The history behind Historicism

What exactly is "historical fact" in the Gospels? Or in Paul? On a maximalist reading of Paul´s genuine epistles, Jesus was a human (among other things!), Jewish, a descendant of king David, had a brother named James, opposed divorce, was betrayed after a ritual meal, and was crucified on the orders of earthly rulers. He also had disciples and followers, at least 500 of them, some of which are named. And the whole thing happened shortly before Paul´s epistles were written (since some of the 500 brothers were still alive). Am I missing something? 

It´s still surprisingly meager. It´s certainly very meager compared to the Gospels. Indeed, one of the mysteries of Biblical scholarship is why Paul doesn´t mention many famous and central Gospel traditions, not even when he "should" have. For instance, why does he never quote Jesus on the question of clean and unclean food? That would have been a good rebuke of Peter (Jesus´ chief disciple) and James (Jesus´ own brother). Nothing on the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration, the prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem, John the Baptist, et cetera.

Maybe Paul was a heretic. He couldn´t quote the original Gospel traditions, since they were more "Jewish" than "Christian". Or maybe the Gospel traditions didn´t exist yet...

Secular Historicists consider Mythicists crazy, but what exactly is "historical" in the Gospels *from a secular viewpoint*? In reality, everyone who isn´t a Christian treats Gospel Jesus as mythical. Most "historical facts" in the Gospels are miraculous factoids from a secular perspective: the virgin birth in Betlehem, young Jesus in the temple, walking on water, various healings, the resurrection, the ascension...

So what exactly is historical here? Nazareth? Nupe, that´s based on ancient prophecy: the Messiah comes from Galilee of the Gentiles and will be called a Nazarene. The flight to Egypt? Nupe, that´s another ancient prophecy and clearly modelled on the Sojourn and Exodus. The Sermon on the Mount? Well, do *you* believe that hundreds or thousands of people stood around Jesus on a high mountain, gasping in wonder at his teachings? Nah, that´s Moses again. Pontius Pilate asking the Jews to chose between Jesus Son of God the Father and Jesus Son of the Father (Barabbas)? A very likely co-incidence, I´m sure. The crucifixion? Possibly, but many elements of the story are - again - based on ancient prophecy. Including the supposedly "embarrassing" statement "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"?

And speaking of the criterion of embarrassment...it´s  mostly embarrassing. Why did Jesus´ family consider him crazy? Why was he baptized if he was sinless? Because the Gospels were written as instructions to a later generation of Christians, the message being "Jesus had the same experiences as you". The idea that an embarrassing situation would be mentioned in a text written much later than the events described, in another country, in another language is naïve in the extreme. Yes, *even* later generations of Christians might have found some things in earlier scriptures *theologically* embarrassing, but that´s another thing entirely. But embarrassing historical facts are always swept under the rug, even today, during the lifetime of the cult leader, no matter how "well known" they might to the skeptics.

So what *exactly* is historical about the Gospels, really? The crucifixion seems to be the strongest contender, but even that is doubtful. Why would the Romans crucify a trouble-maker who created a minor disturbance in the Jewish Temple? Why not just scourge him? Note also that almost everything about the crucifixion, except the torture and death itself, is mythological (again: from a secular perspective). The eclipse of the sun, the rending of the veil in the temple, the earthquake, the resurrection of Old Testament saints...

Note also this: the man who is symbolically killed and resurrected is the oldest archetype in human history. The cross is one of the oldest pagan symbols. Even spiritual "crucifixions" are mentioned in pagan sources, such as the death of Innana in the Underworld at the hands of demons (followed by her resurrection!). Or when Plato says that the righteous man will be hanged from a pole. Or when the very same Plato says that the Son of God is suspended cross-wise in the cosmos! 

Isn´t it peculiar that the Son of God in the New Testament is executed (and sacrificed) in the most symbolically pregnant way?

There is no history here. The Gospels are well crafted myths. Or maybe they did happen as stated. But then, you have to radically change your epistemology. Or your entire ontology. 

Christ didn´t give us the easy-way-out secular-Historicist-option.