I think it's compelling evidence that the "Jesus" of history is a manufactured cult that grew out of the failure of the Jews to win independence from the Romans. It then seems that the Jesus of faith is an accretion of multiple strands of pagan and Jewish thought redacted into a soteriology of blood sacrifice already extant in significant numbers of pagan mystery cults and ancient near eastern sacrificial motifs.
A highly speculative reconstruction of such a fragmentary text allegedly referring to such an undefined concept of resurrection is "compelling evidence"? How did Christianity get "manufactured" and "grow" with "accretions", followed by "redactions", in the manner Evan describes in such a short period of time, with contemporaries and eyewitnesses of Jesus still alive and in prominent places (the Roman government, church leadership, etc.)?
Evan does end his post with:
But that's just my opinion.
The key word is "just".