Can you name any other nobodies?
who are published in the historical record as somebodies?
Jesus isn't published in the historical record.
You can't arbitrarily exclude characters from the historical record based on your bias. We need objective standards for such judgments. Many historical figures are questionable, dubious, ambiguous, etc., but still they are in the "historical record" by any unbiased non-prejudiced standard. Most historians and scholars include Jesus in the historical record, even if they express serious doubts about his existence or claims about him. The large majority say he did exist, which means he has to be there in the writings, regardless of the doubts and unanswered questions. Those doubts and lack of good information do not mean he is not in the historical record.
He's published ONLY in one compilation of four works . . .
No, there are 5 sources altogether (and possibly 2 or 3 more), written near to the time in question (mainly 1st century). Why must you repeatedly get your facts wrong? Why not start out with the facts we do know, and then we go from there.
And these five works were not a part of any "compilation"
at the time they were written, or near that time, even if they were "compiled" 300 years later into one volume (New Testament). This later "compilation" was done based mostly on the ancient origin of the documents, i.e., based on their early origin compared to other Christian writings. I.e., based on fact, historical fact about WHEN they were written. There were other factors also which got them into the later 4th-century "compilation," but their early origin, dating back to the 1st century, is the most important factor used by the later "compilers" to include these documents and exclude others.
. . . compilation of 4 works of fiction, . . .
"fiction" is a subjective term here. What we need is language not based on dogma or indoctrination. If "fiction" means only that the reported events did not happen, it's quite possible that half of our known ancient history is "fiction" (or 1/3 or other huge percent making most of your ancient history text books "fiction"), in which case maybe you should toss out all your ancient history books, or put them into the "fiction" part of your library.
But if we choose to communicate in objective language, and something which does not render half our mainline ancient history into the "fiction" category, we must define "fiction" differently, or just exclude this word.
But we can include this word, if we also include "mythic" along with it. This word is defined by David Litwa in his book "How the Gospels Became History." This is a non-Christian scholar who put the Gospels into the NON-fiction category, or into the "historic" rather than "mythic" category. He distinguishes "mythicism" and "historicism":
"mythic" = The author did not believe his "facts" were really historical fact, but presented them as fictional stories, and did not expect the reader to understand the stories as historically factual.
"historic" = The author did believe his "facts" as historical fact, or at least wanted his readers to accept them as historical fact. (Maybe we can't be certain that the author really believed his "facts," but he seems to have believed them, in the writings, and wanted the readers to believe the "facts" and believe that the author believed it as historical fact.)
Another scholar Bart Ehrman also understands it this way, that the Gospel writers intended the stories mainly as fact, or real events in history which the readers were to believe, even though there is uncertainty about their intention. But probably the intention was for readers to believe the stories as historically factual.
The only place here for "fiction" language is whether the "facts" presented are intended to be taken as historical fact = nonfiction or not fiction and in the "historic" category even if in some cases it's not really fact. In this sense the word "fiction" is OK, but in this case the Gospels are NOT "fiction" but are in the "historic" category, based on the author's intention, because these authors intended the stories presented to be understood as factual historic events.
This does not exclude the element of symbol or NON-literal meaning in some cases, where a complete literal interpretation might be impossible. In the "historic" category also goes much of the ancient legend, like the Trojan War and other hero legends. This also includes most of the history parts of the Old Testament (though maybe not the Genesis creation story). Much of this also is intended as factual history. There's also some likelihood of non-fact (mythic stories) in the pre-Moses period, i.e., the Patriarchs and Noah etc.
So Litwa says the legends were MOSTLY understood or intended as historic fact, not as fiction. The stories were believed as being historic, as real events in history, and intended to be taken that way by the writers (even though there could be some fiction there, and possibly some writers even did not believe it (secretly?) but wanted readers to believe it). There's plenty of conjecture about this, but in general the stories were intended to be taken as fact, not fiction.
When did the character live vs. when was the source written?
In the question whether Jesus is the ONLY case of a character in the historical record who was really a NOBODY, we are talking about a RECENT character described in the writings, i.e., in the later source reporting the character.
So, Achilles and Hector are not in this category, whether they existed or not. Not even Romulus is in this category, because he was never a RECENT character in the writings, but rather a legendary hero of centuries earlier. Probably not even King Author can be called a nobody made into a somebody in this sense, because there's nothing written about him until centuries later than he lived (if he lived).
So to understand the question correctly, and find another case of a NOBODY MADE INTO A SOMEBODY by the historical record, you need to offer a case of someone written about only 50-100 years later than he reportedly lived. And also a character who was INTENDED by the author to be taken as someone in history, who really lived, and not intended as a fictional character.
So if we assume that William Tell, e.g., was intended only as FICTION, then he's not in this category. Perhaps in a few cases there is some doubt, because maybe the author is misunderstood to have intended the character as historical when it really was fiction the author intended. Probably 99% of the time there is no such ambiguity about this and the writing makes it clear which was intended.
The writings about King Arthur might have presented him to be historical, but still he is not in this category because the writings are centuries later, not near his own time.
. . . 4 works of fiction, two of which are . . .
To eliminate the arbitrary categorization and subjectivity here, you cannot call them "fiction," because they were intended by their authors to be taken as historical fact. You cannot leave out of consideration the intention of the authors. Even though some fictional element can be found, that cannot put them into the "fiction" category, because much of our known mainline history does contain fiction, by mistake or bias or other factor which distorted the reports, making them inaccurate. Rather, the intention of the author has to determine the category -- whether it's "mythic" or "historic" -- and if the author wanted it to be taken as historical fact, then it's not in the "mythic" category, and so your judgement that it's "fiction" is subjective, or only based on bias, not on fact. Someone else can just as easily claim it is fact, and you have no evidence to prove otherwise. And it is known that much of the ancient stories, or legends, did contain fact as part of the story. And even if some was fiction (as some of the mainline histories contain fiction), it's intended as factual, and some bizarre events were believed to be fact.
It's true, Litwa says, that sometimes an author used historical fact along with the legend/story in order to strengthen the case that it's historical fact. But this only shows that he wanted readers to believe the story. This includes the Gospel writers, who wanted readers to believe that the story was fact. But all we know is what they wanted readers to believe, not what they themselves really believed. It is pure conjecture to say they did not believe some part of their story and yet wanted others to believe it, to mislead them.
Such intention to have readers believe it as fact distinguishes such "historic" writing from "mythic" writing which is understood as "fiction" or non-"historic" -- and there are examples of such fiction stories, or "mythic" writings not intended to be taken as real history.
. . . fiction, two of which are obvious variations on one of the others.
A word like "variations" does not change the fact that Matthew and Luke are separate legitimate sources in addition to Mark, regardless that they quoted from Mark. This quoting of an earlier source actually strengthens all 3 of these sources. These authors obviously did not collaborate with each other to compare notes and scheme up a common story to tell. Rather, each author/editor presents his version which he independently believed, using the earlier source to help produce his own separate version based on his theory or interpretation of the events.
Both Matthew and Luke are strengthened by the fact that they quote from the earlier Mark, because this shows that they wanted to be more accurate, by being more consistent with the earlier source. They thought this made their own version stronger, by staying in tune with someone earlier who knew something about what happened. This indicates an urge to stay in harmony with the earlier source which is more reliable, but at the same time modifying it if there seems to be something unclear or not exactly right. The earlier Mark was not infallible in their judgment, but correct enough to trust on the major points.
But Mark is also strengthened by the fact that he is quoted by these later versions, because this indicates that many others believed his account, probably having a good reason to trust this source, or giving it credibility. Writers did not automatically, uncritically give credibility to an earlier source/writer, but rather did some questioning and checking to make sure this earlier source was reliable enough to be believed. So that Mt and Lk quoted from the earlier Mark source actually makes all 3 of these sources
more credible, not less.
We have more record of the life of Clark Kent, reporter and alleged jumper of tall buildings in a single bound, than we have of Jesus.
But that's in the "non-historic" category = not intended as history but only as fiction. Even the author intended it only as fiction.
So, you are trying to answer the question: Who is a NOBODY in the historical record who was made into a SOMEBODY? Or, who was a NOBODY which the historical record made into a SOMEBODY? Fine, keep at it. But Clark Kent or other obvious fiction character does not fit this category. He was never made into a SOMEBODY by the historical record. The written accounts of him were not written in order to make him into a real historical person.
Another problem with this example is that it relies totally on the modern mass media and mass publishing industry. This is an unnecessary diversion away from the topic, the Historical Jesus = ancient history, 2000 years ago.
It's because of examples like these that it's impossible to make the point without reliance on
extended Walls of Text like this one
in order to clarify a fine point which shouldn't need clarifying. But since you insist:
let's revise the basic question:
Are there any other nobodies?
who are published in the ANCIENT historical record as somebodies?
Or: Name an ancient person, in the
historical record before 1500 or 1000 AD, who was really a NOBODY but was made into a SOMEBODY by the written record about him. Is Jesus the Galilean in 30 AD the ONLY EXAMPLE? Name another.
i.e., before 1500 or 1000 AD
So, cut out the silly Clark Kent etc. examples (or Perry Mason, or Batman, or the Lone Ranger, or Flash Gordon, etc.) and do a tiny bit of homework (so we don't always need these extended WALLS OF TEXT). Don't you know any history at all? other than modern mass media and TV and Kiddie Matinee pop culture? Surely you have at least a high-school education to be able to come up with a real example, requiring you to review a little history? The last 500 years are not the only history. Aren't you aware that there was some "history" before Columbus proved the Earth was Round? Why can't you find an example from earlier times? before the Columbus you learned about in the 2nd grade?
Clark Kent is, notably, also a nobody.
So this is all the "history" you know? Don't forget Howdy-Doody, or The Cisco Kid and Pancho!
