[nemo]

The Historicist vs Mythicist debate is not about Christian vs rationalists or whatever you imagine. It's about evidence-based history vs conspiracy theorists. Using Bayes to rationalize the conspiracy of an invention of Jesus is fine with him since he's a crank and no professional historians are engaged with his work so he can make up whatever conspiracy theories he likes. In the end the Mythicist position always requires a conspiracy to explain why the documents we have exist as they do, while the Historicist position would apply Occam's Razor to inventing that conspiracy.

Anyway, the reality is that Josephus exists, a Jewish historian writing about the history of Judaea less than fifty years after Jesus's death who mentions Jesus's existence. The Mythicists have to deny what is actually slam-dunk evidence by ancient historical standards to hold their position which is why it's always been the territory of cranks.

It's really funny that in this day and age it's atheists who are driving along tedious religiously-motivated debates about the ontological nature of the person of Jesus. It's doubly funny that the self-proclaimed rationalists cling to a conspiracy theory and deny evidence. Anyway there's a lot more to the ancient world worth learning about, but I'd recommend learning from historians who are professionals to avoid openly biased cranks with a religious axe to grind.

[angiosperm]

We have no reliable documentary evidence. The Josephus we have is all based on a single manuscript held by Eusebius. The consensus position of historians is that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at minimum, heavily doctored, so is objectively useless as evidence one way or the other. Other independent sources are all similarly copies of copies performed by monks. Thus, any conclusion is no better than opinion. Nobody needs to invent conspiracy theories about the early Church: all the early sources we have absolutely revel in conspiracy theories, and boast of torching whole libraries of heresy.

Mainstream historians, as a rule, don't touch Christian origins with a ten-foot pole because the independent evidence remaining, a tiny handful of quotes that all fit on literally one page, stinks to high heaven, and is guarded by legions of hornets' nests. They have plenty of more productive ways to spend their time. Does it matter, ultimately, if a Yeshua existed at the center of the surviving cult and was executed, the only factual detail of any significance?

It is, as they say, moot. Only actual, reliable evidence could ever change that. We used to think none could ever surface. Herculaneum could very possibly change that, and much else of overwhelmingly greater interest.

Carrier has very interesting things to say about the non-biblically-adjacent finds likely to surface there. However distasteful you find his biblical opinions, he is among the best choices to read on topics of late Roman science.

[nemo]

You've picked up some misinformation there since your goal is to make some Christological point rather seek the truth. And thus, rather than accepting evidence you work to deny it. You may not be a Christian but you're engaging in the same kind of thinking - denying evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs.

[nemo]

Also are you capable of recognizing that this is a conspiracy theory? This is a Creationist-class argument. Responding to a critique that you position is based on conspiracy theories and denying evidence, you responded with a conspiracy theory to deny evidence.

[angiosperm]

My point is that in Christology there is literally nothing but conspiracy theories all the way down, by every active participant for fully two millennia. If you imagine anything, anywhere is even a hair better than a conspiracy theory, it is a trick of the light.

To any sane historian, the whole topic is plastered over with "Nothing to See Here" signs.

About Carrier, I find nothing but "crank crank crank crank" name-calling that is beneath any actually respectable historian speaking of another credentialed academic. The only response that does not itself identify the speaker as himself a crank is, "We differ on details, as follows." Of course every historian differs on details with literally every other historian.