My previous comment was cut short by a technique error.
Mental illness was generally equated with demonic influence in first century society, and people were often abandoned to die by their families.
Jewish Responsa, as most of you know, is very complex, covering daily life Halacha application, instruction on proper exegetical methods, even propriety regarding rhetoric, governing centuries of learning and covering everything from mishnaic philosophy to the Talmud. Within this great body of work is a body of Responsa itself regarding Jesus.
While some of it suggests demonic influence, Jesus is pictured as a charlatan at best but not a schizophrenic. While I understand that some find it easier to dismiss a crazy man or a completely fabricated myth, but it is intellectually dishonest to make a historical Jesus of Nazareth impossible. An non-historical figure would not have inspired such complex Jewish rhetoric designed to defend Judaism's stand.
It takes no courage to dismiss something that is non-existent, nor does it require you to look deeper into a subject that demands we leave our comfort zone. But the truth of matters often demands we leave our happy place, study further than what we want, and even be courageous far beyond what appeals to our liking.
Reality is disturbing, and we are no longer in Watchtower world where things are merely black or white. This means we might have to accept more about the reality of Jesus than we like or even feel we can. But if we find we cannot reject Jesus unless he be a myth or crazy man, then perhaps we have to ask ourselves why a real Jesus from Nazareth is such a threat to our conclusions. A historical Jesus should never have to make denying him impossible.