Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[robvalue]

Let's see if I got this straight:

The HJ camp say there was a preacher called Yeshua who claimed to be the son of God, and was crucified.

The mythicists do not deny this possibility, but in fact say that this isn't enough information to accurately identify one single person; or even if it was, we can't be sure it's the person actually being identified, or that the myth isn't also based on other people. Let's face it, when almost the entirely story is mythical/unverifiable, it's a pretty big assumption that no other real people didn't creep in somewhere.

So really, the differences are pretty minor here, as far as I can see. HJ-ers are confident enough they have found "one person" with this criteria, and mythicists say they probably have not. But neither claim (I hope) that the "life story" of Jesus that we have is actually accurate, so the "Jesus character" is not a real person.

I see this very basic HJ position as so similar to the mythicist position that I don't feel the need to "identify" as either, and I don't understand the infighting. It's when people get carried away and start supposing we can know much more about Jesus that I start pulling a face.