I first ran across this idea in "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty where he systematically goes through the gospel of "Mark" and indicates from where in the OT these various ideas were borrowed. By the time I had read this (c 2007) I was well aware of the total dearth of historical references to any 'jesus' or 'messiah' or even some criminal coming back from the dead among the Greco-Roman and Jewish writers of the first century. When you start adding in some of the obvious mistakes in the gospels ( serious conflict between Jews and Romans - people living in "Nazareth" having to go to Bethlehem for a census ) it becomes clear that the gospel writers were discussing events within the context of their time....late first, early second century at best... and not the so-called 'jesus' time in the first third of the first century. By the time this shit was written the political situation HAD deteriorated into conflict. That, however, began under Caligula and xtians claim that jesus was already dead by the time Caligula became emperor. Likewise, in the time that the so-called jesus lived "Nazareth" ( if it existed at all which is doubtful ) and Bethlehem were in different countries. This did not change until 39 when Herod Antipas was deposed and his kingdom added to that of Herod Agrippa I by Caligula. Oops....once again jesus was already dead.
So it is not one line of evidence which leads to the conclusion it is several.
So it is not one line of evidence which leads to the conclusion it is several.
