I'm very ambivalent about the claim. Ther may have been an actual Yeshua at that approximate time (or it could be the melding of a number of 'wanna-be' Messiah's), but any solid proof is lacking, which leaves the mythicists with a big opening to make their arguments. Historicists have to reach as much as the mythisists to make their arguments as there is a lack of contemporary corroboration (especially on some of the wilder claims: eclipse/darkness, earthquake, walking dead). We do know that the books or gospels that did make it into the finished bible were cherry-picked & likely altered a good deal.

@phxbillcee Agree, but to be clear historical scholars do not argue for the miraculous claims such as the walking dead, resurrection, etc. That is a religious belief, not historical scholarship. Historians just argue for the probable existence of Yeshua based on established criteria of evidence. Indeed, the Jesus of the Gospels through later mythologizing could have become a mixture of several false messiahs. BTW, ever hear of Apollonius? If things had worked out a little differently all the Christians today could have been Apollonians. The problem is that not all so-called historicists are really historical scholars, but religious bible scholars masquerading as historical scholars. "Historicist" is supposed to refer to an adherent of historicism, not bible scholars, per se, let alone religious bible scholars who have a pre-existing bias.