What do we really know about Jesus?
I.e., what do we know
for sure? (about that historical person 2000 years ago)
We know a lot of facts, about many historical figures, but 90% of it is conjecture, or guesswork. And the same is true of Jesus, like all historical figures, for whom we must rely on guesswork. Some of it is good guesswork, but much is dubious. And any history book on your shelf, about ANY historical figure 1000-2000 years ago, probably contains some fiction presented as fact -- a lot of fiction in some cases.
But we know a little about the historical Jesus for sure: He shows up in history, first, at the north end of the Sea of Galilee, near the town of Capernaum, some time around 30 AD, and he attracted attention from several people, maybe dozens, and became recognized as important for some reason which the experts cannot agree on; he traveled to Jerusalem, accompanied by some Galileans, came into conflict of some kind, was arrested and put to death by order of Pontius Pilate.
We know that much for sure. And we can figure out much more than this, but speculation increases the farther we pursue the answers.
One Bible scholar will tell you we know A about Jesus, and another will tell you we know not A.
Same as with virtually ALL historical figures. The experts disagree on many details for any historical figure of any importance.
They have the same evidence to arrive at these contradictory conclusions. Something's not right here.
No, it's perfectly normal. For any historical figure centuries ago there are contradictory conclusions derived from the same evidence. Nothing's wrong here. Though you could argue that the case of Jesus is more problematic than normal.
What's the problem with trying to know Jesus? To answer this question, it's important to know the evidence for Jesus. All we have is a set of documents that originated with the early Christian sect.
We don't know the origin of the documents. It's not "the early Christian sect," because there were many early Christian communities, not just one, and these different sects or communities were not a monolithic cohesive community. The documents are from different sources, different authors, not in contact with each other, separated by hundreds (maybe 1000+) miles and by years/decades.
These documents are comprised of stories and testimonies about a figure named Jesus. Scholars study these documents and come to their own often contradictory conclusions. For example, while most scholars now say Jesus was born in Nazareth, some still maintain he was born in Bethlehem.
The latter are only those who believe the writings are infallible and contain no errors. Except for this they would not claim he was born in Bethlehem. They are dependent on the divine inspiration of the documents as their authority, or as the only basis for the Bethlehem story.
And those scholars who say he was born in Nazareth do not say they know this for sure. They just think this is the best guess. What we "really know" about Jesus does not include where he was born.
We don't even know that he was raised in Nazareth. Nothing in the accounts says anything about his childhood in Nazareth. It's reasonable to believe that he grew up in Nazareth, because Mark says so, but there's also reason to doubt this. It goes in the "we-don't-know" category.
It is my opinion that without supporting corroborative evidence, documents are very weak evidence, and . . .
But these documents, or 5 sources, are corroborative evidence. Each one is a source, and they corroborate each other on a few points. Also they are corroborated on some related points from non-biblical documents.
But it's true that they are "very weak" in terms of a more complete biography of Jesus, because there is so little that we can be sure of. So there are many unanswered questions, and more that we do NOT know than what we know.
But we know a little: He resided at that Galilean location for a period, he attracted some kind of attention, acquiring a "following" or a group of Galileans who took an interest in him, they traveled with him to Jerusalem where he was arrested and condemned to death. That much we know for sure, corroborated and confirmed by all the evidence.
. . . and these contradictory conclusions should come as no surprise being based on documents alone.
What's wrong with "documents alone"? What else do we have to tell us who an ancient historical figure was, other than the documents written at the time, reporting to us what happened? We must rely on the "documents alone" for virtually every ancient historical figure. These documents might give us difficulty, but these are all we have, and there are many cases of historical characters and events about which there are problems and unanswered questions. So we rely on what documents we have and try to piece together a picture of what happened. That's all we can do for virtually any historical figure or event we're trying to reconstruct for our present knowledge. We can determine historical facts about Jesus just as we can for other historical figures. That our source is "documents alone" says nothing peculiar to this case. Maybe the Jesus case is unique, but not because it's "based on documents alone."
Most Bible scholars won't avow that the evidence for Jesus is this weak.
How weak is "this weak"? All the scholars know that there are unanswered questions. There's much more we don't know than what we know. And this is true for many historical figures.
If they did admit it, then their . . .
They do admit it. All the scholars know that there are difficulties explaining what we know or don't know about the historical Jesus. There is STRONG evidence, but only for a little of it. Most beliefs about Jesus are based on weak evidence, not strong evidence. But we know at least some facts for which there is strong evidence. And for the rest there is plenty of room for reasonable belief and guesswork and conjecture -- much that can be believed based on limited evidence, just as for most of our historical facts, taught in history books and classes, and containing much fiction mixed in with the fact. I.e., much based more on belief than proved verified corroborated fact. Reasonable belief, based on limited evidence, comprises a huge percentage of what we call "history."
. . . then their work would be seen for what it is: It is educated guesswork at best and misleading at worse.
I.e., it's legitimate history, or historical research, as with most history subjects where there is much guesswork, educated but still dubious, containing much error mixed in with the fact.
If there was no error or guesswork, then it would not be history. If all guesswork and anything misleading had to be eliminated, there'd be little left of "history" or historical study.
As Hector Avalos a Bible scholar himself has said, Biblical studies amounts to a specious liberal Christian apologetic.
This sounds like something an Alex Jones-type nutcase would say.
Are ALL "studies" specious? All of science and research into anything is "specious"? Is there anything that's not "specious"? ALL literature studies are "specious"?
I found his treatise online:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/141671982.pdf
He is as bad as Alex Jones. He argues that Bible Studies should be banned, censored from the universities as non-legitimate subject matter:
The only mission of biblical studies should be to end biblical studies as we know it.
To cite someone who says the evidence should be censored and banned does not make a good case. Why does someone advocate doing away with all the studies on a particular subject? abolishing all teaching and study of a large category of the ancient literature?
No one wants to ban literature unless they have beliefs which that literature refutes in some way, and they fear something which contradicts their prejudice. If you have sound theories or beliefs, and you can legitimately present and defend your beliefs, you don't need to ban any literature. Where your beliefs contradict that literature, you can present your own beliefs and show how your beliefs are superior to it. You don't need to suppress that literature and blot it out in order to silence those who think differently than you.
The ancient literature obviously contains elements no longer accepted, because of scientific advancement since those times. But those changes can be understood and studied, in order to correct the errors from the ancient thinking, while at the same time passing on the legitimate knowledge we gain from the past. It's fine to improve on the past, but it is elitist and unscientific snobbery to totally snuff out the ancient literature and prohibit truth-seekers today from access to it and from present-day scholarship on it.
The ancient thinking and beliefs need to be studied as much as ever, as long as there are unanswered questions, and as long as we can recognize anything there to learn, including their reports about what happened. It's not like we're too stupid to be able to separate fact from fiction, and so we need someone to supervise what we're exposed to, caretakers to filter out the ancient thinking as something which would contaminate us and pollute our immature minds which must be preserved and protected against something subversive or too sensitive for us to handle.
So a crusader on a mission to ban and suppress ancient literature is not a good authority to cite. Rather, it's by more studying of the ancient writings that we learn better what the truth is and what the flaws might be in the ancient thinking, as well as learn something they might know. We cannot totally shut out an ancient source based on our prejudice. Rather, we must confront it and learn it in order to identify the errors, and always keep an open mind about something valid it might also offer.
Why do we know ANYTHING AT ALL about Jesus?
Why was anything written about him? What did he do that makes him noteworthy? How did he differ from John the Baptizer or James the Just and hundreds of other popular preachers and prophets and martyrs?
There were many other dissidents who preached or taught or led a band of followers toward some kind of messianic revival or reform of society. What was special about Jesus? If there was nothing, then why do we have these writings about him but not about any others who did the same as he did? (or even more than he did?) why no other miracle-working resurrected Saviors or Sons of God in various "gospels" or "epistles" recorded and published and copied in order to pass their "good news" on to the future?
Why is there a fear to entertain this question? The right response is to study the ancient sources even more, to seek the answers, and not to run away from the legitimate questions like this one. 
