jonjermey

I don't see that we have any basis for asserting that Jesus was not wholly fictional.

I disagree.

Those who claim he is wholly fictional seem to do so on the basis that there is no proof that he isn't (as you do here). But the better, more scientific and historical approach is to ask which possibility/hypothesis (wholly fictional versus not-wholly fictional) best explains the data. The data in question is source documents suggesting several distinct and early traditions of belief that a man called Jesus did and said X, Y and Z (varying between the traditions). These traditions and the content within them are less plausibly explained as coming to existence as a result of someone making him up than as a result of Jesus being a historical figure about whom stories were made up (ie a figure very different from how he came to be represented in the traditions).