In the context of what constitutes robust ancient evidence
Well that's just a massive qualification of whatever eveidence you are talking about and in no way helps your claim.
Sure, we don't have a you-tube video but the proximity of the New Testament writings to Jesus (100 years or so after Jesus' death), in terms of ancient evidence, is considered very reliable (I think 200 years is the accepted limit).
Approximately six generation of people is considered to be reliable! That's really really poor.
With this in mind, the letters of Paul are thought to be less than 40 years after Jesus' death which is thus extremely reliable.
Errm correct me if I'm wrong but Paul wasn't one of the twelve appostle and did not therefore spend any time with Jesus. Why is this then considered to be reliable information? The timing of the writing is in any case irrelevant without considering whether or not the author has a vested interest.
All these points are however moot if the question of what people mean by Jesus is left unanswered. There may well be evidence of some bloke called Jesus at or around the time we are talking about (Jesus may even have been a common name for all I know) that however does not mean that this bloke was, as is claimed by christians, the son of God.
