Thanks. Maybe I'll need to clarify the end of the article. I do care about whether the Christ Myth theory is true, but it's a relative indifference because the main concern is with the theological, supernatural Christ that's crucial to Christian faith.
Once that's disposed of by scientific, historical considerations (induction, analogy), we have only the academic puzzle to solve, and it's hard to solve a puzzle with so many missing pieces. What's the total picture on the puzzle pieces? Is it of a bunch of puppies? A dragon? It's hard to tell when the evidence is so equivocal and you have to sift through the propaganda and the ancient ignorance and credulity, not to mention the modern ulterior motives.
My gut tells me it's more likely that the Jesus of the NT was a myth, although Mark would have been based on collective memories of the Roman subjugation of the humiliated Jews.
A telling episode was the backlash against Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist? Finally, after a century of silence, an established historian was going to respond to the Christ Myth theory with a book-length treatment. But his book was panned by the mythicists as a slapdash effort. See in particular Doherty's comprehensive refutation:
The real question is whether critical historians are only arbitrarily being held back from applying their methods of inquiry to the fullest extent, to avoid reaching such a subversive conclusion that would antagonize hundreds of millions of Christians, canceling their funding and losing their authority.
Still, when the evidence is so poor and equivocal for everyone, we have to recognize that the data can be explained in multiple ways at nearly every turn. It's a choice between models and I don't have overwhelming confidence in any particular model of Christianity's natural origin.