Hi rspielmann, welcome to the fray.
rspielmann wrote:
Historical analysis and textual criticism cannot tell us 'what happened,' but can give us a sense of 'what
probably happened.'
I'm more or less with you on that one. Historians can come to some conclusions that tell us what
likely happened in the past. The more evidence there is, especially if it is from disconnected sources, the more compelling the case. If there are physical artifacts that support the hypothesis then even better.
rspielmann wrote:
When it comes to the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the gospels, historians can tells much about what really happened, more so than any other ancient historical figure.
And there is where you lost me. I suggest reading some of the recent threads on the historical Jesus if you haven't already. There is very little evidence that Jesus even existed. Even if we assume all that exists is fairly solid (which it isn't) there really isn't much of it.
At best, historians can only say that Jesus may have existed if the gospel stories can be trusted. There's very little corroborating evidence for these stories. If you dig into the aforementioned threads, you will find there is actually a case to be made that Jesus is a myth (I'm not making that case, but the case that has been made is compelling and backed up by convincing evidence).
rspielmann wrote:
Did Caesar cross the Rubicon? Was Socrates an historical figure? The gospel writers embellished much about him, but if we rely on scholars who have dedicated their lives to learning the original languages of the time (Greek and Aramaic) and who are steeped in the historical method(s), we can know much about this guy.
We can certainly ascertain what the authors likely believed. We can also analyze the texts and realize that a lot of it was copied from a small number of sources with embellishments added.
Unless we employ 'faith' we can't really know much else in my opinion.