But that statement needs to be read in context. The capital letters on "Real" and "True" are crucial there. I was trying to distinguish between historical and philosophical standards of justification, which are often confused in the debate about Jesus's historicity.

I agree that historians search for evidence to uncover the truth about the past. But the question is what epistemic standards they apply in assessing the evidence. It's like the difference in court between the burdens of proof in civil and criminal trials (balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt). Historians may have weaker standards than absolutist philosophers, which means historians may not be as skeptical.