Historicists present little pertinent evidence for a historical, or a Gospel, Jesus. They simply assume his existence and work onward from there. Therefore, their consensus that Jesus existed is concluded from an unjustified, non-evidentiary over-confidence.
Their “proofs” are flimsy, since they have no contemporary evidence from Jesus or his earliest followers (such as “the Jerusalem Pillars”). Josephus’s references have been debunked as being a late scribal interpolation, and the rest of the “supporting evidence” is too late and does not cite original witnesses – and this therefore invalidates theoften-cited “testimony” of Pliny-Trajan, Celsus and all the others typically invoked. These writers merely repeat what their contemporary Christian interlocutors are saying, and that is based on non-eyewitness creeds and whatever Gospels they were reading. None of it supports a historical Jesus.
That Paul’s christology differs from that of the Gospels does not make Jesus a myth, but it does show that Paul, as our earliest known source, did not believe in a historical – or even a Gospel – Jesus of Nazareth. What makes Jesus non-historical is the fact that there is no eyewitness or contemporary account of, or from, him and his first followers.
Paul’s Christ never performed cures and exorcisms, never preached the sermon on the mount, never argued with scribes, priests and Pharisees, never knew John the Baptist or was baptized by him, never raised Lazarus or the widow’s son from the dead, never “pronounced all foods clean”, never had a mission based in Capernaum, never called Herod “that fox”, never stood trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, and was never discovered, by mourning female followers, to have vacated a Jerusalem tomb..
In short, the earliest “Jesus” we have is not in the least historical, and the few “proof texts” historicists bring forward – such as Paul’s saying Jesus was born of a woman under the Law, and that he had a brother named James, etc. – have been successfully stymied by mythicists. Paul neither refers to Jesus’ teaching on the Law – an issue that would have been crucial for Paul – nor does he appeal to Jesus’s moral teaching or ethical example. Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation for all these Pauline lacunae is that Paul had no historical or Gospel Jesus to work from, and that is most likely because no historical or Gospel Jesus ever existed.