I realize the impression I left P.S. was one of obfuscation. And in her impression was I was ignoring her retort. So, though she has left the conversation, I wish to respond to few of her comments.
The mythology of the gospels aside, the rabbi known as Jesus of Nazareth was destined to crucifixion, no matter what as the priesthood of the time had no sympathy for messianic pretenders that publically embrassed them while creating powerful movements consisting of sympathic followers. Rome likewise did not appreciate anyone calling themselves "king"....
This argument pretty much ignores the larger thesis, the questionable historicity of Jesus and events described as occurring to him. The earliest evidence suggests that the "rulers" described as crucifying Jesus were thought of, not as Romans, but cosmic, spirit rulers who in fact do not recognize the Christ at all. And who if they had would not have unwittingly done God's will. Paul, even in the form we have today, retains this idea. The ascension of Isaiah too describes the efforts to disguise the Christ and the duping of these spirit rulers. If anyone wishes this can be discussed further, but for now, this is why I do not find the objection raised by P.S. persuasive.
Another character, like Judas Iscariot, handing him over as a betrayer is an invention? Unlikely. Judas is actually just the name "Jude," which was slightly changed so as not to confuse it with the name of the brother of Jesus who is also named Jude. (John 14:22) There is also the prophet named Judas Barsabbas mentioned in Acts 15:22-33.
Again here we have an argument from the standpoint of historicity as well as not appreciating the layered nature of these traditions. The addition of Jesus' "brothers" has been discussed at length elsewhere, and in short may have been a part of a larger effort to "disprove" the popular docetic arguments of the day. It created a family for Jesus and therefore he was not merely an appearance of a man. Tertullian argues in such a way, he denies the perpetual virginity of Mary for this reason. Considering that Docetic Christianity posed a threat to the burgeoning orthodoxy, it not surprising that we find elements included in the text that would not have been there earlier when the Docetics formulated their Christology. The confusing mess of Jameses illustrates the evolving nature of these traditions. James the Less, James the Greater, James the Just, James "brother of the Lord" (Galatians, as opposed to Apostle with whom tradition later conflates), James the son of Joseph but not Mary (Gospel of James) James the brother of the high priest Jesus of Josephus etc. It is my view that this confusion/conflation of Jameses combined with the Pauline spiritual usage of the words "brother/s of the Lord" enabled this anti-docetic development. Suddenly Jesus of Nazareth has brothers and sisters. It is the same with Jude/Judas/Judah. Here is a character in some texts an Apostle in others a brother, tradition often conflates the two. The names of the Apostles, likely props to equate the new Israel with the 12 tribes, are inconsistent and suggestive of alternate traditions. (2 James, 2 Johns, 2 Judases created by taking the Gospels together) IOW, there weren't 2 Judases in the original list.
Sorry about the duplication, I was distracted and ran out of time.