To me the Gospels look like a mythologized account of a historical person, because a naturalistic interpretation of the Gospels works too well for them to be a story that was created by religious people.
Would historians consider this kind of reasoning to be support for the historicity of Jesus?
For example, the resurrection appearances seem like a description of snowballing hallucinations by a group of people in a state of trauma and grief: first a hallucination by one or two people, then a group hallucination; encountering a person who they later "realize" is Jesus, ... It doesn't seem like a believer would make up such a story.
I haven't seen much of this kind of reasoning about the Gospels - so I'm wondering why. It does assume naturalism.