to MrMacSon,
Yes there are. Various commentaries by people like Irenaeus, Tertuallian, and Origen via Celsus all show doubt.
Can you be more specific? From where exactly? Can you quote the relevant passages? Are they clear-cut or require interpretations?
to Kapyong,
I asked Neil for what other option explaining how a historical Jesus was included in a mythical Jesus, the later being originally what he allegedly was believed to be. So I was looking for another option.
Conspiracy is one option I recall reading about from mythicists. But that's not the only one.
to Neil,
... mythicism versus historicism shit.
That does not show you are open-minded. You put "shit" on only one side.
What I said was no different from what you find mainstream biblical scholars have published about early christian history -- and the very one I though you yourself were arguing; that Jesus was a virtual "nobody" in his own day and did not himself "found" Christianity.
If it is the case, then I agree. The next step is to figure out why Paul put so much emphasis on Christ crucified and why a virtual "nobody" got used so much as the alleged (but not true) founder of Christianity. All of that answered in my reconstruction.
No mythicist I know posits a conspiracy of the kind you have suggested
I certainly read about the "pillars" in Jerusalem starting stories about a man Jesus, including his resurrection. I never said I think you believe in any conspiracy theory, so I asked you for your alternative.
... discuss method ...
I certainly discussed my method on this thread as also in my website here:
http://historical-jesus.info/author.html. We also discussed the "fundamental" one of historians. But you made known little about yours, the literary one, except about making a point on your perceived irony in gMark.
And your hyper-sensitivity to mythicism as you express it here demonstrates you seem to have been incapable of reading and understanding the arguments in that direction with any semblance of reality anyway.
I read a lot of arguments about mythicism, more so the ones of Doherty & Carrier, but also others through that board and your blog and other blogs & forums. I did not see any which would remove the existence of a historical Jesus and the reconstructions from Doherty & Carrier are far-fetched, ill-evidenced and many times with ridiculous & silly arguments.
Am I justified in interpreting everything you write about Christian origins to be written with one fearful eye on the lookout for the mythicism monster that you have to build bulwarks against at every opportunity? Is that your agenda?
When I started my research (or even before that), I read the three initial books of G. A. Wells: not convincing and these books did not have much traction.
When my website was mostly completed, reaching most of my conclusions, I heard about Doherty and his book, which was getting a lot of traction on the web. Of course, then, I beefed up my website against mythicism, and also later on my blog when I started it.
So my website was not initially written against mythicism and designed to offer a historicist alternative.
What's wrong with simply working with the historical data and ignoring the question entirely?
Nothing wrong, but do not pretend this kind of work is going to cover the very origins of Christianity.
There will be a big blank at the beginning, and using a metaphor, boarding the train well after it started his route, when finally, there is lot of data in order to practice what you call fundamental historian's study.
Actually, it has been done, as for with 2nd century Marcion, who would have invented Paul or/& his epistles, and written the first gospel (being all fiction).
Cordially, Bernard