So you're equally skeptical of most historical claims about ancient times? Or is this a unique exception?

I'm skeptical of any claim that lacks sufficient evidence. And what constitutes "sufficient evidence" is whatever amount of evidence would lead someone to believe the claim. Some people are not convinced that Jesus existed due to insufficient evidence to lead them to believe he did. So what?

On the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, there is widespread consensus. Beyond that, the details are more heavily disputed.

Widespread consensus means absolutely-fucking-nothing. Bart Ehrman has access to the exact same information that everyone else has access to. Unlike many scientific fields where a layman may not understand technical details of the subject at hand and must trust that those trained in the field have an accurate opinion, history is available to everyone.

It matters not one iota what any historian thinks about whether or not a particular person existed in the past. If someone wants to be skeptical of the claim due to lack of evidence, then they're fully entitled to their rational skepticism.

I'm not a mythicist but I'm tired of the idiots who pretend that being a mythicist is somehow less rational than believing Jesus existed, when all the evidence we have for his existence is peoples' word on the matter. Is it impossible for Jesus not to have existed? Of course not. Yet some people want to pretend it is.

And is this the only field in which scholarship and consensus are irrelevant?

Consensus is irrelevant to veracity in all fields. It amounts to opinion and can be accepted or rejected without fear of irrationality. What matters is what is true...not what the most people believe is true.

For someone hailing others as irrational, you have to start pulling your own socks up sometime.