Titled edited to reframe the intentions of the OP.
I was recently in a conversation on DhammaWheel concerning whether a “historical” Buddha or a “historical” Jesus is most likely, and ultimately, this is what I had to say: [quote]Regarding the “historical” Jesus vs the “historical” Buddha: the same argumentation for a historical Buddha applies as the argumentation used to establish the likelihood of a “historical” Jesus, however there is much much less time between the writing of Christian scriptures and the teaching of Christian teachings (by Jesus) than there is between the ministries of the Buddha and the eventual writing down of the suttāni (suttas). Given this alone, a historical Jesus is far more historically verifiable (if either are at all, since we have to adjust our standards of proof when dealing with ancient history, otherwise almost no one in sufficiently ancient history “definitely exists”) than a comparatively historical Buddha.
Both teachers are likely to have “existed”. Whenever someone comes along and says “Confucius didn’t really exist” or something of the like, the only other possibilities are 1) someone lied and invented X historical character and their teachings, or 2) many historical characters “converged” into one (this is not as ridiculous an idea as it may seem, both “Christ” and “Buddha” were titles for people before “the” Christ and “the” Buddha came to be exclusively associated with the words).
To me, if either of these is the case, it seems that 2) is more reasonable, but even then, it still makes sense for these figures to have been substantially based on one particular figure among the many and other teachings were gradually attributed to them, rather than a whole body of teachings arising naturally via societal exchange without any actual teaching (but ineffably with the shared common mythology of a “real teacher” in the past? It just seems to unlikely)[/quote]The same is the situation with EBT studies and “traditional” Theravāda.
"traditional" Theravāda
At the risk of mischaracterizing Theravāda, I have chosen the caveat “traditional”, but this too is insufficient, as “traditional” is not synonymous with what I am trying to say, however, to cut through all this attempts to not offend anyone: the claim of “traditional Theravāda”, as I know it, is that the entire Pāli Canon and commentaries constitute “the Buddhadharma” in its expressly literary form.
EBT studies assumes option 2, with the caveat I included, namely, that there is a historical Buddha, but the collection of teachings that is attributed to the Buddha today also contains the teachings of others.
What is your response to doubts of a historical Buddha? I would have liked to get more in-depth with archaeological attestations, etc, but I am simply not knowledgable enough on the subject.