The point of the story is lost if Jesus doesn't die ─ that point being his miraculous resurrection.
So ─ given there was in fact an historical Jesus, and that the usually efficient Romans crucified him ─ the strong likelihood is that he died ie suffered the irreversible failure of his body's life systems.
The problem then becomes to explain the resurrection stories. The stories themselves go a long way to solving that problem. None of them is by an eyewitness, none is contemporary, all are asserted by believers. Most telling of all, there are six accounts of the resurrection in the NT ─ Paul, the four gospels, and Acts 1 ─ and each of the six contradicts the others in major ways.
It has been a Christian custom to "reconcile" the accounts by selecting the details from each account that seem most likely to the selector. Unfortunately, this can only result in a seventh account that likewise disagrees with all the others in major ways.
So ─ given an historical Jesus who was crucified ─ far the strongest possibility is that he died and that the resurrection stories are unhistorical but reflect the aspirational tales of his followers.
A very distant second is that he didn't die, but left the religion industry and had a quiet life elsewhere ─ Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The da Vinci Code territory. It's highly improbable but not utterly impossible, and by a vastly greater margin it's hugely more probable than an authentic resurrection after an authentic death.
