The question is interesting for at least two reasons. First, there's the meta-issue of how the discipline of history operates. What are the criteria that decide the issue of historicity, and do they make sense? Is the discipline of history biased in this case (of whether Jesus lived)?

Second, can an institution operate wholly as a fraud, based on a gross error or confusion? This ties into the existential question of life's absurdity. If we can be so wrong about Christianity and whether Jesus existed, what else could we be wrong about that we take for granted?