anyone who writes of the gospels as historical sources isn't familar with ancient history.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2805645-post157.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2805647-post158.html

Second, Paul knew Jesus' brother. This same individual is not only attested in the gospels, but also Josephus.


Years don't matter. Generations matter. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus who knew those who knew Jesus. He also knew Jeus' brother. Mark was written while people who new Jesus were still alive. In fact, much later Papias makes clear that he was concerned with getting information from those who knew Jesus. My father can accurately relate information about people who lived before I was born. Why? He was alive at the time. Luke knew those who knew Jesus. Mark was written a mere 30 or so years after Jesus died, meaning that although it is likely he never knew Jesus, others at that time would have.



What other? So far, you've mentioned a few accounts from philsophers at the beginning of the century, and one single biblical scholar among thousands.



As a student of history, I know that this is extremely rare. Moreover, I know that the romans wouldn't be considered with some Jewish upstart until his followers started to create a real problem. And that's when we start hearing about him from roman historians. And as long as you are bringing up roman historians, what have you read about their historiographic methods?


So is journalism. Hearsay isn't an issue in history, it's an issure for courts.

So again, what academic sources have you read on (among other related issues)
1) Ancient historiography
2) Ancient historians
3) Ancient historical genres
4) Philosphy of history and historiography
5) Hypothesis testing

Because so far, you've cited a tiny number of sources, most old, and all but one non-specialists. So as far as I can tell (from what you've postec) you came to you conclusion without really looking at the academic sources.

Arguing about this has no meaning, for several reasons:
1. You're not going to change my mind on whether Jesus existed or not. That's not to say my mind may not change one day, but I don't see it happening.
2. I'm not going to change your mind. You've made it clear that you absolutely believe he existed, and there's nothing I can say, or anyone else, that's going to change that.
3. There's no religious interest in it for me. I'm not going to convert back to Christianity even if it's proven he did exist. It holds nothing for me.

Those are the primary reasons. But I do want to address something you've mentioned in your post. Paul? Really? His writings are one of the million and one things that caused me to leave Christianity, and it was one of the bigger things. If you want to take Paul's words at face value, you'd have no choice but to label him a fraud, and I'll mention several reasons here. He only quotes Jesus once. Just once. His works make up the primary texts of the NT, and yet he didn't find it necessary to quote Jesus except for one time. He mentions no biographical information about Jesus, at all. His works are just him talking about his personal philosophy on the Jesus movement. The theology he writes about is in stark contrast to what Jesus taught in the Gospels. And the two most damning pieces are the fact that he recounts his conversion experience twice, and there are different details in both accounts, and he says, himself, not once, not twice, but at least three times, that he deceived people to get them to convert to Christianity. And that's not even mentioning the fact that he teaches different things in different letters. To use Paul as a source for the historicity of Jesus is just absurd.
Here's the thing, we both have the same evidence, the same ancient sources. You, by reading your scholars, believe that evidence points to the actual historicity of Jesus. I, and my sources, believe that the same evidence points to the idea that he did not in fact exist. Same sources, different interpretations. I have no desire to argue the point further. If you want to discuss the issues with Paul, we'll continue to do so. But as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned, this is going nowhere. I've had this same argument with evangelical Christians many times over, and to no avail. I'm not going to continue the same with you, because it's leading to the same outcome.