Francoise,
Perhaps the wrong question is being asked. Whether Jesus of Nazareth lived or not around 2,000 years ago in the time and place it is said he lived is not really important. What is really important is whether he said and DID what the Bible says he said and did.
Looking at John Chapter 11 we see a story that if anyone in the entire mortal universe had witnessed it or knew to be true would have been recorded thousands and thousands of times in private diaries and in Roman chronicles. Alas, NO ONE bothered to record it but the author of the book of John. Why is it so astounding? Well, this guy named Lazarus had died and Jesus raised this guy from the dead. Not only was that a big deal, that was a HUGE deal. Why? Because that guy had been dead for FOUR days, that's why! Can't any Christian figure out what happens after a body has been dead for four days in the climate where Jesus lived? It rots, that's what. Bugs start eating it. It stinks to high heaven. Now, if the Jews practiced any sort of embalming, they would have already removed all blood and most organs from the body. If they used Egyptian embalming techniques, they would have inserted a hook through the nose of the corpse and pulled out the brain, too. But even if they had not embalmed the body, the body would have reeked of decomposition.
Jesus called out and Lazarus came to life. Since the Jewish leaders who must have had contact with the Romans who ruled the area already were highly pissed off at Jesus for calling them all the names that he did, it would not be the least bit unreasonable to assume that they were tailing him, using plants, spies, or whatever. Moreover, the Romans who were always suspicious of the Nationalistic aims of the Jews would have done the same. There must have been some witnesses from the enemies of Jesus at this event: the most spectacular miracle of all times. Jesus raised to life a body that was already rotting and stinking. Even if there were NONE of Jesus's enemies and even if ALL of the witnesses to this spectacle were totally illiterate, doesn't it make sense that at least a FEW of them would have found a scribe or at least SOMEONE to tell this story to all get them to write down another eyewitness account? NO! Only the writer of John mentions it. Why didn't the authors of the three synoptic Gospels write about it? Was it not a big deal to them? Were miracles THAT common in their day? If so, then where's any evidence they were that common?
Picture this:
Samuel the mason comes home from a day's work and says to his wife Rebecca: "Hi, honey! How was your day?"
Rebecca: "You will not BELIEVE what I saw today! You know that carpenter from Nazareth I've told you about, the man who is called the Messiah? I saw him raise a moldy, rotting, stinky, gawd-awful CORPSE back to life today. After the guy was brought to life, the smell went away from his body and everything! Isn't that amazing! He MUST be from God."
Samuel: "Yeah? That's nice. So, what's for dinner? I'm hungry."
Rebecca: "I'm not kidding, honey. Two dozen of our friends were there and saw the same thing. You can ask them if you want."
Samuel: "I asked, "What's for dinner?"
Rebecca: "My friends and myself have seen this guy actually walk on top of water."
Samuel: "I'd really like to see that, but I've got a whole bunch of bricks to lay tomorrow. Perhaps we can see him do that on Saturday, when I'm off."
Rebecca: "I saw him feed THOUSANDS of people with just a few loaves of bread and a few fish."
Samuel: "Well, that's mighty nice of him. Did you bring any of the leftovers home for us? Life is tough these days."
Seriously folks: Do you think that ALL of the folks who learned and saw the "miracles" of Jesus back then were dim-bulbs like my "Samuel?"
So, Francoise, the more important question is not whether Jesus actually existed, but rather did he do what the Bible said he did, and if he did raise Lazarus from the dead, why did ONLY the writer of JOHN give a shit enough about it to write about it?
Farkel