I'm just saying that historians are more practical than philosophers in not having the luxury to speculate about absolute standards of ultimate truth. Philosophers delve into questions of extreme skepticism because they're after ultimate knowledge, whereas historians can settle for what's good enough to be believe, given the problems with the available evidence.

So historians may err on the side of assuming that Jesus lived in history, whereas philosophers will point to the wider importance of that decision of whether Jesus was a real person. There are profound, religious and political implications either way, as becomes apparent in the big picture view of things.

Historians are likely to be more narrowly focussed on the soft scientific question on how best to explain the data, not on the social ramifications, although unconsciously, of course, historians will have plenty of political and cultural biases. Philosophers lay those biases on the table, as it were, and declare that the question of whether Jesus lived is no ordinary historical question. Thus, philosophers may appeal to higher standards of proof, in which case the Christ myth theory suddenly becomes reasonable (on philosophical, but maybe not on the historian's institutional grounds).