Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[Succubus]

fredd bear

The historicity of Jesus is accepted by 'historians' generally, for the reasons I gave.  It is not under contention as far as I'm concerned. <snip>
Historians generally? But then from the Wiki link you post with monotonous regularity:

The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament 'scholars' and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain.

I don't know if the bait and switch was deliberate but that is what it was.
How many times does it have to pointed out that 'scholar' is not a protected term, any rundown shmuck with a two dollar prayerbook can call themselves a 'scholar' I'm well familiar with that Wiki page, I've covered this ground before.
  
Now here is your challenge, should you wish to undertake it; name one scholar linked to on that page who is not a theologian or a priest. You know, people whose very existence depend on the bible story.

I'll give you one, Bart Ehrman. And the rest?