>>19958439Sometimes history be weird like that.
Take Alexander the Great
The oldest account of Alexander we have is 400 years after his existence, there are no surviving primary sources. Whereas Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus existed a century AFTER Alexander and had a few things in common and HIS existence was recorded by Polybius shortly after his death. Polybius, accorded the distinction of first professional historian because of his fixation with interviewing people involved and visiting the actual sites of battles, talking to survivors etc, gives us a wonderful accounting of the 2nd Punic War and Scipio Africanus.
And yet people still accredit to Alexander things that Scipio did and which were recorded three centuries BEFORE our earliest accounts of Alexander, even though Alexander preceded Scipio.
It's entirely possible, nay, even probable that our accounts of Alexander have been "jazzed up" by borrowing a thing or two from the Scipio account, which had been knocking around three hundred years prior to our earliest surviving sources for Alexander.
As I say, sometimes history be weird, with baffling gaps and whatnot. So I'm not too puzzled about the lack of a contemperanous accounting of Jesus, and neither are most historians, secular ones included. Neither am I terrifically bothered (for the reasons above) of resemblances to earlier accounts of other people.
This shit happens.
The midwit argument is arguing he didn't exist. There was a flood of such midwits in the wake of Zeitgeist and the astrotheology nonsense (which historians will tell you is bunkum) and another flood of midwits claiming he's just Horus (which historians will also tell you is bunkum).
A historical Jesus most likely existed, some kind of failed Jewish revolutionary. Josephus attests to about 12 Yeheshuas, any of which may have been him.
