Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Bucky Ball]

Credible enough, I think.  I mean, The Consensus is that a man was baptized and crucified, and that this man, whoever he was, is not the man in magic book - who is very definitely the mythical christ, and about whom no other detail can be assigned with what info we have.

Functionally equivalent to mythicism even as it rejects mythicism.  The story of the development of the character and the text is the same either way - some people just think that some guy was the catalyst for that happening.  Personally, I think that religious communities are a better explanation for the emergence and existence of religious beliefs than the life and times of one John Doe.

Bingo.
There was some impetus for the initiation and continuation of the "Way" sect in Judaism in the mid 1st Century.
That could have been a Jesus, but didn't have to be. The thing is, this "mythical Christ" didn't get the job done, so why would anyone support him as a messiah ?
He accomplished nothing a messiah was supposed to do. So then they invented "salvation" from sin, when he failed, and the end-times did not happen.
Jews already had that by their temple sacrifices. They were not waiting for a savior from sin. Christians cooked that up when the end-times did not arrive as they expected.
We know the sect (the first Christians) were there and remained a part of Judaism for decades if not centuries.
The High Priest Gamaliel required the synagogues read the Expulsion curses at the end of the 1st Century, (as referenced in John). They were still Jews.
St. John Chrysostom told his Christian congregation .... (the Archbishop of Constantinople), in the year 400, ... they have a copy of his Christmas sermon, to stop going to the synagogue.)
Whatever we think we know about he development of Christianity, is probably all wrong.