Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Rhythmcs]

None of that bears on the question.  I'm asking about whatever hypothetical actual man the story of christ as told by paul is supposed to contain... buried somewhere.  In this, the theology of paul and his focus on a christ and even when paul was actually constructed are immaterial.  What man, if any, in pauls life or that paul was aware of in factual detail, might he have based whatever human detail might be gleaned from pauls account?  That would be one of the -actual- people in the composite character of christ.

Is that guy the real jesus?  Let's say he was the baker two doors down - for shits and giggles, and when paul thought of the human character of this christ he leaned on the actual character of this human man to flesh it out - as an example of what we could be talking about, once we accept that we're dealing with a composite character.  Was that guy born in nazareth, was that guy executed by pontius pilate?  Was that guy called christ?

Rinse and repeat with any gospel author or attribution we like.

You don't know there were ANY people in ANY "composite" of anything.

True, but the character in magic book is a composite character.  That's exactly the trouble "the consensus of scholars" runs into, and the embarassment that phrase is used to minimize and occlude.

Why would there be if there were multiple authors involved ? Details of what ? There are no details at all.

Another good question, why would there be multiple authors involved?  We don't know, but there were.  Multiple authors, multiple versions of the godman.

What are you even talking about ?
There are no personal details about anyone in Paul.
I don't buy ANY of your unsupported premises or assumptions.
If you are determined to make up a composite from no details and nothing, knock yourself out.

I think you misunderstand.  A composite character - in any kind of literature, is one made up of the details of many people or of many divergently narrativizing authors.  Jesus or christ in magic book is a composite character whatever else it is, and regardless of whether there was ever any single man.

...but, since we're assuming there was a jesus..these would be the things that people would have to be able to answer to privilege any one historical candidate over another. They haven;t been, which is why scholars strenuously disagree on every aspect of the entire subject except..for some reason, the existence of any such man in the first place.

In fact, in Paul it tells us there was no "one". It's allegory and symbolism.

-then we repeat again with the other gospels, the other real or supposed authors.

Your "composite" question may apply to the gospels ... it does not apply to the Pauline literature.

Nevertheless, scholars do try to derive the character of some real man from it.

I, obviously, think -all- of that is a waste of time.  The real man is not in evidence, the real man is not necessary, and the real man adds nothing to our understanding of the origin or development of any of the narratives or of the wider christian movement.