A claim made by Tom Holland here (35:40 on for those it doesn't work for, but you can roll slightly ahead for context), based on his view that the Islamic sources are late and filled with politically and theologically motivated gloss.

Now, I've seen people rip into Tom Holland for his history on other topics and he clearly has his own political motivations for his positions here but it is an interesting claim. Frankly, I'm a bit uncertain why it seems so surprising to me given that a few facts can be raised in is favor (a lot of the most theologically authoritative Muslim sources are far later than the sources on Jesus- something that) but I am curious if he is exaggerating the consensus.

I vaguely understand that there was a skeptical turn in Islamic historiography since Crone, but I'm curious about whether this particular claim is controversial and if the traditional narrative and the historical one have diverged so much.