Something I never understood was why historians for so long insisted that Yeshua (i.e ., Jesus) was necessarily a historical figure, despite no primary sources to verify he existed. The best evidence was a historian (Josephus, I think) years later making a brief reference to Christians and what they believed. It always seemed to me that more recent historians accepted historicity based on influence, because Christianity is so prolific. That never made sense to me; it's like claiming Hercules must have been a historical figure because a lot of people believed in him for many years. I truly searched for stronger arguments from historians and found nothing convincing. The people we're more sure of include Paul (Saul) of Tarsus, who is arguably the true founder of Christianity, and who spread the word of Jesus for his own political agenda (as a revolutionary in Roman society). And we think there was a real person named James who traveled with Paul spreading the message, who claimed to be Jesus's brother, lending local credence to the tale. But for me that's not evidence. I can lie about having a dead brother, and even today with all of our records it would be rather difficult to disprove my claims. So, knowing Paul's motives were, at best, divided, I'm less inclined to believe that his mission was forthright and that the tale was true. I think it's quite possible that James was an actor of sorts to help along Paul's cause. I tend to think that the Gospel writers didn't think they were writing fiction, but that Paul himself was fabricating the story years earlier for the sake of his own agenda. And this doesn't actually make me happy, because I'd love for there to have been a historical figure Yeshua on which the concept of Jesus was based, because I think learning about that would be fascinating and give us insights into how key facts of his life were changed over time and became myth. But, without a historical figure we're just left with the myths and nothing against which to compare it.