That's one problem, but it goes a little deeper than that. Editors are saying there is widespread consensus on the fact of Jesus' reality in the community of secular, peer-reviewed history journals.  Then they cite almost nothing but non-peer-reviewed, non-secular theologians. There is a disconnect between what is being said and done. The disconnect matters, because if something is a facttruly a factit is easy to find widespread attestation in peer-reviewed secular sources.