The Historicity of Jesus

The burden is on those who argue there was an historical Jesus. Those who make a claim are obligated to support it with sufficient evidence. There may have been an historical Jesus, however, I have not seen sufficient evidence for me to accept the claim.  (I, like Hector Avalos, am agnostic on this question.)   http://amestrib.com/sections/opinion/columns/hector-avalos-who-was-the-historical-jesus.html

Biblical studies are essentially focused historical studies. While modern biblical studies use some scientific methods, history is not considered a "hard" science since the data upon which acceptance is made is of poorer quality than the "hard" sciences. Thus, any "consensus" of opinion regarding the historicity of Jesus has less weight with me than the scientific consensus regarding evolution, climate change, etc. This is not even addressing the problem of most biblical scholars being believers, with many a priori accepting the truth of Christianity.  (Again, Hector Avalos also is very critical of Biblical Studies in general:  http://www.amazon.com/The-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362

Two of many qualified biblical scholars (Robert M Price and Richard Carrier)  have presented compelling data in opposition to the historicity of Jesus. Their findings are not generally accepted in the theological academic community and, in fact, scholars such as Price and Carrier cannot find faculty positions in university programs.

Many people who accept an historical Jesus mention Bart Ehrman in support of such, as he called himself "an agnostic" and still believes in an historical Jesus. I present this link as one of many rebuttals of Ehrman's position in this matter:http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794

Even if there was an historical Jesus (the trees), Christianity itself is essentially based on a story without evidence (the forest).  Thus, this mountain is not the one I wish to die over.  It's small potatoes in the scheme of things related to Christianity in particular and theism in general.

Biblical historians often use the term 'primary sources' when referring to the gospels or epistles of Paul. Non-biblical historians refer to such sources as 'secondary sources' because they are not contemporary with Jesus or written by eyewitnesses. (Virtually*) all written sources regarding Jesus are 'secondary sources'.

*To most non-biblical historians, 'primary sources' refers to evidence physically situated in the time and place under investigation. In nearly every case, when non-biblical historians use the terms 'evidence' and 'source', they are referring to 'primary' sources, 'primary' documents and 'primary' evidence. When they speak of the value of 'secondary' sources they always specify strict conditions by which to judge their value, and these conditions relate at some point to primary evidence. Non-biblical historians work with the primary evidence or sources that make up the factual data that needs to be pieced together into some explanatory narrative. Biblical historians are still struggling to find some facts to begin with.

*There are cases where all we have is secondary evidence and which nonetheless do give us good reasons for accepting the historicity of certain events and people, but such cases are rare and meet conditions not met by the gospels.

http://vridar.org/2010/09/23/response-to-james-mcgraths-argument-from-wikipedia/

This Yale course presents one of the best cases for an historical Jesus IMHO.  However, please note that no one really knows who wrote the Gospels and what their sources were.  To claim (as this professor does) that John was a separate attestation of the life of Jesus is totally unsupported by evidence, and, in fact, there are similarities with Luke's Gospel.  In summary, no one can verify anything regarding the sources for the NT.  Period.

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-13

(updated: 12/17/16)  This succinct analysis of the discussion regarding the foundation of Christianity is a worthy read:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/here-are-5-reasons-to-suspect-jesus-never-existed-2/

Richard Carrier nails it in this YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAYyMYk7I