And:

“(Do I sense a bit of projection?)”

Why all the personal attacks on this blog? Can no one give a straight answer around here without being affronted? Forgive the intrusion.

But yes, the extent to which the apostles existed is also an interesting question, and I’m happy to write something on it if you want me to (when I have time – things are pretty busy at present).

But your “because non-believers have a lot at stake on insisting it” is way off base, at least as far as this non-believer is concerned. (Do I sense a bit of projection?) I’m really not concerned whether the figure of Jesus is based on a real person or not. Until fairly recently I assumed that Jesus was indeed a real person, and I still don’t rule out the possibility. What I am concerned about is that the evidence receives a fair examination, and is not casually dismissed as “foolishness”.

For those interested in a good introductory analysis of the historical Jesus, check out David Gowler’s “What Are They Saying About the Historical Jesus” (part of Paulist Press’ “WATSA” series). There are lots of resources referenced that allow for more in depth research.

If not having something written first-hand by an historical person is a reason to doubt their ever existing…

I hope this wasn’t a response to me – I was speaking about the positive, not the negative: if that person had written something, then there is little reason to doubt they excuse (can we have an amen?), I only referred to the persons of Jesus and Socrates as a reference to the current debate on their historicity (on this blog and in academia). Like I said, I have more reason to doubt Socrates existed than Jesus, but my reasons have to do with how Plato uses the figure of Socrates in his works – an authoritative philosophical archetype without any historical value.

Well, if we follow your logic, there’s no evidence for Paul’s life either. No details about where he lived, who his relatives were, etc

…but we have writings that were actually written by a man name Paul. Saying we have no evidence for Paul is like saying there is no evidence for Plato. Likewise, the only evidence we have for Socrates is second-hand – and most of that is considered a literary construct of Plato. Personally, I believe it is more reasonable to doubt the existence of Socrates than the existence of Jesus.

Well, if we follow your logic, there’s no evidence for Paul’s life either. No details about where he lived, who his relatives were, etc. Or Peter’s life, or James’ life, nothing, zip, nada. Since we don’t have that information why not insist none of these fellows lived either? Why focus only on Jesus’ “non existance?” Why? Because non-believers have a lot at stake on insisting it.