There is much misinformation about Jesus spread by Dawkins, Hitchens and Onfray - as well as by many Christian apologists. Therefore, it's good to be very clear on what is clear and basically undisputed. Dr John Dickson does just that in his SMH article on the historicity of Jesus. Here's a taste:
Outside this triangle of sceptics, accommodators and apologists there is another group of men and women who number in the thousands, whose works fill the academic libraries and journals of the world and yet whose views are rarely considered in popular discussion of this topic. I am talking about professional biblical historians: not professors of theology in religious institutions but university historians specialising in the language, literature and culture of the biblical period. Be they Christian, Jewish or agnostic, such scholars shun both overreaching scepticism and theological dogma. [...] For while mainstream scholars disagree on many things about the life of Jesus, there is a very strong consensus that the basic narrative of the Gospels is historically sound. [...] That Jesus lived cannot be disputed. [...] But what of the Easter events? There is a broad consensus here, too. Few biblical historians accept all of the details of the Gospel accounts - to the chagrin of some Christians - but most, whether Jewish, Christian or agnostic, agree that these writings have preserved a reliable core of information about the tumultuous final days of Jesus' life: he created a public disturbance in the Jerusalem temple shortly before his arrest; he shared a final (Passover) meal with his disciples; he was arrested by the priestly elite and handed over to the Romans; he was crucified for treason under the mocking charge "king of the Jews". These are the accepted facts of the Easter narrative. Christian apologists may often exaggerate them but the new atheists simply ignore them.If you want to know what he thinks of the resurrection, you'll need to read the article.