Graham, you seem a bit frustrated with Matthew's "rant." However, as I tried to point out in my response to an earlier post in this debate, the voices suggesting alternative stories to the life of Jesus are balanced against 2000 years of investigation, thinking, scholarship, historical analysis, etc., etc. I suggested they are a "man bites dog" alternative. I also suggested that there are very serious Holocaust deniers, but it is hard to take them very seriously given the historical basis for that event. Jesus's life and the primary events of them are very well attested historically, that I think is beyond dispute. Of course, all kinds of well attested events can be questioned, such as the moon landing. But it is not really incorrect to suggest, as I think Matthew was doing, that these may well fall under the "crackpot" category. You do quite easily dismiss writers that you disagree with because of their motivation, such as former bishop NT Wright. But I raised the question of motivation in those who seek to debunk the well accepted facts. We are all motivated in one way or the other, despite genuinely sharing an interest in finding the truth where ever it may lie.