People in bible never existed according to head of Theology at a university in UK!

[CapnAwesome]

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan?

 
Well, there's 'The Secret History Of The Mongols', for a start. 

Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus.

 
And lots of them are MUCH better documented than Jesus.

The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

This is patently absurd on the fact of it.  The Greeks were illiterate?  The Romans, Hittites, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Sumerians - they were all illiterate?  I'll grant you that oral tradition was vital to a lot of ancient people, but in 1st century Palestine, it was hardly 'king'.

Pick some other historical figures from the 1st century A.D. and look into what their documentation is.

Ok.  Augustus.  We have letters written by, to and about him during his lifetime.  We have his will (he wrote it).  We have coins and statues bearing his likeness - and with his name on them - that were created while he was alive.

Also, by your standard, none of those people existed, you just get the none miracle version of them presented to you by historians who have done a lot of work to try to sort out the truth.

Because Jesus is a religious figure, you get a miracle version presented to you commonly. But since I assume you don't believe in miracles, like me, who care. I automatically filter that part out.

Fair enough.  Leaving out the miracle bits, the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is MUCH less compelling than that for Temujin or Augustus.
Boru

The secret history of the Mongols is NOT a primary source. It was written 200 years after Ghenghis Khan in a language he didn't even speak or understand. Far later then the gospels were written after Jesus. It's also full of supernatural claims about him.

I agree that the case for Jesus is far less compelling, minus the miracles and stuff. But of course it would be. While he actually lived (or didn't live) he had very very minor impact on a minor part of the world. Compared to the Roman Emperor or a man who conquered most of Asia, it seems crazy to expect the same level of evidence as you would have for those two.

I don't really think it's even an important debate really. Whether Jesus is based on someone or not. I've never been sure why some atheists get so stuck on it. But the misconceptions that some mythicists have about how ancient history works and what documentation to expect or commonly exists is sort of irritating to me as a historian.