I think that a good analysis of the evidence can lead to an honest doubt of the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth, at least as he is described in the Gospels.

Paul's epistles--written first--do not describe a person as much as an idea, a savior god named Jesus the Christ, and this is clearly a synthesis of Jewish and pagan ideas, mixed with historical realities such as crucifixion.

I cannot be sure that a Jesus didn't exist, a man who started the linkage between the name Jesus and the incipient ideas that eventually became Pauline doctrine, but I really do doubt it. I think that Paul's constant references to the (LXX version of the) Old Testament as all the proof needed for the message of Jesus show that Paul considered himself to be passing on knowledge that was revealed to him by the spirit of God through exegesis and insight more than by an appeal to historical circumstance.

But, all things considered, I am not sure that it makes much difference whether a Jesus did exist at some point, because his message has been lost and replaced by that of others. Some parts may be true to his legacy (if he existed), but given the nature of religious literature, we just will not likely ever know.

I will bet my house on their not being much truth in Jesus's having moved to the south of France with Mary Magdalene. :)

-tb