Best evidence for a historical Joshua ben Joseph

[Atheos]

Feel free to produce a single actual eyewitness testimony or artifact (that isn't as fake as the shroud of Turin) and I'll retract that statement.

How many of the millions of Jews who ever lived in ancient Judea are there artifacts for or eyewitness testimonies about? Almost none whatsoever, if there are even any at all. You are using an unreasonable standard of evidence that no one has any good reason to expect to be available in this case.

This is a fairly major shift of goalposts considering what I was responding to. Learner claimed that the difference between the Santa Claus myths and the Jesus myths is that there are "material (witnesses scriptural, archeology & artifacts etc.)" favoring the Jesus myth and there aren't any favoring the Santa Claus myth. I simply deny that assertion and offer anyone who wishes to do so the opportunity to correct my ignorance. It is extremely unlikely that anyone involved in the writing of these legends about Jesus the Magic Jew witnessed anything they wrote about. It is impossible to demonstrate with any reasonable certainty that they did. There is no archaeological evidence to debate. There are no artifacts to debate.

But to put the shoe on the other foot, how many of the millions of Jews who ever lived in ancient Judea actually healed blind and paralyzed people? How many of them were capable of altering the molecular structure of simple H2O and turning it into liquefied complex carbohydrates including alcohol? How many of them were capable of walking on storm-tossed water without sinking? How many of them were known for gathering hordes of followers and feeding them until they could eat no more from mere morsels of food and recovering bushels full of leftovers? How many of them could appear at will inside of locked rooms, then vanish right before the eyes of the beholders? How many of them could heal all manner of disease with a mere touch? How many of them could float off into the sky and disappear into the clouds unassisted? How many people's fame spread so far and wide that a centurion would send messengers from afar off to ask him to come and heal their dying daughter? How many people who were truly capable of performing such incredible feats managed to do so without ever creating even the smallest blip in the historical record?

My point is that there is not a single piece of evidence we have today that would necessarily be any different if Jesus was entirely fictional. Not one. Paul was in telepathic communication with some disembodied entity named Jesus in his earliest epistles. For at least another decade after he started writing his epistles there were no biographical details about Jesus anywhere. It is entirely possible for people to have filled in the biographical details over time sitting around campfires and spinning yarns until sometime in the year 75 or thereabouts a group of people living in Rome decided to collect some of the best anecdotes and organize them into a more structured story.

I don't think that's what happened, honestly I don't. But there's just not enough evidence to demonstrate that it isn't what happened.

 

[ruby sparks]

Feel free to produce a single actual eyewitness testimony or artifact (that isn't as fake as the shroud of Turin) and I'll retract that statement.

How many of the millions of Jews who ever lived in ancient Judea are there artifacts for or eyewitness testimonies about? Almost none whatsoever, if there are even any at all. You are using an unreasonable standard of evidence that no one has any good reason to expect to be available in this case.

This is a fairly major shift of goalposts considering what I was responding to. Learner claimed that the difference between the Santa Claus myths and the Jesus myths is that there are "material (witnesses scriptural, archeology & artifacts etc.)" favoring the Jesus myth and there aren't any favoring the Santa Claus myth. I simply deny that assertion and offer anyone who wishes to do so the opportunity to correct my ignorance. It is extremely unlikely that anyone involved in the writing of these legends about Jesus the Magic Jew witnessed anything they wrote about. It is impossible to demonstrate with any reasonable certainty that they did. There is no archaeological evidence to debate. There are no artifacts to debate.

Ok, my mistake. I see now what learner said. I should have read it more closely.

But to put the shoe on the other foot, how many of the millions of Jews who ever lived in ancient Judea actually healed blind and paralyzed people? How many of them were capable of altering the molecular structure of simple H2O and turning it into liquefied complex carbohydrates including alcohol? How many of them were capable of walking on storm-tossed water without sinking? How many of them were known for gathering hordes of followers and feeding them until they could eat no more from mere morsels of food and recovering bushels full of leftovers? How many of them could appear at will inside of locked rooms, then vanish right before the eyes of the beholders? How many of them could heal all manner of disease with a mere touch? How many of them could float off into the sky and disappear into the clouds unassisted? How many people's fame spread so far and wide that a centurion would send messengers from afar off to ask him to come and heal their dying daughter? How many people who were truly capable of performing such incredible feats managed to do so without ever creating even the smallest blip in the historical record?

Without doubt no woo head magic man actually did all those things. I don’t see the point in even asking the question.

My point is that there is not a single piece of evidence we have today that would necessarily be any different if Jesus was entirely fictional. Not one. Paul was in telepathic communication with some disembodied entity named Jesus in his earliest epistles.

I wouldn’t go along with that. See my previous replies to Moogly regarding the epistles, which imo are a better source for clues than some suggest.

For at least another decade after he started writing his epistles there were no biographical details about Jesus anywhere.

We really don’t know that. At this remove, and given that the cult was initially so small and not necessarily containing what we might call men of letters, we don’t know what might have been circulating, even orally. Add to that the possibility of stuff being lost because of war.

If you meant to say we do not have a record of such things then fair enough. But again I would ask, ‘how much more material, of what sort and when, do we have good reason to expect?’

 

[Learner]

You can have Intellectual laziness in both fabrication and simply believing without investigation.


"Which means what remains"...is a little misleading. The top part "sleigh and reindeer"... the barest of witness,archeological evidence, artifacts, etc. compares differently to the biblical, which at least does have material (witnesses scriptural, archeology & artifacts etc.) to debate about.

Forensic theorizing is not fabrication. The theories may not turn out to be true but they are not fabrications. They are attempts to piece together what actually happened from the evidence (or lack of evidence) available. This type of intellectual pursuit may offend some folks beliefs, but they are not in themselves examples of intellectual laziness.

I would also go so far as to say that fabrication is not intellectual laziness. It takes a good deal of intellectual effort to produce a really compelling story.

Yes you are right! I just came in without thinking. It takes intellectual effort to fabricate something. I am so used to certain scriptural arguments that has the effort of habitual laziness, similar to Aaron Ra quoting verses on one or two video's with the wrong context. (Mike Winger highlights this example)

The effort for fabrication would obviously be Intellectual dishonesty.

Believing either fabrications or theories without taking the time to weigh their merits ... that's intellectual laziness. And all of us have to do that sometimes. Nobody can become intimately familiar with every discipline of intellectual pursuit in existence. Nobody has the time in a single lifetime to do that. But obviously many of us who are participating in this thread are at least willing to put forth an effort to do more than the vast majority of the human population with regard to this subject. Whichever way you end up believing is immaterial in the long run (unless you happen to be one of the ones who believe you have to believe in Santa Claus or you won't get any gifts from him ... whoops, have to believe in Jesus or you ... well you get my drift).

I take the same view, taking the time to weigh their merits .

The Jesus legends have the same number of witnesses, artifacts, etc., as the Santa Claus legends. Feel free to produce a single actual eyewitness testimony or artifact (that isn't as fake as the shroud of Turin) and I'll retract that statement.

Which scholars are still studying santa and debating the same way they are with the biblical texts? Having said that, there maybe some debates on santa's origin.

 

[Atheos]

Do you see how this leaves you with nothing but an argument from popularity? Essentially your argument boils down to "A lot more smart folks believe Jesus existed then the number of smart folks who don't."

And I agree that there are many more people who believe in an historical Jesus than those who do not. I'm actually one of them.

What I don't buy is that the number of people who believe something somehow make that something a fact.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And lets not forget that there are tens of millions of people who are devoutly connected to Santa. They're not very knowledgeable on the subject and just believe what they hear. They eventually lose their fascination, belief and devotion only to be replaced by tens of millions more ready to take up the standard.

The protagonist in the gospel accounts is not a real person so rational, dispassionate folk attempt to discover what inspired the tale and the character. What I think keeps the fire alive is that we're talking about a person. We're not talking about Pegasus, an angel named Moroni, golden plates or Babe the blue ox.

In my way of thinking Jesus is the same as any of these other devices, every bit as fantastic and fictional. But because he's a person and because he's the central figure in the religion of billions, his "historicity" is the ultimate cold case that just won't go away. Without the religion the historicity might be interesting but it wouldn't be important. And over centuries of human generations persons who did not accept orthodoxy on the subject were killed. That's some pretty formidable selection pressure.

Check out the wiki article on the historicity of the Mormon golden plates. It's nothing short of fascinating. If I wished I could come up with numerous natural explanations to account for Moroni and golden plates, giving Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't conning people or lying, actually try to figure out what happened to give the tale life.

We could then all discuss what the best evidence is for Moroni and the golden plates. I think it would be an interesting rational discussion.

 

[Tharmas]

Again, I think you're a bit confused about historical Jesus studies. There are, yes, apologetic works that insist that Jesus is "real", and perhaps vaguely reference historical documents. But they aren't doing historical research; that requires a willingness to accept the conclusions your study might lead you to. Calling something like "the case for Christ" a historical study is like calling Deepak Chopra a physicist. And it's annoying, because there actually is a branch of history that studies early Christianity and its central figure, which gets ignored by the Jesus mythers because they are so wedded to their conspiracy theory version of history that they assume anyone who disagrees with them is part of the conspiracy. And ignoring that area of study leaves a giant gaping hole in people's understanding of world history as a whole. The origins of the planet's largest religion will always be significant, especially since the rise of the second largest tradition was strongly tied to it in many respects.

I'm curious about your take on serious academic scholars who write popular books. I'm thinking of three examples.

First, John Meier, who to be fair does not call himself a historian per se, but rather a biblical scholar, but who nevertheless was certainly trying for a comprehensive study in his four volume life of Jesus, A Marginal Jew. I personally was disappointed in the scholarship therein. Full disclosure: I read the book when it was only three volumes, so I'm not familiar with any points he raised in vol 4.

Second is Burton Mack, whose popular books about the creation of the New Testament I found compelling.

Third is Robin Lane Fox, author of Pagans and Christians and The Unauthorized Version, who certainly seems to me to be a legitimate historian, who nevertheless weighs in on the historicity of his subjects, that is, on what can be said for their actual existence. As I recall, he finds one line in The Gospel of John to be compelling as a plausible utterance of an actual Jesus, a fact which apologists have seized upon to exclaim that Fox, an atheist, believes in a historical Jesus.

Anyway, I'd be curious as to your opinion of these writers, if indeed you are familiar with them.

 

[Politesse]

I have no problem with academics who write popular works, provided they are knowledgeable in the subject they are writing on. I never read anything by Burton Mack, but like the other two well enough, and would add Elaine Pagels and Allen Brent to the list of good academic-to-public expositors. I would consider Meier's discipline to be theology or scriptural studies, not history.

I do treat such works with a grain of salt as a reader, though, and try to track down original research if I want to know more about the subject. There will always be limitations to encyclopedic presentations of complex subjects, however skilled or well-intentioned the writer, and I'm sure all four of the above people would agree with me.

 

[Lion IRC]

To say that it is intellectually lazy to give consideration to the possibility that the Jesus character is a complete fabrication is just plain wrong. The most intellectually lazy thing to do would be the opposite: Simply believe without investigation the stuff that has been passed around for centuries.

You can have Intellectual laziness in both fabrication and simply believing without investigation.

Leaving us with a series of incredible tales every bit is extraordinary as a magical sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, unsupported by even the barest of witness, archaeological evidence, artifacts, etc. These extraordinary events simply did not happen.

...............................................

Which means what remains (the historical Jesus, assuming one actually existed) bore little, if any resemblance to the legend fabricated through decades of story-telling. Perhaps one day authentic evidence will surface that does, in fact, corroborate the actual existence of this human being whose influence inspired the eventual legend that developed. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he never existed. The only thing beyond the realm of possibility is that the stories about him performing all those miracles are true.

"Which means what remains"...is a little misleading. The top part "sleigh and reindeer"... the barest of witness,archeological evidence, artifacts, etc. compares differently to the biblical, which at least does have material (witnesses scriptural, archeology & artifacts etc.) to debate about.

References to St Nicholas are a little off-topic, because we are talking about whether there ever was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus mythicism claims there was not. Jesus mythers claim that the reason Jesus never did any miracles is because there never was any such person.

The historical method doesnt deliver findings of fact/probability as to whether or not Jesus cured lepers or whether Saint Nicholas of Myra had a flying sleigh.

It can (and does) provide us with a high level of certainty that there once existed a real living historical person known as 'Jesus of Nazareth' who somehow managed to convice other actual living humans that He performed miracles. That's not a controversial claim and it is religiously neutral.

Also, the Gospels are historical accounts in the exact same way.

 

[Tharmas]

I have no problem with academics who write popular works, provided they are knowledgeable in the subject they are writing on. I never read anything by Burton Mack, but like the other two well enough, and would add Elaine Pagels and Allen Brent to the list of good academic-to-public expositors. I would consider Meier's discipline to be theology or scriptural studies, not history.

I do treat such works with a grain of salt as a reader, though, and try to track down original research if I want to know more about the subject. There will always be limitations to encyclopedic presentations of complex subjects, however skilled or well-intentioned the writer, and I'm sure all four of the above people would agree with me.

I'd certainly agree about Elaine Pagels! I don't know Allen Brent, but I'm looking into his work. Thanks.

 

[Atheos]

Also, the Gospels are historical accounts in the exact same way.

No, the gospels are mythology in the exact same way that the Iliad and Odyssey are. The writers inserted their mythology into the real world in much the same way Margaret Mitchell inserted Rhett Butler, Scarlett O'Hara and the fictional plantation of Tara into the real state of Georgia and into the time period of the Civil War.

The problem with that sort of "history" (if one generously calls it that) is it's impossible to know for certain that any of the details contained therein that are not somehow corroborated in other ways in the historical record actually happened.

 

[lpetrich]

I think that we ought to approach this problem in another way. What is *unhistorical*? What is the result of misremembering? Or the imaginations of later storytellers? Or outright fabrications by them?

There is a spectrum of historicity theories, and I think that we should treat separately the histories' treatment of the New Testament's miraculous and non-miraculous parts. Jesus Christ walking on water vs. JC preaching. They ought to be considered separately, since most people dismiss as unhistorical the miracles of religions and sects other than theirs.

Catholic saints are described as having worked numerous miracles, yet most Protestants are skeptical of those accounts.

Islam's founder Mohammed described how he received his revelations from the angel Gabriel.

The Hindu religious figure Krishna is described as having worked lots of miracles. For instance, when he was 7, he held up a mountain with his little finger for 7 days.

The Buddha is described as saying, shortly after he was born, that he is on his last reincarnation.

Pythagoras, Plato, Alexander the Great, and Augustus Caesar were described as literal, quasi-biological sons of gods by some of their contemporaries.

One can imagine three kinds of theories about miracles.

1. All of them are real
2. Some of them are real
3. None of them are real

The first and second ones have a problem: the lack of miracles under conditions of good documentation, especially in recent centuries in technically advanced nations. Some 250 years ago, philosopher David Hume wrote "On Miracles", where he noted that miracles have a certain shyness effect - they don't occur around good documentation. His conclusion is still correct, even though what we now have is far beyond what he had.

The some-of-them theory depends on some criterion for recognizing which miracles are real and which ones are not. A criterion that ought not to be special pleading. The all-of-them theory, for all its problems, avoids this problem.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Also, the Gospels are historical accounts in the exact same way.

No, the gospels are mythology in the exact same way that the Iliad and Odyssey are. The writers inserted their mythology into the real world in much the same way Margaret Mitchell inserted Rhett Butler, Scarlett O'Hara and the fictional plantation of Tara into the real state of Georgia and into the time period of the Civil War.

The problem with that sort of "history" (if one generously calls it that) is it's impossible to know for certain that any of the details contained therein that are not somehow corroborated in other ways in the historical record actually happened.

The gospels and Gone With the Wind are artifacts of history, they're of cultural and historical interest as objects. The same is true for the stories of Superman, Spiderman and the Minotaur.

There's nothing in Superman stories that make Clark Kent any more real than the Jesus character in those religious stories. They're both too fabulous and fictional to be taken as real unless one has a religious bias. The Jesus stories tell us there were preachers. The Superman stories tell us there were newspaper reporters. That there were preachers named Jesus doesn't make the gospel protagonist anymore real than finding out there were reporters named Clark makes Superman real.

The only thing that makes Jesus more real than Superman among some folks is religious influence and selection pressure over a couple thousand years.

Not so uninterestingly there is much talk in literary circles about who in an author's life inspired certain characters in their works. Hemingway's characters in Old Man and the Sea comes to mind. It doesn't make his characters into a page out of history or make them any less fictional. Same for a Jesus.

... miracles ...

That this word even exists in our language is quite revealing.

 

[ruby sparks]

1. Citing characters from modern fiction that are known and acknowledged by the literary authors to have essentially been fictional creations is not a very useful comparison, imo.

2. Stating without reservation that it applies in this case is just presumptuous.

Both are examples of really poor reasoning imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think that we ought to approach this problem in another way. What is *unhistorical*? What is the result of misremembering? Or the imaginations of later storytellers? Or outright fabrications by them?

There is a spectrum of historicity theories, and I think that we should treat separately the histories' treatment of the New Testament's miraculous and non-miraculous parts. Jesus Christ walking on water vs. JC preaching. They ought to be considered separately, since most people dismiss as unhistorical the miracles of religions and sects other than theirs.

Catholic saints are described as having worked numerous miracles, yet most Protestants are skeptical of those accounts.

Islam's founder Mohammed described how he received his revelations from the angel Gabriel.

The Hindu religious figure Krishna is described as having worked lots of miracles. For instance, when he was 7, he held up a mountain with his little finger for 7 days.

The Buddha is described as saying, shortly after he was born, that he is on his last reincarnation.

Pythagoras, Plato, Alexander the Great, and Augustus Caesar were described as literal, quasi-biological sons of gods by some of their contemporaries.

One can imagine three kinds of theories about miracles.

1. All of them are real
2. Some of them are real
3. None of them are real

The first and second ones have a problem: the lack of miracles under conditions of good documentation, especially in recent centuries in technically advanced nations. Some 250 years ago, philosopher David Hume wrote "On Miracles", where he noted that miracles have a certain shyness effect - they don't occur around good documentation. His conclusion is still correct, even though what we now have is far beyond what he had.

The some-of-them theory depends on some criterion for recognizing which miracles are real and which ones are not. A criterion that ought not to be special pleading. The all-of-them theory, for all its problems, avoids this problem.

Personally, I’m happy to dispense with any suggestion that miracles actually happen.

People (especially those making religious or supernatural claims or preaching about such things) performing acts they claim to be miracles, magic, or whatever, is on the other hand, even today, very common, and has been throughout recorded human history worldwide, as are subsequent (often posthumous) exaggerated reports and claims about such things, especially by supporters or devotees.

Judaism is and was no exception. The tradition was already established in what is now known (by non-Jews) as the Old Testament.

Messianic claimants in particular have been associated with such things, and there have been many of those, both before and since the figure being discussed here, and not just in Judaism and Christianity, and not just of Middle Eastern origin. The general, global term for such beliefs is Millenarianism, and has been applied to cults in many places, such as Japan, China, Pacific regions, among native/indigenous North American peoples, etc.

Expectations about supposed messiahs are part of Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism, and also in cults that might be described as having to do with witchcraft or what are called ‘paganism’.

For one of such type of claimant to turn up in Judea around the time in question, and to be doing so-called magic (to ‘prove’ their messianic credentials to a highly superstitious Jewish audience) would not be unusual. In fact, because of circumstances (the land being occupied by foreign oppressors and there being a general air of discontent, nationalism and rebellion) there was a minor rash of such people around that time, because conditions for it were arguably ideal. Just to top it off, many Jews at that had messianic expectations.

As for evidence, there is very little from that far back in history for such people, even for those we have even briefly heard of. We only have so much material (a lot of it dubious, yes) for this one because the cult that came after his supposed life hit the popularity jackpot quite a while later.

 

[Atheos]

1. Citing characters from modern fiction that are known and acknowledged by the literary authors to have essentially been fictional creations is not a very useful comparison, imo.

2. Stating without reservation that it applies in this case is just presumptuous.

Both are examples of really poor reasoning imo.

I disagree strongly with your assessment. Either the sequence of events described in GMark (and its copycats) are true accounts of events that happened (allowing for minor details to be incorrect due to human tendency not to remember exactly what happened) or they are mythology interwoven into a specific time period and place.

While some of the events recorded may have happened rational people can be certain that many of them did not. Was Jesus even baptized by JtB as the opening attests? Perhaps, but the baptism is overshadowed by the agenda of the writer to put words in the mouth of JtB about the dude who was coming who JtB wasn't even worthy to loosen his sandal and the booming voice from heaven adopting Jesus. Immediately Jesus is "driven out into the desert to be tempted, where he was with wild beasts and the angels ministered to him." Did this stuff actually happen or was it mythology? I believe it's mythology. But just like GWTW's opening Twelve Oaks party where Scarlett first meets Rhett these events are inserted into a time and place corroborated by the historical record.

Using a known literary creation such as GWTW is in my opinion a very appropriate comparison. It demonstrates the technique of inserting fictional events into a historical setting in a way that shows how easily it can be done and how believable the result can be even though we know with certainty that these events did not actually happen as described.

Unless you are going to argue that there is no mythology inserted into history in GMark (and Jesus actually did heal paralytics, feed massive crowds using only a small amount of bread and fish that one person could easily carry, etc.) then you have to agree that GMark is an example of inserting mythology into historical time and geographical location.

So now we're back to the question of trying to figure out how much is mythology and how much actually happened. And we have no reliable methodology for making that determination. Sure, one could just assume that everything except the miracles actually happened, but that's an unwarranted assumption, much like assuming that Santa Claus uses a VTOL jet to travel from his workshop at the North Pole to visit the homes of good little girls and boys rather than travelling through the air in a sleigh pulled by magical flying reindeer. Once we know with certainty that we have ventured into the realm of mythology there's no real way of knowing which characters actually existed, which did not, and what leftover plot (if any) was based on actual events.

 

[ruby sparks]

Either the sequence of events described in GMark (and its copycats) are true accounts of events that happened (allowing for minor details to be incorrect due to human tendency not to remember exactly what happened) or they are mythology interwoven into a specific time period and place.

That’s a false dichotomy, and somewhat incredible that that should even need to be pointed out to you.

And citing a known fictional character, especially a modern one, is a terrible idea, for a number of reasons.

Well, ok, for making hypothetical comparisons, possibly, but not to make claims that this figure was such. That’s just presumptuous. Even when making comparisons we should be careful to try to compare like with like as much as possible, and/or with context in mind. Comparisons only have limited value anyway, but comparisons with Rhett Butler are almost completely useless.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

1. Citing characters from modern fiction that are known and acknowledged by the literary authors to have essentially been fictional creations is not a very useful comparison, imo.

2. Stating without reservation that it applies in this case is just presumptuous.

Both are examples of really poor reasoning imo.

Have you done any writing of this type, fiction, creative writing, etc.?

 

[Atheos]

Either the sequence of events described in GMark (and its copycats) are true accounts of events that happened (allowing for minor details to be incorrect due to human tendency not to remember exactly what happened) or they are mythology interwoven into a specific time period and place.

That’s a false dichotomy, and somewhat incredible that that should even need to be pointed out to you.

And citing a known fictional character, especially a modern one, is a terrible idea, for a number of reasons.

Well, ok, for making hypothetical comparisons, possibly, but not to make claims that this figure was such. That’s just presumptuous. Even when making comparisons we should be careful to try to compare like with like as much as possible, and/or with context in mind. Comparisons only have limited value anyway, but comparisons with Rhett Butler are almost completely useless.

I'm quite familiar with false dichotomy and considered that possibility as I crafted the wording of that statement. Please elaborate on other possibilities for GMark that don't fall into either of these categories. Perhaps I lack imagination but I just couldn't think of any myself. Honestly.

ETA: We may be equivocating over the word "mythology." My take on that word is that it includes taking events of an actual person and either exaggerating or completely substituting fictional accounts for actual events.

 

[ruby sparks]

Either the sequence of events described in GMark (and its copycats) are true accounts of events that happened (allowing for minor details to be incorrect due to human tendency not to remember exactly what happened) or they are mythology interwoven into a specific time period and place.

That’s a false dichotomy, and somewhat incredible that that should even need to be pointed out to you.

And citing a known fictional character, especially a modern one, is a terrible idea, for a number of reasons.

Well, ok, for making hypothetical comparisons, possibly, but not to make claims that this figure was such. That’s just presumptuous. Even when making comparisons we should be careful to try to compare like with like as much as possible, and/or with context in mind. Comparisons only have limited value anyway, but comparisons with Rhett Butler are almost completely useless.

I'm quite familiar with false dichotomy and considered that possibility as I crafted the wording of that statement. Please elaborate on other possibilities for GMark that don't fall into either of these categories. Perhaps I lack imagination but I just couldn't think of any myself. Honestly.

ETA: We may be equivocating over the word "mythology." My take on that word is that it includes taking events of an actual person and either exaggerating or completely substituting fictional accounts for actual events.

Well I was a bit confused by ‘mythology interwoven into a specific time and place’. It did not seem to include ‘person’.

But now that you’ve clarified, then what I would call ‘mythologised person’ was the option I thought you had left out.

I’m not a fan of trying to find an historical Jesus via analysing the gospels. On their own, they seem very questionable indeed.

But it is imo plausible that they are based on exaggerated and/or invented events in the life of a Judean Jewish preacher-type magic man (possibly much more political than portrayed) who died around 50 years earlier.

I say that partly because of what’s in the epistles.

And not forgetting a couple of brief mentions by Josephus. Imo the TM is suspect, but probably tampered with rather than forged wholesale (imo) but the James/brother passage is more believably genuine.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I’m not a fan of trying to find an historical Jesus via analysing the gospels. On their own, they seem very questionable indeed.

But it is imo plausible that they are based on exaggerated and/or invented events in the life of a Judean Jewish preacher-type magic man who died around 50 years earlier.

I say that partly because of what’s in the epistles.

That's the discussion in a nutshell, what constitutes historicity and what a person means when he or she hears or uses the word "historical." Ultimately everything is historical, even fictional characters and fictional plots.