Sorry this reply took so long, guys. There was a lot of misinformation that needed to be addressed, and I haven't had the time to do this with any useful sources on hand. Be forewarned that this is most likely going to be a VERY long post. That being said....
You make this point, as well as a tone of others. But you have yet to argue effectively how any of this proves that Jesus never existed against what ALL the other sources are saying.
The point I was making, paul, was that, contrary to what you have erroneously claimed beforehand, there are no extant New Testament manuscripts prior to the early-to-mid 300's CE. In fact, even the earliest extant versions of
some of the books of the New Testament date back even later to the 400's CE. And, as before, the actual number of New Testament documents that date even this far back are
very few in number (effectively 'failing' your 'transmission test'). This late dating of the extant New Testament documents is fairly well known (if you want corroboration for this, look into Crossan's works). Whatever source told you there were extant copies dating to the 1st to 3rd centuries is, to be blunt, incorrect.
In addition, also contrary to what you have claimed, no New Testament fragments date prior to the mid-to-late 100's CE. The empirical proof of such a late dating is found among the works of the eminent papyrologist Graham Stanton, who noted that all supposed '1st century fragments' are written in the 'Biblical Uncial' handwriting --- which only emerged in the late 2nd century. Additionally, the actual number of pre-3rd century fragments amounts to less than 10 (which, again, hardly does well for your 'transmission test').
And, even then, the fragments still remain just that --- fragments. Although some scholars have erroneously claimed what canonical Gospels they
believe the fragments to come from, there is actually no proof to corroborate such a claim. It is equally possible (and, based on the ignorance of the early Church fathers concerning the Synoptics, much more probable) that the fragments are actually derived from documents that the canonical Gospels used as source material (such as is commonly claimed by the Q-theorists that Matthew and Luke did with Mark). This could easily account for the common passages between the fragments and our extant Gospels. After all, it must be remembered that even the lengthiest of the fragments consist of only a few pages of papyri --- as opposed to any 4th century extant document, which consists of over 800 pages of papyri.
Yet, despite the obvious lack of empirical evidence to corroborate such an early dating for any of the Synoptic Gospels, many scholars still maintain the late 1st century to early 2nd century dates. The only historical 'evidence' (which is not empirical but textual) to back this up are some rather vague allusions in the writings of Papias and Polycarp (both dated to the early 2nd century). The problem is that their writings have been through the 'holy forgery mill' of Irenaeus (late 2nd century) and Eusebius (early 4th century), and it is virtually impossible to determine precisely what Papias and Polycarp wrote themselves and what was forged in later centuries. It is interesting to note in the works of Papias (interpolated they may be), however, that his 'Gospel of Matthew' consists of nothing more than a collection of oracles --- meaning it was in a
quite different form than our Matthew (this seems to indicate that, even in the early 2nd century, the Matthew narrative as we know it had yet to be authored). In addition, Papias himself is
very critical of the Gospel of Mark --- due to the fact that Mark was not supposed to have been present during the events he recounts (Mark was supposed to have been some sort of secretary for Peter). Papias makes no mention of either Luke or John. So, at best, the only canonical Gospel that was completed during the time of Papias (circa 110 CE) was Mark's. This, of course, assumes that the reference to Mark was not an interpolation of later centuries.
It is very suspicious that Justin Martyr (circa 150 CE) never mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John in any of his extant works and yet just a generation later in the same part of the world (Rome), Irenaeus (circa 190 CE) states that there are only 4 gospels and the canon is closed. Celsus (circa 170 CE) knows nothing about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John but does refer to gospels of Helen, Mariamme, Salome, and a host of other women. The only texts known to Plotinus (early-200's CE) in his criticism of Christianity are Gnostic works. Still no Synoptics.
On a final note, in 1919 the German scholar Karl Ludwig Schmidt was able to show that the author of Mark (supposedly the earliest and 'simplest' of the Synoptics) had created his gospel by linking together smaller existing stories, which had no time/place setting themselves. He, in effect, created the Jesus story from pre-existing narrative fragments. Schmidt demonstrated that the connecting links between these various fragments were entirely of Mark's own invention. For example, some scholars have noted that all passages in Mark referring to Galilee are later additions to the text. This can be seen in the line 'And passing by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew' (Mark 1:6) in wich the words 'by the sea of Galilee' are placed quite ungrammatically in the Greek syntax. The verb 'passing along' is not used with the preposition 'by' in Greek. If this part of the excerpt is removed, the passage flows on normally and naturally. This has led many New Testmanent scholars to believe Mark added a geographical context to a story that previously lacked it.
Additionally, Mark evinces a clear ignorance of Palestinian geography: 'In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying "If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery" (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce.' (I. Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence)
Any way you cut it... these Synoptics were not eyewitness accounts and not historically accurate.
how any of this proves that Jesus never existed against what ALL the other sources are saying
You have yet to provide any of these 'sources', so I will have to take that rebuttal with a grain of salt. I assume you are referring to your flimsy external sources --- all of which are written nearly 100 years after the events in question (and, lacking any obvious direct records or primary sources, are thus secondary sources), some of which do not even refer to Jesus ('Chrestus' is not an aberration of 'Christos' and Jesus was never supposed to have been in Rome), and some of which are forgeries (Tacitus' reference to Jesus is never quoted prior to the 1400's, when it suddenly 'magically' appears in all extant versions of his works).
So, again, what sources??
This discussion is getting to be laughable, and I am not going to go through each and every point again. You have resorted to repeating yourself on many accounts, even though the points have been refuted. I feel like we are going around in circles at this point.
Gee.... now who's arrogant??
Maybe I should just go over all the points I had either mentioned for the first time and/or that you have yet to refute in any satisfactory manner:
1) The New Testament does not effectively 'pass' the 'transmission test' prior to the the 400's CE --- and even then, it only does so with a minimal number of documents (only a few dozen at most).
2) The New Testament does not tell us what the original Christians may or may not have believed. It only tells us what they may have read --- not their interpretation of what they read.
3) There are Christian texts just as old, if not older, than the Synoptics that paint a very different picture of Jesus. These include, but are not limited to, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, and the Gospel of the Egyptians.
4) The Gospels have undergone changes and revisions both before and after the 400's CE --- some of which are much more than the 'linguistic differences' you attempted to reduce them to. There is both empirical and textual evidence for this (such as the writings of Origen). An example of this is the 'long ending' found in the Gospel of Mark.
5) There is, in fact, no reliable proof (whether empirical or textual) that Christian "literalism" existed prior to Justin Martyr, circa 150 CE.
6) There is no reliable proof of "persecution" of Christians as a group prior to 250 CE in either empirical or textual sources. Even the first time persecution by Emperor Nero is ever mentioned is by Bishop Melito of Sardis around 170 CE --- well over 100 years after the events in question.
7) No extant New Testament document dates prior to the 300's CE.
8) No New Testament fragment dates prior to the mid-to-late 100's CE.
9) The fragments in question are not proof that the Synoptics existed then in the first place, as we cannot accurately confirm they come from the Synoptics in the first place. They could be from source materials the Synoptics drew upon.
10) There is no proof that Christianity began in Palestine. In fact, the relatively large number of Christians in "Pagan" countries is as early as the 2nd century is testament that it did not. Additionally, the vast majority of these 'Christians' were members of Gnostic sects (according to Irenaeus, Tertuallian, and the Pastoral Letters).
11) The Synoptics are never quoted or mentioned by name until 190 CE with Irenaeus. Papias and Polycarp, due to the massive interpolations in their works, are not reliable sources.
12) There were Pagan critics as early as the 2nd century that made claims that the teachings and stories of Christianity are plagiarisms of Paganism. Justin Martyr responded to them in much of his work, and there is also Celsus.
13) Early Christian texts, such as Marcion's Apostolikon (which textual examination have shown predate the canonical Pauline Epistles by decades) are of a decidedly docetic nature viewing Jesus in a non-historical light.
14) There are blatant contradictions in the New Testament --- including different accounts of where the resurrection took place (one account says Galilee and another says Jerusalem).
15) There is no reputable evidence, whether primary or secondary, to support Eusebius' claims about Jesus having two "fathers" (Joseph and Eli).
16) Many of the historical "events" in the Gospels never took place, such as Herod's supposed "slaughter of innocents".
17) The external sources you provided are unreliable and even spurious at times.
18) There is no proof that the authors of the Synoptics were either Jewish or from Palestine.
19) There is no empirical or reliable textual evidence that the Synoptics were "eyewitness accounts".
Gee... by my count, that's almost 20 points that need addressing. Good luck.
What I can't believe is that you can't see that your evidence and the evidence of the scholars you quote is no more "imperical" then the evidence that supports the ideas of Jesus being a real person.
Ahem. It's spelled 'empirical' and I can assure you it is a real word (look up 'empiricism' in the dictionary if you don't believe me).
Additionally, what I am pointing out is the incredible
lack of ANY empirical evidence to corroborate your claims. You have certainly failed to provide any. There is no empirical evidence per se to support my claims. On the other hand, there is plenty of secondary and textual evidence --- such as the obvious parallels between the Jesus story and Pagan myths, the 'silence of Paul', and no mention of Christian 'literalist' beliefs prior to 150 CE.
There is FAR more corroborating evidence supporting the idea that Jesus was a real person, and his followers believed in his divinity.
Not unless you consider your word to be some kind of proof. You have yet to provide any evidence to support these claims. All you've provided are erroneous dates for Biblical manuscripts and fragments, and a lot of unproven assumptions on what the early Christians believed and where they were centered.
How about just admiting the truth...that your evidence is not more "imperical" then anyone elses?
Well, then I'd be lying. Last time I checked, that's a sin.
This is misinformation. First, the part about Paul being a Gnostic has no credence at all, particularly when you read the letters themselves and realize that The philosophies he proposes doesn't fit at all with the Gnostics
There are two reasons for this rather erroneous interpretation (by the way, I am going to assume Paul actually existed and wrote most of the epistles attributed to him for this discussion):
One) Many of letters attributed to Paul were, in fact, late 2nd century forgeries. Only 7 (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are generally regarded by scholars as authentic. In addition, many excerpts within the authentic Pauline epistles have been edited or added in by later redactors.
Two) For such a "non-Gnostic", Paul sure likes to use Gnostic terminology a lot. The problem is the translation from the Greek to "churchy" English that give a false impression of what is actually written. Paul makes extensive use of Gnostic concepts such as gnosis, sophia, pistis, psychic, pneumatic, aeon, archon, the '7 heavens', and many variations of telios.
I suggest reading Freke and Gandy's work --- they discuss the 'Gnosticism' of Paul in depth.
Gnostics (which is why they are Christian).
Umm... most of the Gnostic sects
were Christian. Even their opponents (Irenaeus and Tertullian) admitted this.
There is also no historical connection that I have seen pointing to Paul being anything but a Christian after his conversion.
Many Gnostic groups, including the Valentinians and Marcionites, trace their beginnings to Paul. Additionally, Marcion made extensive mention of Paul while he was in Rome decades before any literalist did (Justin Martyr, in all of his extant works, does not mention Paul once).
However, what is also misinformation is the idea that Gnostics, Docetists, or Celsus believed that Jesus didn't exist. On the contrary, they believe he existed, but as a Pagan God only in spirit and sorcery.
This is a horrid misinterpretation of the Gnostic doctrine of Docetism. The very fact that people still buy that line is testament to how slow religious scholarship progresses.
Freke and Gandy: "The opponents of Gnosticism have portrayed this as a rather strange belief that Jesus did not actually have a flesh and blood body, but only seemed to exist physically, and that he magically made it appear as if he was dying on the cross although in reality he was not. As usual, however, by taking the Gnostics literally, the Literalists completely miss the point."
Freke and Gandy again: "The Gnostics did not believe that Jesus only seemed to exist, or that he magically avoided suffering on the corss, or, more sinisterly, that he had himself replaced by Simon of Cyrene, who was crucified instead while Jesus stood safely at a distance laughing. Such doctrines would, as the Literalists claimed, be distasteful and ridiculous. But this is a misunderstanding (or more likely a conscious distortion!) of Gnostic teachings. In fact, 'Illusionism' is simply part of understanding the crucifixion story as an initiation allegory [...]"
Elsewhere, Freke and Gandy claim: "The Gnostics' doctine that Jesus is a symbolic visionary figure is known as docetism. It is misunderstood by Christian Literalists as the bizarre claim that Jesus was some sort of disembodied spook that miraculously appeared to be a man who lived the life described in the gospels. But this crazy idea is just the product of Literalists taking the Gnostics literally."
Gerald Massey states: "The Docetae sects, for example, are supposed to have held that the transactions of the gospel narrative did occur, but in a phantasmagoria of unreality. This, however, is but a false mode of describing the position of those who denied the Christ could be incarnated and become human to suffer and die upon the cross. The Christians who report the beliefs of the Gnostics, Docetae, and others, always assume the actual history and then try to explain the non-human interpretation as an heretical denial of the alleged facts. But the docetic interpretation was first, was pre-historical [...]"
Ireneaus, in his refutation of the Docetics, refers to them as seeing Jesus as an 'imaginary' being: "He shall also judge those who describe Christ as [having become man] only in [human] opinion. For how can they imagine that they do carry on a real discussion, when their Master was a mere imaginary being? Or how can they receive anything steadfast from Him, if He was a merely imaginary being, and not a verity? And how can these men really be partaken of salvation, if He in whom they profess to believe, manifested Himself as merely an imaginary being?"
The common interpretation of what Docetism (or Illusionism) entails is always based upon its refutations by its Literalist opponents ---
not how it was understood by its proponents.
Oh, and by the way, paul..... next time, try and cite something more historically reliable and authoritative than an encyclopedia.
*chuckles* Laterz.
artyon: 
