Keith gives an interesting example of how even if we consider something to be true of Jesus, there is so much that we still don’t know. He writes:

If I could indict atomistic approaches to the historical Jesus for one thing, it would be that their attempts to recover tradition out of the narrative frameworks of the Gospels treat those frameworks as ahistorical products, theological castles in the sky that appeared as miraculously as the Jesus they portray. Let us take the attribution of the title “Son of God” to Jesus as an example. Later followers of Jesus may have fabricated traditions about Jesus that describe him as the Son of God because they were already convinced that he was the Son of God, in which case their portrayal of the past amounts to a retrojective narrativization of their present theological convictions. But merely observing this dynamic of narrativization does not alleviate the historian from his or her task. This kind of thing happens all the time with narratives of the past, and it should not surprise anyone that it happens in these narratives as well. Yet the historian’s task is not to dismiss interpretations as interpretations, but to explain why they exist in the first place. Why were there followers of Jesus (at all) who were convinced he was the Son of God? Why did they come to think of him as such? Maybe they were liars. Maybe he was a liar. Maybe they were telling the truth and he was too. Maybe they thought he was the Son of God because he told them he was. Maybe he did not really think that but wanted them to think it. Maybe he really thought it. Maybe he did not initially think it but came to think it later. Maybe he was just pulling a prank and it got out of hand. Maybe he told them one thing and they heard another, only to repeat it ad nauseam en route to the canon and creeds. Maybe he thought no such thing about himself but they lied and said he did. Maybe he did not know he was the Son of God and did not claim it for himself but they came to think it sincerely. Maybe they thought it insincerely. Maybe he told him he was the Son of God and they heard him say he was the Son of God but they thought he meant something different than he really did. Maybe he meant Psalm 2 and they meant Hercules or just a human or Adam. Maybe Jesus and his earliest followers agreed that the title Son of God meant one thing but later followers twisted it into something else. (Keith, Chris. Beyond What is Behind in Crossley, James; Keith, Chris. The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus (pp. 160-184). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition, 2024)