Ahistoric and Myth
This is a question for anyone familiar with history, and more specifically the historicity of Jesus. Where does one, as a historian, draw the lines of delineation between the ahistoric, mythical, and historic Jesus?
The reason I am asking is that I have been following a few conversations here, at IIDB and a few other places on the Jesus Mythicist position and have noticed that it is common for those who believe in a historic Jesus (especially those who believe in the god-man Jesus) to ask for the mythicist to cite scholars who agree with their position. The historic Jesus'ers then only accept scholars who believe there was no man named Jesus to whom biblical passages/tales have been attributed. In doing this, it seems to me, they are basically turning the ahistoric and the mythicists position into the same position. This would seem to obscure any point in having two different terms, for what one would assume were two different positions, in the first place.
Does the mythicist position not allow for the possibility of a man named Jesus having existed on whom the mythical Jesus is based? If not then why is it a separate position from the ahistoric position? If so then aren't there many scholars who would agree that the biblical Jesus is mythical? Where am I misunderstanding the way these terms are used in the historical sense?
(I read the stickied mythicists position thread and didn't find what I would consider a clear delineation between the positions)
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins