What can historians say about Jesus, and what is left to faith?

Historians can say quite a lot, and the confident part is smaller than most people expect. The term "historical Jesus" refers to his life and teachings as interpreted through critical historical methods, in contrast to traditional religious interpretations. Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure; the idea that he was a myth is rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. Beyond that, only two events are supported by nearly universal consensus: his baptism and his crucifixion.

Why are historians so sure of those two? Part of the reason is the sources. The letters of Paul, dated between AD 50 and 60, are the earliest surviving Christian texts that mention Jesus. Outside the Christian writings, the Jewish historian Josephus mentions him twice around AD 93-94, though the longer passage is most likely not authentic in its entirety: scholars think it has an authentic core that was later touched up by Christians. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing around AD 116, says that "Christus" was executed by Pontius Pilate. His tone toward Christians is so hostile that a Christian forger is extremely unlikely.

The other reason is a clever test called the criterion of embarrassment. Historians reason that the early Church would hardly have invented a story that made its founder look weak. A baptism by John the Baptist implies that Jesus was subservient to John, and a painful execution is not what followers would invent for a leader. So both events are likely to be real.

Past those two points, the picture splits. Scholars have drawn Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, a charismatic healer, a Cynic philosopher, a Jewish messiah, a prophet of social change and a rabbi. There is little agreement on a single portrait, or even on the methods needed to build one. Most still place him as a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.