I have to ask....are you NOW making a point of historicity, or historical record? They are two different things.<quoted text>
And i referenced it in the wiki article.
Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.....
Notice the key word there?<quoted text>
Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn ...states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
"Almost"....."a lmost universal assent".
Which means not everyone agrees with it, and there is no proof of the baptism and crucificxion.
Just a bunch of opinions.
Actually, you originally said this:<quoted text>
I said you do not need contemporaries to establish historicity.
"Jesus' life and execution were a matter of the historical record"
It seems as though you realize there is NO (zero zip nada) historical records of Jesus, and now you back peddle to "historicity". IMO
...but historical record can not.<quoted text>
It would be nice but historicity can be established without.