Part I For Each Of The Following, Write The Symbol Of The Element That Best Fits The: Fill & Download for Free

Warning, this will not be a short answer.. Almost 7,800 words. (not including this line.)This is my Fantasy world. I created every facet of it myself from scratch (including the maps) and played many a game in it with friends. I have run RPG games in it for over a decade. It is inspired by the mythologies of the world with strong Gaelic, Norse, Germanic, Greco-Roman and native American influences and Asian flavors (northern and eastern asia).<Original drawing by me. You're not crazy there is an almost invisible watermark.>Pictured above is one of the five major continents of the world of Teirsis, it is referred to as the Selunian continent. This land is where most adventures in my games take place but is only a small slice of the world. My answer will focus on this land.TeirsisThe world itself is ancient and is now on the cusp of its 6th era as the 5th era ends. The passing of the ages is a time marked by exceptional strife and great change. Across the world cities and civilizations are born and fall and new races rise from the dust. Old rules are broken, and new ones are formed. They say the crossing of an age is like the shuffling of a deck for the gods as they deal a new hand, that is not far from the truth.The Selunian Continent.IoniousIonious is the capital of "The Three Kingdoms" which also includes Arwyn and Vir'Na Arune. Much of the borders on this side of the continent have been in flux in the 4th and 5th eras as baronies rose and fell and warring factions took land from each other. The most recent war ended less than 200 years ago as Arwynians and the Arune people banded together to form strong internal alliances to hold large sections of land from the ruling elite in Ionious. The war was bitter and terrible going on for decades until Ionious revealed a new force not seen before, Airships.Using its new ships, Ionious rained down fire and destruction upon the cities of Arwyn and the Arune until they finally conceded to a cease fire. Even powerful sorcery was no match for Ionian armies because such ships could carry a dozen or more sorcerers to any place from high above. As part of the surrender treaty, they would get to remain independent nations but would swear allegiance to Ionious. They would agree to enact laws as set in Ionian senate and decreed by the king and pay tribute to the new capital. In return, Ionious would agree to give them representation in the senate and not to turn their new weapons on them. Ionious would use the airships to protect all three of the kingdoms and to spread trade and barter from the Three Kingdoms to the rest of the world.The government of Ionous is a monarchy with a secondary weak republic. Often the politics in the senate of Ionous can be both very very divisive and highly corrupt. Powerful guilds control many of the politicians either directly or indirectly in the senate. The most powerful of the guilds is the Air Guild. They designed and run the Airships. The Air Guild also runs one of the largest human universities of magical study. The King of Ionious has as much power in a senatorial vote as the entire senate minus one vote. To be king one must be of "Kings Blood" or occasionally referred to as "Dragons Blood". Those rare humans (only a handful in a generation) that have kings blood are generally stronger, smarter and healthier than most humans and can live for centuries. It is said the gods choose whom shall be "Kings Blood" but the question is always "Which god chose this king?".The most notable city in Ionious is the capital city for which the country is named. It is located high upon a massive mountain. The entire top 3rd of the mountain was cleanly cut off at some point in the distant past of the second or third era. This left a massive flat plane of solid bedrock to build the city upon. The city also has immense walls around it and interior walls dividing different quarters of the city. The city is almost impossible to lay siege to with conventional armies due to its high perch and formidable defenses. The two wide roads that lead to the city through the mountains are in a precarious position in full view of the cities walls and defenders. The splendors of Ionious are well known and despite it being a fortress, it is also a magnificent city with high domed roofs of bronze and copper. The markets of Ionious feature trade goods from almost every continent on the world.ArwynOnce long ago this kingdom was the heart of mankind. Some great cities, castles, keeps, towers and fortresses still remain. Of these, the great city of Kenth and Castle Arwyn stand out amongst the numerous baronies and fifes in the kingdom. Castle Arwyn is home to the ruling Arwyn family and is notable due to its vast size and the massive windmill that adorns its highest tower. The windmill is of Gnomish engineering and drives water to the city and the countryside. It is also said that it keeps foul weather from the city but that claim has been tested many a time. Castle Kenth is made inside the hollow of an unbelievably large petrified tree. It is said the tree was the World Tree until the fourth age began.The kingdom of Arwyn is one of the largest and most populous kingdoms of humans on the planet and yet is in many ways also one of the weaker nations. Much of Arwyn is farming country, and their entire society is devoted to agriculture and livestock. In the North mining and logging produces some of the non agricultural exports of the country. Windmills help industrialize the mining and grain production in the kingdom and are used to direct water to the vast farmlands. Having no territory of their own, the Gnomish people have been welcomed by the people of Arwyn and have contributed much to the kingdom's resources and strength. The many grain, mining, logging and water mills are all of Gnomish design.One potent resource in this country is a large population of magically gifted individuals called Weesha. The Weesha are skilled in magics of nature, healing and weather as well as curses and blessings. Although they can be hard to organize in large numbers due to their individuality, they are a particularly potent magical force when working in concert. When not drawn together by some great common cause, they are often spread far and wide helping their local communities and healing the injured. It is said that one is either born Weesha or not and that you cannot learn to be Weesha.A second great resource is the land itself. Aside from good farm land within the boarders of Arwyn are the Mystic Forest and The Great Swamp. The great forest is said to be the heart of all other forests in the world, and the grand Treeant at the center has roots that reach to every other forest in the world. Logging of any kind is strictly forbidden in the Great forest except as needed to thin old dry wood to prevent fires. The great swamp is a dangerous land with many monsters but some of the most rare and valuable herbs and spices in the world can be found growing there.Arwyn has some of the best relations with the Elves, Gnomes and the Dwarves of any in the three kingdoms and has treaties for coming to the aid of these allies or to have them come to their aid should the need arise. These treaties predate the formation of the three kingdoms and have never been broken. It is not unlikely that Arwyn would break ties with Ionious to keep its treaties with the other races. This single fact has allowed Arwyn to remain an independent state despite the efforts of Ionous to absorb them fully.The Arwynian government is run as a monarchy by a single unbroken line of "Kings Blooded" royalty. It is rare that more than one child of "Kings Blood" is born to the royal family. Often those of "Kings Blood" will only be able to conceive one or two children in their long lifetime. The land is split into several fiefdoms that act as independent states but owe absolute allegiance to the King and Queen of Arwyn. Laws are set at the capital (often with the other lords direct input) and then the process for enacting and enforcing such laws is decided individually in each fief. The High King of Arwyn has the right to disband fiefs or to reassign them and to overrule local laws as he sees fit to ensure fair treatment of the people.Vir'Na AruneTranslated the name literally means Land of The People. ("The People" intentionally capitalized.) This land is often looked at as a vast wasteland by outsiders. It is in fact, a vast desert with a rich and diverse ecosystem. Unlike the other two of the Three Kingdoms Arune are not actually human. They share some traits with both humans and elves and yet are a distinct race as opposed to a hybrid. The People claim they are descended from Danann, Dragons and Titans equally. The truth is likely lost to time, even the elves with their ancient archives do not know for sure. The Arune are generally slightly taller and lither than humans with gently exaggerated angles to their features, and their skin is dusky with occasional tints of red, blue, green or gold.One of the key industries aside from fishing and whaling is the mining of elemental crystals. The country has a higher than normal distribution of fire, air and earth crystals. These crystals can be used in magical items and spells, alchemy and to construct items with unique properties like resistance to heat or increased durability. The production and mining of these crystals make this country wealthier than it might otherwise be. As these crystals can be weaponized they also give their armies a distinct, if expensive, advantage in battle.The deserts of this land hide ancient ruins that may date back to the second or third age. Rune and relic hunters frequently comb the desert looking for hidden caches from bygone times in the hope of striking it rich. Magical items discovered from these early ages can sometimes be devastatingly powerful, these often lead to the meteoric rise and fall of their possessors. The locals know that wise people let the dead lie undistrubed.The Arune government is ruled by a strict theocracy based upon ancestor worship and the worship of the elemental spirits of the land. While they do respect the common gods worshipped by other races, they place a strong emphasis on the divinity of their ancestors and the purity of their ancestral bloodlines in relation to the creators of the world. Their religious beliefs often put them at odds with the other races of the world. They do have a ruling aristocracy that is usually venerated due to the deeds of their ancestors.The Valley of MemoryTeirsis is an ancient world and has changed many times in the various eras gone by, The Valley of Memory is literally the memories of the world. If one can find this hidden place, they can find wonders and echoes of lost ages. Civilizations that no longer exist as well as creatures and magics from past eras are preserved here. Each time a person visits this "Lost World" they may be looking upon a different period of Teirsis's past. The problem is this place is extremely well hidden. Many seekers of this land have trekked across the mountainous Thorns of the North only to find they have gone right past the Valley without ever stepping foot in it. It seems only some are destined to visit this ancient place, but its secrets drive many to seek it out.The Dwarven Kingdoms.If there is a mountain, there is said to be Dwarves living in, on or around it. The Dwarves have an ancient society structured around family bloodlines and great kings. The Dwarven lands of the entire world are said to be one Kingdom ruled by 12 kings and one high king. The High King is elected democratically by the other kings and rules until death. Often several of the other Kings share direct council with him and live many months of the year in the same city as him. Dwarven politics is a mixture of bluster, bluff, favors, bribes, shouting, carousing, gambling, challenges, strong-arm tactics and outright violence governed by a strict code of honor. For the most part, this seemingly insane system of government almost never results in deaths, but many a broken bone and terrible scars have still resulted.Each Dwarf has several names. He has his public name that all know him by, his secret name that only those he trusts know, his true name that only his lover may know and his family name. The lines of blood and family are particularly significant to Dwarven society and some Dwarves are so special or so heroic that they birth a new family name by their actions. The deeds of the past carry a weight on the name, and only the most pure and unsullied names may rise to royalty. Often this can leave a weight around an entire house if an ancestor committed a terrible evil. The only way to break from such a history is to be accepted into a new family and bear a child under that new family's name or to become a hero worthy of a new name.Dwarves are strong and hearty, and they are the greatest stone workers and some of the greatest metal workers in all the world. A typical Dwarf lives for his work and works to live. He puts as much effort into his work as he does partying. Despite rumors propagated mostly by Elves about Dwarves being drunks, addiction is actually seriously frowned upon by their society. A Dwarf found to be ignoring his duties in favor of drink or herbs may find himself branded and banished from his people. This policy does not help the stereotype as many a Dwarf found beyond their halls is quite possibly one such drunkard. The mark is often a broken hammer under one eye or on the forehead symbolizing his poor work ethic.Dwarves of a certain age do journey beyond the great halls and to the surface as a passage into adulthood. This is done so that they might learn of the wider world and also seek a fortune to start a family with. Dwarven males and females are often indistinguishable from each other to an outsider when they are fully clothed. They have similar builds and strength and both can and do grow full beards. Being a woman is not looked down upon by Dwarven society and "Kings" can be female as easily as a male. Dwarven sexual politics are complicated, and family is highly important to the Dwarves. This applies both to direct blood and to adopted family members. Dwarves often form "brotherhoods" or "sisterhoods" that are as strong as any other bond and sometimes include a uniquely Dwarven form of courtship and intimacy.The Mystic Forest and the Great SwampOnce in an earlier age there was no swamp. The Mystic Forest originally stretched from the eastern coast to the Summerlands. As time went on, wars and logging took their toll on the forest and part of it fell into decay becoming the great swamp, Obrus Demergo. From the decay of the Great Swamp comes a vibrant and diverse shelter for life. It is said the only places one can find a Unicorn are in the Mystic Forest or the Great Swamp. They have come to represent two sides of the same coin, one is life and one is death. In between them Arwyn and the Summerlands are littered with smaller forests but there is something different about this forest.The Mystic Forest and the Great Swamp are protected by numerous spirits, ghosts, sprites and fairies. This is a place of wild nature and not a place for civilized species. The few intelligent creatures that make their homes in the forest often live a symbiotic life with the forest itself and are prone to violently attack outsiders. The only intelligent species known to live in the forest include talking animals nearly 3 or 4 times as large as their cousins, a distinct and shy breed of gnomes and fairies, dryads and sprites. The swamp has been known to be home to terrible creatures such as harpies and cockatrice but also Weesha, dark fairies and Unicorns. The greatest Weesha in the world, Magdah, makes the Great Swamp her home. She does not take kindly to visitors.Deep within the Mystic Forest is the World Tree. In actuality, it is a Treeant thousands of years old. The roots of the World Tree stretch around the globe and connect to every forest there ever was or will be. Treeants are often thought to be a type of wood Fey, but if that was ever so then they have long ago become something else, something more akin to a wood elemental. If a person can somehow brave the forests and find themselves in front of the grand Treeant, they may ask him some questions in exchange for a favor. The great tree has been known to speak particularly slowly, and a single sentence may take hours or even the whole day to finish. Some still seek him out because of his great wisdom, his ability for foresight and to reveal the secrets of the past. Ionous got its extremely light yet strong wood for their airships through some unknown pact with the World Tree.The Summerlands and The WinterlandsThe history of the children of Danann is a long and messy one. The Danann created their children early in the history of the world and as the world changed so have they. The Elves consider there to be two races of the Danann, themselves and all of the other various Fey creatures. The original home of the Elves was where the Winterlands now sit. Once the Summer and Winter courts of the elves took turns ruling over the land during the associated seasons for half of the year. During the Winter months, a vast shadow would fall over the kingdom cast by Selune, and during the Summer court the sun would blaze uninterrupted except by nightfall. At the end of the Fourth Age, a great betrayal took place. The King and Queen of the Winter court were murdered by their own daughter on the eve of the changing of the court from winter to summer. The King of the Summer court was also killed that very same night. Their daughter Nicnivin set out to conquer the kingdom in the name of the Winter court for all time.A vicious and bloody war was fought using magics that had been outlawed for thousands of years. The war literally reshaped the land and the creatures around it. One such example was the splitting of the race of "Lore Masters" into two races, Goblins and Gnomes. The original name of the "Lore Masters" was erased from the world when they were. Eventually, the Summer court was faring so badly against the combined might of the Winter court and the various monsters that were both created and bound to serve them that they had to make a hasty retreat. In a great ritual, Those buildings and structures that were under the full control of the Summer court were shifted through great fairy Trods to where the Summerlands now sit. These lands were already occupied by the Fey races, but they agreed to join the battle on the side of the Summer court as the actions of Nicnivin were seen as an affront to both the gods and nature.After 500 more years of warfare, both sides eventually began to grow tired of the battle. It seemed an impasse had been reached, and neither side was gaining ground. The winter court could not advance beyond the shadow of Selune and the Summer court could not advance into the shadow. The region in between became a cursed and twisted landscape full of monsters and beasts twisted by magic from the many battles fought upon it. Each kingdom continues to be ruled by their respective Queens for the thousands of years of the fifth age until today.The Summerlands and The Fey WildsIn reality, these are one kingdom split by an arbitrary and largely ignored internal line. The Summer court claims responsibility for the northern portion and the courts of the Fey control the other. Most urban civilizations are in the northern half of the land as the southern half tends to be overgrown by ancient forests that turn into thick and sometimes impassable jungle with a jagged and rocky landscape. The deeper south one gets the more it is said to be "in control of the Wilds". The Fey have two courts of their own simply named the Dark and Light courts. Dark and Light do not as much refer to good and evil but creation and entropy.The Summerlands are home to some of the most beautiful and magnificent cities in all of the world. Some cities stand like impossibly tall works of art forged of shining metal, stone and crystal and others blend seamlessly into the forest and land around them. Many of the most respected universities are in the Summerlands, and they also accept non Elves as students. The Capital city has a bardic college and a college of magic amongst many others. The Elves arguably have some of the most potent magics and magical creations owing to their exceptionally long lives. Elves rarely have children, so their populations are actually smaller than humanity despite their long lives that can last a thousand or more years.The Elven government is a republic with senators democratically elected to their positions based upon a meritocracy. Potential candidates for senate positions prepare a brief of their deeds and education that is submitted for review. This submission is then magically sanitized to remove any distinguishing features of the candidates, and a vote is made based upon the submissions. The Elven Queen has the power to demand a vote on any issue, break ties where a strong majority is lacking and command a vote equal to one half of the senate a limited number of times per decade.The Fey Wilds are a beautiful and dangerous land. Wild animals of every type and breed can be found amongst the forests and isolated plains. There are few cities and those that do exist are often hidden away so that only Fey can easily find them, or they belong to small camps of Elves or outsiders. The Fey are as diverse as their land. It is said no two Fey look alike, and there is much truth to this. Most Fey have a combination of humanoid traits, beast traits and elemental affinities that shape their appearance. When Fey have children they might not resemble their parents at all. They may look human with an animalistic face and hair that wavers like fire or they might look like some kind of beast with hands and a humanoid mouth. Some elder Fey look even stranger and are mistaken to be monsters by foolish outsiders. Fey can breed with most other races but the child is always 100% Fey. Most consider the Fey little more than animals. The Fey however are not stupid, but some are truly uncivilized. The governmental system seems to be a Kratocracy based on power (physical and mystic) and age, but few outsiders understand the system well enough to categorize it.The WinterlandsNicnivin made pacts with spirits and with gods to gather the power to break the cycle of the Elven rulership. Some say she consorted with demons and Eldritch too, but few know for sure. Her actions were made possible not just due to dark pacts but due to a growing resentment of the Elven people for the system. The politics of the Summer and Winter courts had become so divided and so dysfunctional that the laws changed completely from one season to the next. The Summer court would add a new law and the Winter court would revoke the law as soon as the seasons changed. This began to get so ugly that restrictions would be placed on the followers of the opposing courts in season. The Summer court would enact laws that placed hardships upon the Winter court during the summer and the Winter court would do the same.Nicnivin gathered her allies and waged war. She enlisted the aid of every race of beast and monster that could follow orders and got the whole of the Winter court to support her. She killed her parents when they refused to go along with her seemingly insane plan. After she pushed the Summer court from her borders, she sought to conquer more lands beyond the Winter Shadow but found she had been cursed by the gods, even the ones that had helped her. She could no longer leave the confines of the shadowy winter landscape she had conquered. Her powerful magics were likewise weakened by distance from the center of her kingdom. Instead, she tried to gather her power and dominate the other races of the Winterlands to pay fealty to her as a supreme monarch. Her spies and assassins are everywhere, and none dares defy her rule. Slowly she planned to grow her power until her armies could spill out over the other lands so she could destroy them and rule from her frozen black castle.The Elves of the Winterlands are mostly clustered in the center of their realm and settlements and cities spread out through what is called Vinther (The Icy Web).. Eight territories surround the heart of her kingdom each ruled by wicked and terrible beasts that are left to their own devices so long as they show absolute fealty to and protect the queen Nicnivin. The land itself is a beautiful and surreal landscape of eternal winter. Trees and flowers grow in this landscape in strange shapes and often glow with magical light. Much of the plants and animals are deadly in this land, each having natural poisons and defenses. The regions on the borders have normal seasons but are still abnormally cold. Creatures that are accustomed to the warmth cluster to these edges and hibernate during the long winters. The Elves do very little farming or hunting unless it is for recreation. Most supplies are provided as a tribute from the other races. All Elves must serve in the military for a time and return to the military every decade for a season of retraining.All along Vinther are well guarded roads, walls and fortresses to secure the kingdom. The landscape and natural dangers are used as defenses wherever possible with such things as strangle vines, shadow stalks and blood moths filling the many gaps between walls and fortresses. Safe passage can only be guaranteed on the roads maintained by the elves or through a fortress. The areas of each subordinate kingdom are far safer to travel but still quite dangerous. The subordinate kingdoms are overrun with; Orks, Trolls, Goblins, Undead, Dark Beasts, Shadow spawn and other creatures that are allowed to rule themselves in Nicnivin's shadow.The Unaligned Lands of the SouthThe region from the Fey wilds to the southern coast is a brutal and dangerous land. Much of it on the eastern side is claimed by the Elves but they lack the might or brutality, to truly enforce their rule against the numerous splintered kingdoms and fiefs that rule over this land. The Fey asks that the Elves leave the tribes and animals that live in these lands to their own business, and it is thought that some ancient oath during the formation of the Summerlands stills their hands to this day. Still much of the land from the Fey wilds to the Summerlands on the eastern side along the Yellow river is firmly in Elven control and used for shipping and fishing.The strongest presence in the south is the land of The Dragon Kings. They firmly control the western part of the south right up to the border of the Winterlands and have successfully repelled attempted invasions over the millennia. The Dragon Kings are a strange people made of two races. One race are huge humanoid lizards, and the other are humans that no longer call themselves human. Once long ago the lizard people enslaved the humans in vast numbers. While the lizards were strong and impervious to damage, they were not good at delicate crafts and agriculture. They enslaved the humans to serve them and to produce the goods to make their empire strong.Once long ago the kingdom of lizard masters and human slaves were threatened by an overpowering force from the Winterlands. Seeing that both races were in danger of being wiped out they made a pact to end the slavery once and for all. Both races would fight to the death, and both races would be considered equals. Weapons and armors were furnished for slave and master alike, and they fought on the field together as one people. The Lizards were strong and stalwart and the humans nimble and precise. Together they accomplished what neither could do alone. They worshipped Helios above all other gods, and it is said that Helios himself came down from the heavens and decreed that where there once was two races now there was one. From that day on both adopted the name Dragon Kings and they found a new prosperity in their cooperation.Other Continents and CountriesObsequian Continent - Mostly Deep Wild Jungle. Major races include a feline beastpeople, ancient clockwork, glass and ceramic golems, giant psychic spiders and feral Dragon Kings. Small continent.Umberdeen - City of Aquatic Elves. Instead of Summer and Winter courts they have Deep and Shallow courts. One half of the year the kingdom is flooded with water and sits deep in the Ocean. One half of the year the kingdom is filled with air and sits near or on the surface.Another sister city Chrysonia'ro has no seasonal courts but is anchored to the back of a migrating sea turtle 600 miles long from nose to tail and 450 miles wide from fin to fin.. It only surfaces when the turtle does. Aquatic Elves and Humans live there.Helosian Continent - Larger than the Selunian Continent.Demons in the interior most reaches of the continent surrounded by an ancient and impassable desert of obsidian sands. (They mostly keep to themselves.) The giant Castle city they hold in the middle of the desert is thought to be the first stronghold made by man.The west coast of the continent is a large kingdom ruled over by a race of giants called Avatars. The Avatars live on giant floating islands of rock in the sky and forbid any creature to step foot on their land on punishment of death except their own. They maintain a peaceful and mostly fair society even if it can be a bit oppressive and authoritarian. The Humans below run a mostly democratic society but the Avatars have the ability to overrule any decisions or laws of the people and amend them as they please. The humans often give tribute to the Avatars in the form of elaborate artistic works as the Avatars have little need for material items such as food or crafts. The Avatars worship the major gods and the Humans worship the Avatars.Between the Lands of the Avatars and the Demons are several cities. The city of the Good Undead that fight the Demons and the underground city of the Knockers are noteworthy amongst others. Knockers are creatures that can speak to and shape stone by gently tapping it. They are short in stature and look mostly featureless as if they were loosely formed of clay into a short rounded humanoid shape. (Think Pillsbury Doughboy.) The Undead wage a silent war each night to keep the Demons from advancing out of the great desert.The south west coast of Helosia is home to a Pirate city suspended from cliffs that surround a narrow cove. The buildings and walkways anchor to the rock with chains rope and anything else that works. Catwalks and walkways groan and sway with the winds between buildings and even ships hoisted into the air. The worst hive of scum and villainy in the city is a small dive bar called "The Smelly Puke Rat".Several smaller continents and kingdoms exist including subterranean kingdoms, the cursed islands of Cruoria and smaller individual nations.Each of these countries have dozens of cities and dozens more characters and movers and shakers in each of city. I could write another answer three times this size just about that.History and The Gods<Although this chart resembles a modern astrodynamics chart the movements of the gods are not consistent with gravitation nor our laws of physics. This chart merely shows the relationships and interactions of the "High Gods" in relation to each other and Teirsis. The actual movements of the Gods would be impossible to draw on any map. The Gods of the world are however represented celestially and can be seen either in the day or night skies of Teirsis.>The High Gods<God> - <Primary Attribute> (<secondary attributes>)Helios - Law/Order (fire, summer, light, honor, royalty, life, wisdom, inspiration, fathers)Cruoris - Power (metal, late summer, jealousy, hate, vengeance, evil, corruption, wealth, pain, theft, dark magic)Obsequias - Death (earth, autumn, darkness/shadow, tranquility, necromancy, dream)Selune - Protection (water, winter, hunt, magic, love, oceans, mothers)Asara - Sacrafice (wood, spring, healing, travel, questing, prophesy, justice, light magic )Valenbrandt - Fate (air, pre-spring, fortune, luck, destiny, time, bards, joy, wine)Teirsis - Nature (natural elements, seasons, sleep, fertility, weather, animals, plants, emotions,Each of the high gods has dozens of gods subservient to them, and those gods have lessor gods in service to them. The lowest of the celestial courts are spirits that embody a specific concept or variation of a concept such as "cold rivers that flow north on the Selunian continent".The First EraWhat little is known of the first era is revealed by the gods themselves to their followers, few others were present to recount the tale. The problem here is that the gods have revealed different parts of the story to different followers, temples and races. From those revelations, a few common lines can be found.In the beginning was the god Helios whom is associated with the sun. Within him was infinite possibility and power, beyond his reach was only void. From him was born Selune the mother and protector. Selune is associated with the Moon. Selune birthed 3 children, Asara, Cruoris and Obsequias. Asara is the healer and the guide associated with the blue-white companion star that roams the heavens widely. Cruoris is selfishness and deceit incarnate associated with the red fiery sphere that never leaves his father's side. And Obsequias was Selune's stillborn child who is associated with eclipses and the underworld. Valenbrandt is the bard god of mischief, fate and fortune, none know whom his parents were.Together the gods created what would become the world Teirsis. First they created the dreaming (heavens) where their children and avatars could play. Next they created the elemental Wyrms that would represent the raw matter of the world and give form and function to things from the chaos of the dreaming. The world was born from the dreams of the gods and the toils of the heavens but was a chaotic place of fire and water, earth and air. The gods placed the first living creatures on the world, and these first creatures were almost as great as the gods. The Titans were flesh and spirit , and they could create new life in the boiling chaos of the elements. Together with the gods and Wyrms they could shape the lands, and the seas to bring life to the world.At the closing of the first age visitors from beyond the realms of the gods arrived on Teirsis. These were the Danann, beings of powerful magic and will but not of the gods creation or plans. They journeyed here from the Far Shores to begin a settlement for their children as they have in so many other realms. At the same time, the Titans, Wyrms and Gods were also creating new sentient creatures such as the Dwarves, Gnomes, Beastpeople, Humans and Wyrmkin. In the midst of so much change, the arrival of these new players was missed. As the new era began all was not right in the world, and a fight was brewing. A few singular creatures in the wolrd have direct knowledge of this Era. They include possibly some Avatars, a few dragons and the high gods.The Second EraThe second era started when a dispute arose between the Danann, the Titans and Wyrms. The Titans and Wyrms went to the Gods to ask who gave these new beings permissions to make their own progeny and what their purpose was. The Gods had no answer as they were never part of the plan, but the Gods enjoyed the things the Danann created and liked their beautiful children the Elves enough that they welcomed them to stay. The children of the gods were furious at this and vowed to wage war against the Danann. They would prove who was truly worthy of Teirsis. The Gods always up for a new game played along to help their favorites and harming others.The Danann were more powerful and majestic than anyone, even the Gods, had suspected. So subtle and gentle have been their ways, always in harmony with nature that none knew of their true potential. The war went on long and bloody. The land was churned and reshaped with each battle, and it was all the races of the world could do to survive the storm. Eventually, the Wyrms and Titans turned against each other and then against the Gods themselves. When the world threatened to be torn asunder the gods realized their mistakes and ended the war in a decisive blow.The gods realized they had made the first of their children too powerful and although this could be remedied they could not allow a race more powerful than their creations to stay on Teirsis. The Wyrms and The Avatars were struck down and their power diminished. The Gods came to the Danann to ask them to leave only to find they had already gone. Their children the Elves said that all the Danann asked is that their children be allowed to live in peace and in return the Elves would guard the wild places, plants and animals of the world. Seeing no reason to argue with such a fine bargain the Gods agreed. Somehow in the midst of all of this strife a new race was beginning to rise over the land, Humans. This historical era is mostly told through story and allegory. Only the most ancient of spirits and the high gods remember this time in any great detail. Dragons and Avatars have some written history on this time as well.The Third EraThe Gods forged the land out of the dreaming in a section of the Void, but little did they know some of the Void became mixed into their creation. Despite its name the Void was not as empty as it seemed. Beyond the gods reach waited creatures older than time and twice as dark. These were the Eldritch abominations from other worlds and other times. They possessed a dark hunger that could not be sated. Only by drawing the very life out of other gods creations could they feed and then they would devour the gods as well. In those pockets of void that had been caught up in the world, they could begin their plans. Perhaps they had from the very beginning.Like their creators before them the great races of the world created their own progeny and then began to war amongst each other once man began to spread across the land, each blaming the other for these invaders. The weakening of the Titans (now Avatars) and the Wyrms (now Dragons) had also weakened their creations. The wars died down on their own. The gods plans had worked, and the power of the races began to diminish to a point where they could no longer create new races themselves nor easily rend the earth beneath them. But chaos and conflict was not the only problem, true corruption was also being seen for the first time.The Void and the Eldritch were like a plague, and once touched by them their influence spread like one too. The Gods needed a new system to guide and shape the fates of the world and races, and so a bargain was struck. A set of rules would be put in place that limited the amount of influence that any being could push on the world including themselves. They created a sort of system by which each god could only interfere if the other gods were given an equal chance. Each play made by one god gave all the others a play to use where and how they wanted. Each play would be in proportion to the others. The Eldritch would be shut out of this cosmic card game, and thus their influence lessened. Much of this age is thought of as unreliable "myth" by the peoples of the world. Only long lived races such as the Elves, Dragons, and Avatars have actual records that go back this far.The Fourth EraFinally the world was moving smoothly, and the gods were beyond themselves with joy for their creation. The fourth age was an age of magic and wonders. Great cities and empires rose and fell all directed by the gentle guidance of the gods. It began to be like a game for them and one they quickly became addicted to. The races of the world were not always happy nor at peace, but this was still a time of growth and expansion for most races. The fourth age lasted more than 10 thousand years. All of this time the world grew and evolved.Amongst all the growth and expansion something was brewing underneath it all. The Game was coming to something big, it had become a thing all its own. The rules and guidelines the gods had created to govern how they interacted with the world were creating new plays that had not been anticipated. As the Deck grew thin, chaos began to boil underneath. The Gods so caught up in their game continued to play until the last card was drawn. Most of what people in Teirsis call "ancient history" comes from this era.The Fifth EraThe fifth age came with a shattering of the races. Suddenly where there was one race was now two. Where there was one country there was many. The shattering of the Elven kingdom was only one such tragedy. Even through this, the rues held and functioned as designed. The deck was reshuffled, and the gods began to play on this new field. This is the modern era of Teirsis history and relatively well documented by the various races of the world.More of the same followed. War and peace, prosperity and ruin, good and evil. Seven thousand years of magic, monsters and honest people trying to live out their lives is coming to an end. The deck again has grown thin, and the last card has been drawn. What changes will happen to the face of the world as the new age moves in and new cards are drawn?The Sixth EraNow is the Dawn of the sixth Era. This is where my world is set. This is what it looks like. This is my fantasy world.I cannot discount the contributions of my good friend and roommate Matthew Clay to this world. He has played in most of the tabletop RPG games I have been creating and running for over a decade and inspired me to create and flesh everything out.Note: I omitted many of the odd and proper names for things and people so as to not add confusion and cut down the size of this already long answer. As a result some things are described far more generally than would otherwise be appropriate. I have notes that detail everything from the trades each kingdom produces to their political ties with each other. I also have numerous short and long stories set in this land detailing the trials and struggles of life in such a land of fantasy and magic.Someday I hope to do a series of novels and a tabletop RPG game setting for all of this. There is so much more to share but this answer already is too long. So many great details like the Elven department of departmental affairs, the exploits of the Harbingers of Teirsis and the coming storm still wait to be told. Secrets of the history of the races like the first Human king and the Plauge Blade, the God Forges, Nicnivins rise to power or the secret history of the Arune and Avatars still need to be told. The story of how the mountains of The Spine of World were altered in the last era and the teardrop shaped scar in the land now called Harbingers lake or The Lake of Tears in the Winterlands is a novel in and of itself. The future events that will shape the new Era will see kingdoms rise and fall and forever change the face of the world. Heroes are just now beginning to take the first steps into this new dawn and the Eldritch are back with a terrible vengeance. I hope to share these with you all someday soon.

Marvel had the right person overseeing everything, while Star Wars did not. Kevin Feige also had an uphill battle to legitimize comic book based films to a broader audience, while Kathleen Kennedy inherited a successful, money-making franchise where the fans bought into the name regardless of what was being sold due to the strength of the brand’s earlier work.Let’s take it from the top.KEVIN FEIGEKevin Feige was the right man for the job of spear-heading Marvel as a brand, and then a studio. Much like Dana White and the UFC, he understood that he wasn’t making movies, but BUILDING A BRAND. This takes time, and you’re looking to appease two groups: long time comics fans, and people who are not currently comics fans but MIGHT become so if you dangle the right product in front of them.This meant a long-term plan, a trial-and-error process, and a lot of oversight to ensure that each movie was meeting a set of standards being set from the top down.Kevin Feige was making each movie and exploring how to create a recipe for a good movie that many people would want to see and keep buying. Good brands do this; I’ll use food as an example: Coke, Pepsi, Nestle Tollhouse, Aunt Jemima… they are brands that are founded on making a recipe and then sticking to it, so that when I pick up a Pepsi, it’s exactly what I’ve come to expect and dearly wanted. In fact, it’s so good, I’m addicted at this point and can’t help craving more!That’s the magic of starting as an underdog. You have to take into account what people are buying or not buying and adjust accordingly to increase the value of your product. The better feedback you get from customers and the better your product sells tells you that you’re on to something.Kevin Feige understood this, and is also a huge fan of the product he’s trying to sell. This is INVALUABLE at the top of your brand. Walt Disney, Dana White, George Lucas, Stan Lee… the person selling the brand is only as good their belief IN the brand!KATHLEEN KENNEDYKathleen Kennedy wasn’t the right pick to run Star Wars. It’s not that she’s not a hard worker, isn’t talented, or hasn’t worked along side George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for years. On paper, she looks like exactly the kind of person who should know the franchise inside and out.But Kathleen Kennedy isn’t a Walt Disney, Dana White, George Lucas, or Stan Lee for one simple reason: she doesn’t believe in the product as it came to her.Do you know who Brian Dyson is? I’ll give you a hint:Brian Dyson was the CEO of Coca-Cola USA in 1986 and spearheaded New Coke. I cut Dyson a lot more slack than I do Kennedy for one simple reason: Dyson was smart enough to understand that he’d made a mistake and went back to the original formula. By the time Kennedy and her team did, they were trying to mix-and-match the old formula and their new creation into something else.This is crux of Kathleen Kennedy’s problem though. She doesn’t believe in Star Wars as a product in the form she received when she inherited it; she wanted to ‘fix’ Star Wars by making it something different. She wanted to change what she PERCEIVED were the important parts of the formula*. More on that in a minute.This is part of the problem of inheriting a product that already has a huge fan base. She didn’t really need to ‘fix’ anything thematically. People loved Star Wars like most people love Coke or Pepsi. They didn’t need it ‘fixed’, they just wanted MORE of it.Star Wars though, does indeed have a formula: George Lucas talked about it often. It’s based off of epics and follows particular story beats. It also had 6 movies that defined the universe and setting… a sandbox, if you will… with defined edges to play with inside.You could make something simple…or really complex…… because despite any of George Lucas’ faults as a story teller or director, he did an amazing job with world-building; his world had well-defined setting that enabled creations of incredible complexity to be built.Why would you say that Kathleen Kennedy & Star Wars weren’t as successful as Kevin Feige & Marvel?Much of the financial success of the new Star Wars films is tied up in “The Force Awakens”, where many of the returning fanbase came out in droves looking to buy Classic Coke but got their first taste of New Coke.There was no way to know what brand changes were being made with someone new at the helm until you actually go and try the product.This is one of the reasons sales numbers aren’t accurate as the only measurement of success: you have to BUY a ticket to see the film regardless of whether you end up liking it or hating it, because you won’t know until you go in and watch. Customer satisfaction is just as important in the long run survival of your product.Kevin Feige, over the course of 22 films and 10 years, built a brand name; people didn’t have to know who the “Guardians of the Galaxy” were to give it a shot since it was MARVEL that was putting the film out. And lo and behold, because Marvel was sticking to their formula, it was a very successful film despite NEVER being a very successful comic.That’s the POWER of a BRAND. When you nail down a formula that people want, then all you have to do is keep supplying it.How did Star Wars fail if it’s still making so much money?Star Wars fans can’t know if Classic Coke is coming back until they try the soda, or the marketing tells them so.The brand name was still a big draw, and people can’t know if the product is good or not till they’ve come out of the theater.But a good metric of failure is how many people vocalized this displeasure with the new trilogy. Everyone had to buy a ticket to get in, not everyone who came out enjoyed the films. Over time, this can eventually hurt the brand. For instance, Solo had abysmal ticket sales right after “The Last Jedi”, in part due to choices that were being made in the new trilogy.The Last Jedi, most poignantly, completely broke the fanbase. Even though all of those people saw the movie, most viewers didn’t actually like it.Disney (and Star Wars) still made their money, but I don’t think we can call it a success if you risk losing the quality of your brand, half of your fans, and risk the future of that business.*What were the elements of the recipe that Kathleen Kennedy tried to change?I told you I’d come back to this!Kathleen Kennedy doesn’t understand the formula of Star Wars at the ingredient level. The key ingredient to Coke is sugar; that’s a base part of the formula and is the addictive part of a Coke… not the carbonation which is what provides that burning feeling as you drink it. The key ingredient to Star Wars is the fun, epic tale structure… it’s not just throwing characters on a screen wearing black and white uniforms or using lightsabers. She also tried to focus too much on the packaging, thinking that people bought Star Wars for what we see on the surface, not the product on the inside.That being said… Star Wars is not about DIVERSITY or GENDER IDENTITY; it is about IDENTITY. Identity is about your character… not just your skin color or genitalia.Luke’s identity and conceptions of who he is and what he wants to be is constantly challenged through three movies as he goes on a quest to learn the ways of the Force and be a Jedi like his father. The more he learns about the Force and the more he learns about his father, the more his personal identity is challenged.Leia and Han’s relationship and the most infamous line between them, “I know.” is based entirely off of identity. He’s a rogue, a scoundrel, a man with a price his head… yet Solo is also a man who’d risk death going into a blizzard to save a friend, is brave enough to charge back into a base that is being overrun by the enemy to save the woman he loves, is clever and resourceful even when things are going wrong, and is actually in touch with his true feelings… even when Leia and Luke are not. The whole romance hinged on her being hung up on her identity as a princess, as a rebel leader, on all the reasons on paper she shouldn’t love Han, right up until she’s forced with the possibility of losing him.Diversity is all well and good, but not as a focus and not when you believe that the core element of the story is, “this character is good because she’s a woman” or “this character is a good character because there weren’t enough Black men in Star Wars”.That doesn’t cut the mustard.Who actually had THE BEST identity-driven story hook in “The Force Awakens”?That would be Finn. Finn’s identity crisis right out of the gate was the best idea in The Force Awakens, and was painfully dropped in the next few films. Why? Because Kathleen Kennedy’s team didn’t understand the gold they had in favor of chasing after the copper they didn’t.Black, White, Asian… the CHARACTER of Finn is damn interesting! What happens when a bad guy spontaneously goes good? Why did he do it? What does he do now? Who does this person become?Instead of chasing these very interesting ideas, J.J. Abrams, Rian Johnson, and Kathleen Kennedy left it in the dust.Male, female, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Polynesian… these are all well and good, but it’s a surface to what lies beneath. THAT CORE of who this person is supposed to be is what matters the most. That’s the magic, addictive ingredient in Star Wars: we care about these characters because there’s a lot going on under the surface. George Lucas used Joseph Campbell’s work, (among others), to research what drives characters in classic tales and fiction, and brought those to a different tale and setting. That’s the core ingredient: character, and how it changes during an epic tale of facing adversity.Kathleen and company got really lazy with their writing. They didn’t understand how to develop character. To know who this person is, they must be three-dimensional, challenged, and seen overcoming those challenges. What’s on the surface may get you short term gains in terms of sales, but it’s what’s underneath that makes your sales in the long term. It’s all about the character’s heart and soul, not just the packaging.Having a new female protagonist in Star Wars isn’t enough for them to be good, (and that’s for any character, regardless of gender or ethnicity). You MUST put this character into a crucible and show them work to come out the other side. They need to fail, question themselves, better themselves, and learn to overcome those challenges.And the fans will LOVE the character for it!What did Kevin Feige and Marvel do to get the recipe right?Wisely, every Marvel hero is challenged in all the places that matter the most.Yes, there’s a bit of a trope that Marvel heroes tend to face their evil opposites, but there’s a reason why that WORKS. Facing the darker, more evil version of yourself challenges the main character to reexamine who they are. Again… it’s about IDENTITY. Who you are MATTERS to the audience.Jon Favreau pretty much wrote the Marvel playbook with Tony Stark in Iron Man. Tony is on a very specific path through life until it is shattered. During his recovery and escape, his identity as a weapons designer… and as a selfish, egotistical person who only cares about himself… is challenged. After escaping, he’s forced to confront Obadiah Stane, who is exactly who Tony used to be… he’s only concerned about himself, money, and profits. By defeating Stane, Tony symbolically defeats a part of himself and his identity changes: “I am Iron Man.”Does this mean the character is perfect? Nope. Do they win every fight? Nope. Do they know and use the Jedi Mind Trick without ever having even heard of it? No… most of the time. :)The point is, the Marvel films understood the base formula for what makes a good story.It is NOT just about plot beats from another movie getting repeated over and over. This was Star Wars big mistake… it’s like trying to mix chocolate chips and salmon because you had really good chocolate chip cookies as a dessert after a dinner of salmon, potatoes, and asparagus. Just because the cookies and salmon were part of the same meal, doesn’t mean they taste good together.Star Wars has lightsabers, Jedi with powers, space battle scenes, etc. But trying to visually repeat something from another film is like the dinner example I just gave; unless you understand each core ingredient and how they mix, you can ruin your meal easily.Marvel Studios tends to understand the core of what each ingredient entails, and how to mix them together right. Even something like the “Age of Ultron” fits into the greater narrative of the story and provided character growth. It may not be the best Avengers film, but it’s still a pretty good film.Not every film at Marvel Studios is perfect, but they are all pretty good at their base because they follow the formula: introduce a hero, show where that character is flawed, give them a challenge, have them fail at that challenge; then they rally, address their problem, and overcome it to save the day. It’s not a complex formula, but it’s easy to screw up. This is why Kevin Feige is a great guy at overseeing the franchise, because he provides a leadership and quality control to make sure their films apply the formula properly.Did Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, and Rian Johnson do anything right?ABSOLUTELY. The visuals and special effects, (barring the lightsaber fights), are the best in the Star Wars films, (though Rogue One has the best cinematography), and the base ideas for Rey, Finn, and Poe were actually really good, just poorly executed.Every actor on the screen pours their heart out. Any criticisms I have about the characters comes from a writing standpoint, not a performance one.Casting Adam Driver? Excellent move. He elevated the character of Kylo Ren with his acting ability.The acting and the action direction overall is pretty great despite the illogical nature of what is happening in the scripts. J.J. Abrams is an amazing visual director with an excellent sense of movement. The dialogue between characters, even when it’s ridiculously motivated, comes out with conviction. Moments like Hux’s temper tantrum, the Rose/Finn kiss, or Luke tossing his lightsaber are questionably justified in the writing but performed with 100% effort by the actors in question.Most Star Wars fans, (including myself), who complain about the work in these films aren’t saying these folks didn’t work hard or bring anything good to the screen. The main complaint is very much in line with Mark Hamill’s first gut reaction to reading the script of “The Last Jedi”:“I at one point had to say to Rian, ‘I pretty much fundamentally disagree with every choice you’ve made for this character. Now, having said that, I have gotten it off my chest, and my job now is to take what you’ve created and do my best to realize your vision.'”Sums up the trilogy, for me. A lot of talented people working their butts off but heading in the wrong direction.There’s another quote I really like that really puts the nail on the head of the problem with the trio running Star Wars:“They had me walking by 3PO, not even acknowledging him. I said: “I can’t do that! He (The Last Jedi’s director, Rian Johnson) said, “Okay, go over and do whatever.” So I went over, and I did whatever. They say it in the script: “Forget the past, kill it if you have to”, and they’re doing a pretty good job!’”It’s actually the first part that tells the most. For Rian to not pick up on something that simple… that C-3P0 MEANS SOMETHING to Luke is the real red flag. Rian didn’t just direct that scene, but WROTE THAT FILM. If that isn’t a huge indictment on what that meant for the series, I don’t know what else to say. Luke’s character cares about everyone, and that was completely lost on Rian Johnson during the writing and directing of The Last Jedi.It shows a lack of understanding a character’s point of view… and that is reflected all over this new trilogy.Final Thoughts:Kathleen Kennedy could have learned a lot studying Drew Karpyrshyn’s work with Knights of the Old Republic and The Sith Lords. It’s two video games that use all the ingredients of Star Wars to make a great set of stories that are very much Star Wars tales without being complete rehashes of the first two trilogies, even though they share common elements.The sequel trilogy didn’t have entirely bad ideas… in fact, it had some great ones! The character of Finn is one of the biggest lost opportunities I’ve ever seen in a story.Even “The Last Jedi”, with all the radical changes made to Luke, could have potentially worked, if they had used the right story formula. For instance:The Mask of Zorro:In the film, we see a champion of the people soundly defeated by his worst enemy; his wife is killed before his eyes, his daughter is kidnapped to be raised by his mortal foe, and he’s locked into a rathole prison for 20 years.This completely justifies an older, bitter version of the character.But, through the training of a new protege he rebuilds himself and his identity as a father, a protector, and a hero.It’s a great movie from about 20 years ago that hits all the right beats The Last Jedi missed. We learn to care about the new protege through their effort, work, and character, and get over the heartbreak of seeing the classic hero defeated by seeing him get rebuilt as he helps another to take his old place.And all the while, the film doesn’t lose the spirit of adventure and fun, even when going through dark moments.It’s that ‘feeling’ that the latest Star Wars movies were really lacking, and why many of us were disappointed. That feeling in The Mask of Zorro came from have a rock-solid structure to a character arc and a willingness to find the fun that works for the characters; it’s the same formula Marvel applies now. It’s why it works, and works really well.In the end, I think Star Wars as a brand is very salvageable, but the people at the top need a better understanding of the core what makes Star Wars such an enjoyable brand: it’s about fun, adventure, and using plot, setting, and character to make it happen.If you nail these things, you’ve got customers for life.

BackgroundScholars who specialise in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Many may be more cautious about using the term "historical fact" about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that. But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.The opposite idea - that there was no historical Jesus at all and that "Jesus Christ" developed out of some purely mythic ideas about a non-historical, non-existent figure - has had a chequered history over the last 200 years, but has usually been a marginal idea at best. Its heyday was in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century, when it seemed to fit with some early anthropological ideas about religions evolving along parallel patterns and being based on shared archetypes, as characterised by Sir James Frazer's influential comparative religion study The Golden Bough (1890). But it fell out of favour as the Twentieth Century progressed and was barely held by any scholars at all by the 1960s.More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence and almost all have clear ideological objectives. Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (i) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (ii) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity. Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).Unconvincing Arguments for a Mythic Origin for JesusMany of the arguments for a Mythic Jesus that some laypeople think sound highly convincing are exactly the same ones that scholars consider laughably weak, even though they sound plausible to those without a sound background in the study of the First Century. For example:1. "There are no contemporary accounts or mentions of Jesus. There should be, so clearly no Jesus existed."This seems a good argument to many, since modern people tend to leave behind them a lot of evidence they existed (birth certificates, financial documents, school records) and prominent modern people have their lives documented by the media almost daily. So it sounds suspicious to people that there are no contemporary records at all detailing or even mentioning Jesus.But our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous - they are usually written decades or even centuries after the fact. Worse still, the more obscure and humble in origin the person is, the less likely that there will be any documentation about them or even a fleeting reference to them at all.For example, few people in the ancient world were as prominent, influential, significant and famous as the Carthaginian general Hannibal. He came close to crushing the Roman Republic, was one of the greatest generals of all time and was famed throughout the ancient world for centuries after his death down to today. Yet how many contemporary mentions of Hannibal do we have? Zero. We have none. So if someone as famous and significant as Hannibal has no surviving contemporary references to him in our sources, does it really make sense to base an argument about the existence or non-existence of a Galilean peasant preacher on the lack of contemporary references to him? Clearly it does not.So while this seems like a good argument, a better knowledge of the ancient world and the nature of our evidence and sources shows that it's actually extremely weak.2. "The ancient writer X should have mentioned this Jesus, yet he doesn't do so. This silence shows that no Jesus existed."An "argument from silence" is a tricky thing to use effectively. To do so, it's not enough to show that a writer, account or source is silent on a given point - you also have to show that it shouldn't be before this silence can be given any significance. So if someone claims their grandfather met Winston Churchill yet a thorough search of the grandfather's letters and diaries of the time show no mention of this meeting, an argument from silence could be presented to say that the meeting never happened. This is because we could expect such a meeting to be mentioned in those documents.Some "Jesus Mythicists" have tried to argue that certain ancient writers "should" have mentioned Jesus and did not and so tried to make an argument from silence on this basis. In 1909 the American "freethinker" John Remsberg came up with a list of 42 ancient writers that he claimed "should" have mentioned Jesus and concluded their silence showed no Jesus ever existed. But the list has been widely criticised for being contrived and fanciful. Why exactly, for example, Lucanus - a writer whose works consist of a single poem and a history of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey (in the century before Jesus' time) "should" have mentioned Jesus is hard to see. And the same can be said for most of the other writers on Remsberg's list.Some others, however, are more reasonable at first glance. Philo Judaeus was a Jew in Alexandria who wrote philosophy and theology and who was a contemporary of Jesus who also mentions events in Judea and makes reference to other figures we know from the gospel accounts, such as Pontius Pilate. So it makes far more sense that he "should" mention Jesus than some poets in far off Rome. But it is hard to see why even Philo would be interested in mentioning someone like Jesus, given that he also makes no mentions of any of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers and Messianic claimants of the time, of which there were many. If Philo had mentioned Anthronges and Theudas, or Hillel and Honi or John the Baptist and the "Samaritan Prophet" but didn't mention Jesus, then a solid argument from silence could be made. But given that Philo seems to have had no interest at all in any of the various people like Jesus, the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus either carries little or no weight.In fact, there is only one writer of the time who had any interest in such figures, who also had little interest for Roman and Greek writers. He was the Jewish historian Josephus, who is our sole source for virtually all of the Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers and Messianic claimants of this time. If there is any writer who should mention Jesus, it's Josephus. The problem for the "Jesus Mythicists" is ... he does. Twice, in fact. He does do so in Antiquities XVIII.3.4 and again in Antiquities XX.9.1. Mythicists take comfort in the fact that the first of these references has been added to by later Christian scribes, so they dismiss it as a wholesale interpolation. But the majority of modern scholars disagree, arguing there is solid evidence to believe that Josephus did make a mention of Jesus here and that it was added to by Christians to help bolster their arguments against Jewish opponents. That debate aside, the Antiquities XX.9.1 mention of Jesus is universally considered genuine and that alone sinks the Mythicist case (see below for more details).3. "The earliest Christian traditions make no mention of a historical Jesus and clearly worshipped a purely heavenly, mythic-style being. There are no references to an earthly Jesus in any of the earliest New Testament texts, the letters of Paul."Since many people who read Mythicist arguments have never actually read the letters of Paul, this one sounds convincing as well. Except it simply isn't true. While Paul was writing letters about matters of doctrine and disputes and so wasn't giving a basic lesson in who Jesus was in any of this letters, he does make references to Jesus' earthly life in many places. He says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3) of of Abraham (Gal 3:16), of Israelites (Romans 9:4-5) and of Jesse (Romans 15:12). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) that he was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, 2:2, 2:8, 2 Cor 13:4) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4).And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians1:19).So Mythicist theorists then have to tie themselves in knots to "explain" how, in fact, a clear reference to Jesus being "born of a woman" actually means he wasn't born of a woman and how when Paul says Jesus was "according to the flesh, a descendant of King David" this doesn't mean he was a human and the human descendant of a human king. These contrived arguments are so weak they tend to only convince the already convinced. It's this kind of contrivance that consigns this thesis to the fringe.The Problems with a "Mythic" Origin to the Jesus StoryThe weaknesses of the Mythicist hypothesis multiply when its proponents turn to coming up with their own explanation as to how the Jesus stories did arise if there was no historical Jesus. Of course, many of them don't really bother much with presenting an alternative explanation and leave their ideas about exactly how this happened conveniently vague. But some realise that we have late First Century stories that all claim there was an early First Century person who lived within living memory and then make a series of claims about him. If there was no such person, the Mythicist does need to explain how the stories about his existence arose and took the form they do. And they need to do so in a way that accounts for the evidence better than the parsimonious idea that this was believed because there was such a person. This is where Mythicism really falls down. The Mythicist theories fall into four main categories:1. "Jesus was an amalgam of earlier pagan myths, brought together into a mythic figure of a god-man and saviour of a kind found in many cults of the time."This is the explanation offered by the New Age writer who calls herself "Acharya S" in a series of self-published books beginning with The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999). Working from late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century theosophist claims which exaggerate parallels between the Jesus stories and pagan myths, she makes the typical New Age logical leap from "similarity" to "parallel" and finally to "connection" and "causation". Leaving aside the fact that many of these "parallels" are highly strained, with any miraculous conception or birth story becoming a "virgin birth" or anything to do with a death or a tree becoming a "crucifixion" (even if virginity or a cross is not involved in either), it is very hard to make the final leap from "parallel" to "causation".This is particularly hard because of the masses of evidence that the first followers of the Jesus sect were devout Jews - a group for whom the idea of adopting anything "pagan" would have been utterly horrific. These were people who cut their hair short because long hair was associated with pagan, Hellenistic culture or who shunned gymnasia and theatres because of their association with pagan culture. All the evidence actually shows that the earliest Jesus sect went through a tumultuous period in its first years trying to accommodate non-Jews into their devoutly Jewish group. To claim that these people would merrily adopt myths of Horus and Attis and Dionysius and then amalgamate them into a story about a pagan/Jewish hybrid Messiah (who didn't exist) and then turn around and forget he didn't exist and claim he did and that he did so just a few decades earlier is clearly a nonsense hypothesis.2. "Jesus was a celestial being who existed in a realm just below the lunar sphere and was not considered an earthly being at all until later."This is the theory presented by another self-published Mythicist author, Earl Doherty, first in The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and then in Jesus : Neither God nor Man (2009). Doherty's theory has several main flaws. Firstly, he claims that this mythic/celestial Jesus was based on a Middle Platonic view of the cosmos that held that there was a "fleshly sub-lunar realm" in the heavens where gods and celestial beings lived and acted out mythic events. This is the realm, Doherty claims, in which it was believed that Mithras slew the cosmic bull, where Attis lived and died and where Jesus was crucified and rose again. The problem here is Doherty does very little to back up this claim and, while non-specialist readers may not realise this from the way he presents this idea, it is not something accepted by historians of ancient thought but actually a hypothesis developed entirely by Doherty himself. He makes it seem like this idea is common knowledge amongst specialists in Middle Platonic philosophy, while never quite spelling out that it's something he's made up. The atheist Biblical scholar Jeffrey Gibson has concluded:"... the plausibility of D[oherty]'s hypothesis depends on not having good knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. Indeed, it becomes less and less plausible the more one knows of ancient philosophy and, especially, Middle Platonism."Secondly, Doherty's thesis requires the earliest Christian writings about Jesus, the letters of Paul, to be about this "celestial/mythic Jesus" and not a historical, earthly one. Except, as has been pointed out above, Paul's letters do contain a great many references to an earthly Jesus that don't fit with Doherty's hypothesis at all. Doherty has devoted a vast number of words in both his books explaining ways that these references can be read so that his thesis does not collapse, but these are contrived and in places quite fanciful.Finally, Doherty's explanations as to how this "celestial/mythic Jesus" sect gave rise to a "historical/earthly Jesus" sect and then promptly disappeared without trace strain credulity. Despite being the original form of Christianity and despite surviving, according to Doherty, well into the Second Century, this celestial Jesus sect vanished without leaving any evidence of its existence behind and was undreamt of until Doherty came along and deduced that it had once existed. This is very difficult to believe. Early Christianity was a diverse, divided and quarrelsome faith, with a wide variety of sub-sects, offshoots and "heresies", all arguing with each other and battling for supremacy. What eventually emerged from this riot of Christianities was a form of "orthodoxy" that had all the elements of Christianity today: the Trinity, Jesus as the divine incarnate, a physical resurrection etc. But we know of many of the other rivals to this orthodoxy largely thanks to orthodox writings attacking them and refuting their claims and doctrines. Doherty expects us to believe that despite all these apologetic literature condemning and refuting a wide range of "heresies" there is not one that bothers to even mention this original Christianity that taught Jesus was never on earth at all. This beggar's belief.Doherty's thesis is much more popular amongst atheists than the New Age imaginings of "Acharya S" but has had no impact on the academic sphere partly because self-published hobbyist efforts don't get much attention, but mainly because of the flaws noted above. Doherty and his followers maintain, of course, that it's because of a kind of academic conspiracy, much as Creationists and Holocaust deniers do.3. "Jesus began as an allegorical, symbolic figure of the Messiah who got 'historicised' into an actual person despite the fact he never really existed"This idea has been presented in most detail by another amateur theorist in yet another self-published book: R.G. Price's Jesus - A Very Jewish Myth (2007). Unlike "Acharya S" and, to a lesser extent Doherty, Price at least takes account of the fact that the Jesus stories and the first members of the Jesus sect are completely and fundamentally Jewish, so fantasies about Egyptian myths or Greek Middle Platonic philosophy are not going to work as points of origin for them. According to this version of Jesus Mythicism, Jesus was an idealisation of what the Messiah was to be like who got turned into a historical figure largely by mistake and misunderstanding.Several of the same objections to Doherty's thesis can be made about this one - if this was the case, why are there no remnants of debates with or condemnations of those who believed the earlier version and maintained there was no historical Jesus at all? And why don't any of Christianity's enemies use the fact that the original Jesus sect didn't believe in a historical Jesus as an argument against the new version of the sect? Did everyone just forget?More tellingly, if the Jesus stories arose out of ideas about and expectations of the Messiah, it is very odd that Jesus doesn't fit those expectations better. Despite Christian claims to the contrary, the first Christians had to work very hard to convince fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah precisely because he didn't conform to these expectations. Most importantly, there was absolutely no tradition or Messianic expectation that told of the Messiah being executed and then rising from the dead - this first appears with Christianity and has no Jewish precedent at all. Far from evolving from established Messianic prophecies and known elements in the scripture, the first Christians had to scramble to find anything at all which looked vaguely like a "prophecy" of this unexpected and highly unMessianic event.That the centre and climax of the story of Jesus would be based on his shameful execution and death makes no sense if it evolved out of Jewish expectations about the Messiah, since they contained nothing about any such idea. This climax to the story only makes sense if it actually happened, and then his followers had to find totally new and largely strained and contrived "scriptures" which they then claimed "predicted" this outcome, against all previous expectation. Price's thesis fails because Jesus' story doesn't conform to Jewish myths enough.4. "Jesus was not a Jewish preacher at all but was someone else or an amalgam of people combined into one figure in the Christian tradition"This is the least popular of the Jesus Myth hypotheses, but versions of it are argued by Italian amateur theorist Francesco Carotta (Jesus was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity. An Investigative Report - 2005)), computer programmer Joseph Atwill (Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus - 2005) and accountant Daniel Unterbrink (Judas the Galilean: The Flesh and Blood Jesus - 2004). Carotta claims Jesus was actually Julius Caesar and imposed on Jewish tradition as part of the cult of the Divius Julius. Atwill claims Jesus was actually the deliberate creation of the Emperor Titus, imposed on Judaism in the same way. Neither do a very good job of substantiating these claims or of explaining why the Romans then turned around, as early as 64 AD (fifteen years before Titus became emperor) and began persecuting the cult they supposedly created. No scholar takes these theories or that of Unterbrink seriously.No scholar also argues that Jesus was an amalgam of various Jewish preachers or other figures of the time. That is because there is nothing in the evidence to indicate this. This ideas has never been argued in any detailed form by anyone at all, scholar or Jesus myth amateur theorist, but it is something some who don't want to subscribe to the idea that "Jesus Christ" was based on a real person resorts to so that they can put some sceptical distance between the Christian claims and anything or anyone historical. It seems to be a purely rhetorically-based idea, with no substance and no argument behind it.So What's the Evidence for the Existence of a Historical Jesus?Many Christians accept a historical Jesus existed because they never thought to question the idea in the first place or because they are convinced that the gospels can be read as (more or less) historical accounts and so don't need to be seriously doubted on this point. But why do the overwhelming majority of non-Christian scholars also accept that he existed?The Total Lack of Evidence for a "Mythic Christianity"Essentially, it's because it's the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence we have. Early Christianity, in all its forms, and the critics of early Christianity agree on virtually nothing about Jesus, except for one thing - that he existed as a historical person in the early First Century. If there really was an original form of Christianity that didn't believe this, as all versions of the "Jesus Myth" idea require, then it makes no sense that there is no trace of it. Such an idea would be a boon to the various Gnostic branches of Christianity, which emphasised his spiritual/mystical aspects and saw him as an emissary from a purely spiritual world to help us escape the physical dimension. A totally non-historical, purely mystical Jesus would have suited their purposes perfectly. Yet they never taught such a Jesus - they always depict him as a historical First Century teacher, but argue that he was "pure spirit" and only had the "illusion of flesh". Why? Because they couldn't deny that he had existed as a historical person and there was no prior "mythic Jesus" tradition for them to draw on.Similarly, the memory of an earlier, original Christianity which didn't believe in a historical Jesus would have been a killer argument for the many Jewish and pagan critics of Christianity. Jesus Mythicists claim this mythic Jesus Christianity survived well into the Second or even Third Century. We have orthodox Christian responses to critiques by Jews and pagans from that period, by Justin Martyr, Origen and Minucius Felix. They try to confront and answer the arguments their critics make about Jesus - that he was a fool, a magician, a bastard son of a Roman soldier, a fraud etc - but none of these apologetic works mention so much as a hint that anyone ever claimed he never existed. If a whole branch of Christianity existed that claimed just this, why did it pass totally unnoticed by these critics? Clearly no such earlier "mythic Jesus" proto-Christianity existed - it is a creation of the modern Jesus Mythicist activists to prop up their theory.Indicators of Historicity in the GospelsThe main reason non-Christian scholars accept that there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin of the Jesus story is that the stories themselves contain elements which only make sense if they were originally about such a preacher but which the gospel writers themselves found somewhat awkward. As noted above, far from conforming closely to expectations about the coming Messiah, the Jesus story actually shows many signs of being shoehorned into such expectations and not exactly fitting very well.For example, in gMark Jesus is depicted as going to the Jordan and being baptised by John the Baptist (Mark 1: 9-11), after which he hears a voice from heaven and goes off into the wilderness to fast. For the writer of gMark, this is the point where Jesus was, in full view of many witnesses, publicly ordained the Messiah of Yahweh (Jesus was the ordained Messiah from the beginning) and so there is no problem with him having been baptised by John (Jesus never had any sin in Him prior to the cruxifiction where the sins of the world were laid on Him). (Edited out because Jesus was God and man from the beginning, not just ‘a man like any other’) The writer of gMatthew, however, has a very different Christology. In his version, Jesus has been the ordained Messiah since his miraculous conception, so it is awkward for him to have the chosen one of God going to be baptised by John, who is a lesser prophet. So gMatthew tells more or less the same story as he finds in gMark, which he uses as his source, but adds a small exchange of dialogue not found in the earlier version:But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.(Matt 3:14-15)When we turn to the latest of the gospels, gJohn, we find a very different story again. The writer of this gospel depicts Jesus as being a mystical, pre-existent Messiah who had a heavenly existence since the beginning of time. So for him the idea of Jesus being baptised by John is even more awkward. So he solves the problem by removing the baptism altogether. In this latest version, John is baptising other people and telling them that the Messiah was to come and then sees Jesus and declares him to be the Messiah (John 1:29-33). There is no baptism of Jesus at all in the gJohn version.So in these three examples we have three different versions of the same story written at three times in the early decades of Christianity. All of them are dealing with the baptism of Jesus by John in different ways and trying to make it fit with their conceptions of Jesus and at least two of them are having some trouble doing so and are having to change the story to make it fit their ideas about Jesus. All this indicates that the baptism of Jesus by John was a historical event and known to be such and so could not be left out of the story. This left the later gospel writers with the problem of trying to make it fit their evolving ideas about who and what Jesus was.There are several other elements in the gospels like this. gLuke and gMatthew go to great lengths to tell stories which "explain" how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem despite being from Nazareth, since Micah 5:2 was taken to be a prophecy that the Messiah was to be from Bethlehem. Both gospels, however, tell completely different, totally contradictory and mutually exclusive stories (one is even set ten years after the other) which all but the most conservative Christian scholars acknowledge to be non-historical. The question then arises: why did they go to this effort? If Jesus existed and was from Nazareth, this makes sense. Clearly some Jews objected to the claim Jesus was the Messiah on the grounds that he was from the insignificant village of Nazareth in Galilee and not from Bethlehem in Judea - John 7:41-42 even depicts some Jews making precisely this objection. So it makes sense that Christian traditions would arise that "explain" how a man known to be a Galilean from Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth - thus the contradictory stories in gLuke and gMatthew that have this as their end.If, however, there was no historical Jesus then it is very hard to explain why an insignificant town like Nazareth is in the story at all. If Jesus was a purely mythic figure and the stories of his life evolved out of expectations about the Messiah then he would be from Bethlehem, as was expected as a Messiah. So why is Nazareth, a tiny place of no religious significance, in the story? And why all the effort to get Jesus born in Bethlehem but keep Nazareth in the narrative? The only reasonable explanation is that it's Nazareth that is the historical element in these accounts - it is in the story because that is where he was from. A historical Jesus explains the evidence far better than any "mythic" alternative."Alexamenos worships his god" - A Roman graffito mocks the idea of a crucified godBut probably the best example of an element in the story which was so awkward for the early Christians that it simply has to be historical is the crucifixion. The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unheard of and utterly alien to any Jewish tradition prior to the beginning of Christianity, but the idea of a Messiah who was crucified was not only bizarre, it was absurd. According to Jewish tradition, anyone who was "hanged on a tree" was to be considered accursed by Yahweh and this was one of the reasons crucifixion was considered particularly abhorrent to Jews. The concept of a crucified Messiah, therefore, was totally bizarre and absurd.It was equally weird to non-Jews. Crucifixion was considered the most shameful and abhorrent of deaths, so much so that one of the privileges of Roman citizenship is that citizens could never be crucified. The idea of a crucified god, therefore, was absurd and bizarre. This was so much the case that the early Christians avoided any depictions of Jesus on the cross - the first depictions of the Crucifixion appear in the Fourth Century, after Christian emperors banned crucifixion and it began to lose its stigma. It's significant that the earliest depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus that we have is a graffito from Rome showing a man worshipping a crucified figure with the head of a donkey with the mocking caption "Alexamenos worships his god". The idea of a crucified god was, quite literally, ridiculous. Paul acknowledges how absurd the idea of a crucified Messiah was in 1Cor 1:23, where he says it "is a stumbling block to the Jews and an absurdity to the gentiles".The accounts of Jesus' crucifixion in the gospels also show how awkward the nature of their Messiah's death was for the earliest Christians. They are all full of references to texts in the Old Testament as ways of demonstrating that, far from being an absurdity, this was what was supposed to happen to the Messiah. But none of the texts used were considered prophecies of the Messiah before Christianity came along and some of them are highly forced. The "suffering servant" passages in Isaiah 53 are pressed into service as "prophecies" of the crucifixion, since they depict a figure being falsely accused, rejected and given up to be "pierced .... as a guilt offering". But the gospels don't reference other parts of the same passage which don't fit their story at all, such as where it is said this figure will "prolong his days and look upon his offspring".Clearly the gospel writers were going to some effort to find some kind of scriptural basis for this rather awkward death for their group's leader, one that let them maintain their belief that he was the Messiah. Again, this makes most sense if there was a historical Jesus and he was crucified, leaving his followers with this awkward problem. If there was no historical Jesus at all, it becomes very difficult to explain where this bizarre, unprecedented and awkwardly inconvenient element in the story comes from. It's hard to see why anyone would invent the idea of a crucified Messiah and create these problems. And given that there was no precedent for a crucified Messiah, it's almost impossible to see this idea evolving out of earlier Jewish traditions. The most logical explanation is that it's in the story, despite its vast awkwardness, because it happened.Non-Christian References to Jesus as Historical FigureMany Christian apologists vastly overstate the number of ancient non-Christian writers who attest to the existence of Jesus. This is partly because they are not simply showing that a mere Jewish preacher existed, but are arguing for the existence of the "Jesus Christ" of Christian doctrine: a supposedly supernatural figure who allegedly performed amazing public miracles in front of audiences of thousands of witnesses. It could certainly be argued that such a wondrous figure would have been noticed outside of Galilee and Judea and so should have been widely noted as well. So Christian apologists often cite a long list of writers who mention Jesus, usually including Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Thallus and several others. But of these only Tacitus and Josephus actually mention Jesus as a historical person - the others are all simply references to early Christianity, some of which mention the "Christ" that was the focus of its worship.If we are simply noting the existence of Jesus as a human Jewish preacher, we are not required to produce more mentions of him than we would expect of comparable figures. And what we find is that we have about as much evidence for his existence (outside any Christian writings) as we have for other Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the time. The two non-Christian writers who mention him as a historical person are Josephus and Tacitus.JosephusThe Jewish priestly aristocrat Joseph ben Matityahu, who took the Roman name Flavius Josephus, is our main source of information about Jewish affairs in this period and is usually the only writer of the time who makes any mention of Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the First Century. Not surprisingly, he mentions Jesus twice: firstly in some detail in Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 and again more briefly when mentioning the execution of Jesus' brother James in Antiquities XX.9.1. The first reference is problematic, however, as it contains elements which Josephus cannot have written and which seem to have been added later by a Christian interpolator. Here is the text, with the likely interpolations in bold:"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to callhim a man; for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such menas receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of theJews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appearedto them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretoldthese and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And thetribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."There has been a long debate about what parts of this reference to Jesus are authentic to Josephus or even if the whole passage is a wholesale interpolation. Proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, naturally, opt for the idea that it is not authentic in any way, but there are strong indications that, apart from the obvious additions shown in bold above, Josephus did mention Jesus at this point in his text.To begin with, several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephean in their style and phrasing. "Now (there was) about this time ..." is used by Josephus as a way of introducing a new topic hundreds of times in his work. There are no early Christian parallels that refer to Jesus merely as "a wise man", but this is a term used by Josephus several times, eg about Solomon and Daniel. Christian writers placed a lot of emphasis on Jesus' miracles, but here the passage uses a fairly neutral term παραδόξων ἔργων - "paradoxa erga" or "paradoxical deeds". Josephus does use this phrase elsewhere about the miracles of Elisha, but the term can also mean "deeds that are difficult to interpret" and even has overtones of cautious scepticism. Finally, the use of the word φῦλον ("phylon" - "race, tribe") is not used by Christians about themselves in any works of the time, but is used by Josephus elsewhere about sects, nations or other distinct groups. Additionally, with the sole exception of Χριστιανῶν ("Christianon" - "Christians") every single word in the passage can be found elsewhere in Josephus' writings.The weight of the evidence of the vocabulary and style of the passage is heavily towards its partial authenticity. Not only does it contain distinctive phrases of Josephus that he used in similar contexts elsewhere, but these are also phrases not found in early Christian texts. And it is significantly free of terms and phrases from the gospels, which we'd expect to find if it was created wholesale by a Christian writer. So either a very clever Christian interpolator somehow managed to immerse himself in Josephus' phrasing and language, without modern concordances and dictionaries and create a passage containing distinctively Josephean phraseology, or what we have here is a genuinely Josephean passage that has simply been added to rather clumsily.As a result of this and other evidence (eg the Arabic and Syriac paraphrases of this passage which seem to come from a version before the clumsy additions by the interpolator) the consensus amongst scholars of all backgrounds is that the passage is partially genuine, simply added to in a few obvious places. Louis H. Feldman's Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1984) surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and finds of 52 scholars on the subject, 39 considered the passage to be partially authentic.Peter Kirby has done a survey of the literature since and found that this trend has increased in recent years. He concludes "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the (Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 passage) to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist."The other mention of Jesus in Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1, is much more straightforward, but much more of a problem for Jesus Mythicists. In it Josephus recounts a major political event that happened when he was a young man. This would have been a significant and memorable event for him, since he was only 25 at the time and it caused upheaval in his own social and political class, the priestly families of Jerusalem that included his own.In 62 AD the Roman procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, died while in office and his replacement, Lucceius Albinus, was still on his way to Judea from Rome. This left the High Priest, Hanan ben Hanan (usually called Ananus), with a freer reign than usual. Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed. This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests. But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.This mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus' brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which "Jesus who was called Messiah" Josephus is referring to here.Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand. This rather unequivocal reference to a historical Jesus leaves Jesus Mythicists with a thorny problem, which they generally try to solve one of two ways:(i) "The words "who was called Messiah" are a later Christian interpolation" -Since it is wholly unlikely that a Christian interpolator invented the whole story of the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus, Mythicists try to argue that the key words which identify which Jesus is being spoken of are interpolated. Unfortunately this argument does not work. This is because the passage is discussed no less than three times in mid-Third Century works by the Christian apologist Origen and he directly quotes the relevant section with the words "Jesus who was called the Messiah" all three times: in Contra Celsum I.4, in Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17. Each time he uses precisely the phrase we find in Josephus: αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου ("the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah"). This is significant because Origen was writing a whole generation before Christianity was in any kind of position to be tampering with texts of Josephus. If this phrase was in the passage in Origen's time, then it was clearly original to Josephus.(ii) "The Jesus being referred to here was not the Jesus of Christianity, but the 'Jesus, son of Dameus' mentioned later in the same passage."After detailing the deposition of the High Priest Ananus, Josephus mentions that he was succeeded as High Priest by a certain "Jesus, son of Damneus". So Mythicists try to argue that this was the Jesus that Josephus was talking about earlier, since Jesus was a very common name. It certainly was, but we know how Josephus was careful to differentiate between different people with the same common first name. So it makes more sense that he calls one "Jesus who was called Messiah" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus" to do precisely this. Nowhere else does he call the same person two different things in the same passage, as the Mythicist argument requires. And he certainly would not do so without making it clear that the Jesus who was made HIgh Priest was the same he had mentioned earlier, which he does not do.Mythicists are also still stuck with the phrase "who was called Messiah", which Origen's mentions show can't be dismissed as an interpolation. They usually attempt to argue that, as a High Priest, Jesus the son of Damenus would have been "called Messiah" because "Messiah" means 'anointed" and priests were anointed with oil at their elevation. Since there are no actual examples of any priests being referred to this way, this is another ad hoc argument designed merely to get the Mythicist argument off the hook.So the consensus of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, is that the Antiquities XVIII.3.4 passage is authentic despite some obvious later additions and the Antiquities XX.9.1 passage is wholly authentic. These references alone give us about as much evidence for the existence of a historical "Jesus, who was called Messiah" as we have for comparable Jewish preachers and prophets and is actually sufficient to confirm his existence without reference to any gospel or Christian source.TacitusThe mention of Jesus in the Annals of the aristocratic Roman historian and senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus is significant partly because of his status as one of the most careful and sceptical historians of the ancient world and partly because it is from what is obviously a hostile witness. Tacitus absolutely despised Christianity, as he make clear when he mentions how the emperor Nero tried to scapegoat them after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. He also gives an account to his readers as the origin of the Christian sect and their founder in Judea:Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.(Tacitus, Annals, XV.44)Again, this clear reference to Jesus, complete with the details of his execution by Pilate, is a major problem for the Mythicists. They sometimes try to deal with it using their old standby argument: a claim that it is a later interpolation. But this passage is distinctively Tacitean in its language and style and it is hard to see how a later Christian scribe could have managed to affect perfect Second Century Latin grammar and an authentic Tacitean style and fool about 400 years worth of Tacitus scholars, who all regard this passage and clearly genuine.A more common way of dismissing this passage is to claim that all Tacitus is doing is repeating what Christians had told him about their founder and so it is not independent testimony for Jesus at all. This is slightly more feasible, but still fails on several fronts.Firstly, Tacitus made a point of not using hearsay, of referring to sources or people whose testimony he trusted and of noting mere rumour, gossip or second-hand reports as such when he could. He was explicit in his rejection of history based on hearsay earlier in his work:My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)Secondly, if Tacitus were to break his own rule and accept hearsay about the founder of Christianity, then it's highly unlikely that he would do so from Christians themselves (if this aristocrat even had any contact with any), who he regarded with utter contempt. He calls Christianity "a most mischievous superstition .... evil .... hideous and shameful .... (with a) hatred against mankind" - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect's founder.Furthermore, what he says about Jesus does not show any sign of having its origin in what a Christian would say: it has no hint or mention of Jesus' teaching, his miracles and nothing about the claim he rose from the dead. On the other hand, it does contain elements that would have been of note to a Roman or other non-Christian: that this founder was executed, where this happened, when it occurred {"during the reign of Tiberius") and which Roman governor carried out the penalty.We know from earlier in the same passage that Tacitus consulted several (unnamed) earlier sources when writing his account of the aftermath of the Great Fire (see Annals XV.38), so it may have been one of these that gave him his information about Jesus. But there was someone else in Rome at the time Tacitus wrote who mixed in the same circles, who was also a historian and who would have been the obvious person for Tacitus to ask about obscure Jewish preachers and their sects. None other than Josephus was living and writing in Rome at this time and, like Tacitus, associated with the Imperial court thanks to his patronage first by the emperor Vespasian and then by his son and successor Titus. There is a strong correspondence between the details about Jesus in Annals XV.44 and Antiquities XVIII.3.4, so it is at least quite plausible that Tacitus simply asked his fellow aristocratic scholar about the origins of this Jewish sect.ConclusionThe question asked if historians regarded the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact". The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars. The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.