"
1) You have failed to explain what the quote does for the article besides trying to say ""Well, they're just theists, so why listen to them?"" As I said before, the reasoning for keeping the quote would also allow us to find and add quotes along the lines of ""it must be considered that only atheists and those with a grudge against Christianity support this theory"" - and I doubt that you would so whole-heartedly support such a quote, hmm?
2) Then where is this majority of scholars that are not historians?
Richard Burridge, Graham Gould, Van Voorst, Graham Stanton, R.T. France are heads of theology departments. I can not find whether they were taught in a divinity school, though.
Michael Grant is an atheist and a full-fledged historian.
James Frazer studied myth and religion in general.

An excerpt from online, detailing some of those who oppose the hypothesis:
""Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that ""Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E."" [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that ""We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place."" On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: ""It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world."" [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:
 

    The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

""I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation.""

""...he argues mainly from silence.""

""...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space.""
 

""(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels.""

None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the ""Jesus-myth"" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

Again, the fact is is that the complaint isn't relevant. The mainstream historian position, which would hardly be mostly Christian, supports the claim that Jesus was a historical person. All that quote does is try to attack the speaker's instead of the evidence, and it would be blatantly dishonest to try to include it. Provide all the arguments for the claim that you want - but this isn't one of them. Koromon survived intact. "