Did Jesus exist?

[GrandizerII]

Many books in the New Testament would be considered evidence for historical Jesus, by the way.[...]

Incredibly poor evidence. Those books have been massaged by maaaany people and organizations with vested interest in establishing the existence of Jeezles. In few centuries Batman comics may be considered "evidence" for the existence of Bruce Wayne, but most people with a brain will - hopefully - demand independent sources.

Poor, relative to today, yes. Not incredibly poor, though. And certainly, relatively good evidence for those times.

And why compare to Batman? Why not to Sai Baba? I would think the latter would be a better comparison. But even so, all this means is that it could go one way or another. Still, the Synoptic Gospels and many of the Epistles are evidence, like it or not.

No, of course not. The bible is a compilation of texts, chosen from a wide variety of sources available at the time - many of them obvious mystical fiction, or convenient forgeries of letters - by a committee dedicated to create a compelling and consistent narrative. What of it?

But the books of the Bible weren't brought together from day one of being written, were they? So each should be treated by default as an independent work unless shown to be otherwise.

Now what are the ones from the NT you are classifying as mystical fiction or forgeries of letters? And what scholars back you up on whatever the answer is? Because while it's true that some of the Epistles are pseudepigraphic (not forgeries as that term is a little misleading), others are considered legit by NT scholars.