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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Partially true.  The 'History' was written in Mongolian, likely very shortly after Genghis' death.  What you're thinking of is the Chinese version, that appears in the late 14th century.  But even that was written in Mongolian, it was just transcribed with Chinese characters.

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.

Naturally, I wouldn't be foolish enough to expect the same level of documentation for Jesus as for Augustus.  But consider what the Romans would have thought about a historical Jesus figure - he was assaulting moneychangers (who were licensed by the Romans and causing so much associated hullabaloo that the Romans were compelled to execute him.  I don't think it unreasonable to expect the case to have been mentioned in some Roman record somewhere.  Remember - the case was serious enough to involve a Roman prefect.  This wasn't a slave being executed for stealing a goat.

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 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.

I agree that in the grand scheme of things, an actual, historical Jesus is largely beside the point - a very good case can be made that Christianity would have evolved the same whether Jesus was a myth or not.

But I'm also an historian, by education if not by profession, and I understand how historical methodology works.  There simply isn't enough evidence or compelling argument to point to any historic figure as even the genesis for Jesus (no pun intended).  If I had to sum up my position on this in a few words, it would probably be, 'There is simply no good reason to believe in an historic figure that more or less corresponds to the Jesus of the synoptic Gospels.  But I could be wrong.'

Boru