Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[Happy UnBeliever]

With regard to historical-critical research, what is the point of distinguishing canonical and non-canonical writings? Works that fall into both categories remain historical documents. From a historical-critical point of view, the religiously based inside/outside distinction is methodologically irrelevant.

I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19 where a certain James is distinguished from John and Peter by being the adelphos of the Lord. I have cited this text before and have not yet received a paraphrase that is superior to the traditional understanding that an actual sibling of the Lord is what is meant. So if someone can clearly state how they are interpreting the phrase in question, we could compare it with the traditional, literal interpretation of the word as found in this context.

I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19

Really. Gal 1:19 was about myth jesus being resurrected from the dead. Secondly no NT or church writer ever used Galatians 1.19 to claim James had a HUMAN brother. Paul writes of this resurrected myth:

1 Cor 15.3-8
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul was not even a contemporary of this jesus. And the author of Acts did not write that Paul saw the resurrected jesus. Paul's testimony is a lie as written cannot be trusted, why? jesus was not even alive at the time!