The historian, in order to get nearer the truth, still has to act "scientifically", which, among other things, means seeking, assessing and corroborating evidence. As with good science, more than a good dash of scepticism is required.

I would be wary of placing pseudo-science next to science as some kind of "alternative". By so doing you run the risk of elevating the exploits of charlatans of all kinds to equal-but-opposite status with real science. You only have to look at some of pete's posts in this thread to see how charlatans can be given false equivalence with genuine, hard-working, honest scientists. We should never, for example, allow egregious nonsense such as "creationist researchers" to pass unchallenged.

As for the existence or not of Jesus, I was of the impression that there was consensus among historians that he did exist. That is an entirely different thing, of course, to whether all or any of the words and deeds he's credited with have any credibility. I do kind of like the idea that he existed. I like to think that if he were alive today he'd be turning in his grave at the things said and done in his name. But what I'm almost certain of is that whatever it is on that shroud it has nothing to with him. Gusty...?