The Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith meet at the church

... just finished E.P. Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus, a very helpful primer on the academic tools used to understand Jesus. Most helpful was Sanders candor in noting what can be said with certainty by scholarship about Jesus, and what involves some degree of conjecture. My take away is that what can be said assuredly about Jesus by the academy in no way disputes what the church says about him.

Here is Sanders' list of points about Jesus "almost beyond dispute":

Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
he was baptize by John the Baptist;
he called disciples;
he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
he preached 'the kingdom of God';
about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover
he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
he had a final meal with the disciples;
he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
he was executed on the orders of the Roman perfect, Pontius Pilate.

We may add here a short list of equally secure facts about the aftermath of Jesus' life:

his disciples at first fled;
they saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death;
as a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom;
they formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God's Messiah.

(Reading the list again I'm reminded of ... the Apostle's Creed.)

Since this list is given in the second chapter, most of the book is spent, understandably, dealing with conjecture. I find it all fascinating, about pericopes, author agendas, proto-gospels and such, but I don't have the tools for commenting upon it.

The one comparison that does come to mind is with N.T. Wright's The Challenge of Jesus (and also his The Meaning of Jesus with Marcus Borg). From what I remember, there are many similarities, especially regarding the importance of the Jewish context of Jesus' life. Wright seems to emphasis more the power of Jesus' kingdom of God claim. Sanders emphasizes more the political relationship between Ciaphus and Pilate, while down playing Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees. No big deal. The real contrast I see is in the Christian identities of Wright and Sanders. Wright, now a bishop, doesn't set aside his identity as a follower of Jesus as he cranks out books about him. He is not satisfied to let the "historical Jesus" be some real-world twin of the "Jesus of faith". Sanders does not tackle this intersection, which is fine. I just want to be clear that that is where the real action is. I believe we call it "the church".