The written records as evidence

[FallentoReason]

Jesus was a historical person.

Sure, why not.

This is firmly established by having independent contemporary authors

There wasn't a single contemporary author. Everything about Jesus came at least a couple of decades after his death.

writing asymmetrical works.

Maybe for the most part. The telling of the story evolves as you read the gospels in chronological order though.

They were not bound together as "The New Testament" until some time in the second century.

True story.

The first century writers did not all know about each other; although some certainly were familiar with some of the work of their contemporaries.

They certainly knew about each other. Markan Priority is a good theory with lots of explanatory power.

---

Nazareth. It has been partly excavated in 2009, and what archaeologists discovered was that it was a small town consisting of about 50 houses and populated by observant Jews, 4 miles from Sepphoris and linked via roads where it is theorized that Joseph and Jesus would have worked as carpenters/builders.

New York. It's a city located in the USA and it's where spiderman would have swung from building to building.

Pontius Pilate. In 1961 the "Pilate Stone", a block of of carved limestone was discovered, with an inscription naming Pontius Pilate. Josephus also names him.

Caiaphas. The high priest who condemned Jesus. Archaeologists discovered his ossuary in Jerusalem in 1990.

Crucifixion. Atheists long claimed there was no evidence for nails being used in crucifixion, prior to the Christian gospels. In 1968 a 1st century AD ossuary was discovered, inside a Jewish tomb, containing the remains of "Jehohanan the son of Hagkol". Jehohanan's right heel bone still had the crucifixion nail embedded in it.

The Merneptah Stele. Although I am talking about the NT chronology, this requires a mention. Discovered in 1896 in Egypt, it proves beyond doubt that Israelites were living in Canaan by the 13th century BC.

---

None of this remotely makes a difference. The reason being that the above is *necessary* for the NT to be true, but not *sufficient*. And you've also got the fact that it doesn't matter that historical places were used as a backdrop for what could potentially be a mostly fabricated story. Spiderman swings from building to building in New York. That doesn't make it any more plausible as a true story, although it would be *necessary* for him to be residing in a real place as opposed to fictional if it were to be a true story - naturally.