> The Bible cannot be interpreted as a historical book
It certainly can to some
extent because there are enough 3rd party sources about Jesus.
> Today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE, on whose life and teachings Christianity was founded.
I think what you’re saying above is somewhat misleading when the Wikipedia article you cite also says, “only two key events of Jesus's life are widely accepted as historical, namely his baptism, and his crucifixion (commonly dated to 30 or 33 CE)”
That’s like saying Forrest Gump is historical because Vietnam is a thing that happened, and JFK was president.
It certainly can to some extent because there are enough 3rd party sources about Jesus.
> Today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE, on whose life and teachings Christianity was founded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus