You raise some good questions, "That there was a person called Christ living in that period, in that area? Probably hundreds of them ..." Christ was not a sur

You raise some good questions, "That there was a person called Christ living in that period, in that area? Probably hundreds of them ..." Christ was not a surname, but a title for the expected Jewish Messianic King promised throughout the Old Testament (Isaiah 52-53, Psalm 22 are a few accessible descriptive examples). In the 1st century, given Roman control of Judea, any claim to be "the Christ" risked death. It was not a title that one would take to oneself lightly. Despite this, there were a few false messiahs of the period. Their mission and memory have faded in comparison to that of Jesus of Nazareth. "Little written records," If you're keen to investigate further, you actually couldn't ask for better, more reliable written accounts (incidental vs biographical etc.) concerning Jesus. The historicity of the New Testament documents merely as historical documents is stunning. "general superstition abounded, populace was illiterate and easy to fool ..." I would not agree that that is an accurate description of the time period. It may be tempting for "modern" man to underestimate the culture and learning of earlier civilizations. If you dig deeper on this point, I think you would be impressed as to the intelligence, education, capability and common sense of 1st century Jews. "each time findings have contradicted biblical facts" I am not aware of any historical details in the New Testament documents which have been contradicted by historical findings? On the contrary, historical details (social, political, geographical, cultural, nautical etc.) in the New Testament documents tend to have been corroborated over time. "the bible itself has been adapted (there are lots of versions)" There are many translations of the canonical Bible into different languages, but there is only one version of the Bible, and if one is not sure of this, one can always read the extant MSS copies in the Greek. Textual criticism has shown that what we read today is what they wrote then, with no significant differences, as early as the 40s, no later than the 90s. "on the one hand you have a small and powerful establishment in control of the message, the historical facts and all secrets which could help in falsifying all christian claims" Are you referring to claims made by Dan Brown? The followers of Jesus were a motley crew at best, hardly powerful, hardly establishment. Furthermore, what they wrote, mostly independently and at great personal cost, their "testimony" (what we know as the New Testament), was in wide circulation by the end of the 1st century. If you have any more questions, feel free to drop me an email: joran@ronomon.com