Hmm. Appears that I was trying to use the phrase 'the historical man' as distinct from 'the man who actually existed' and that's not what those words mean ><

The idea that God can be found - that God can be learned about, should be learned about - by studying archaeological evidence concerning people who may or may not have been Jesus. The idea that it matters where Jesus lay in the tomb, whether the site was reused, where that stone is now. Fundamentally the conflation of the accidents of the thing with the thing, similarly to witnessing a miracle and believing because of the miracle. Does that make sense?