J-D

Philo and Josephus ALSO record things which cannot possibly be historically true. The four canonical gospels include some statements which cannot be historically true and some statements which might or might not be historically true; the writings of Philo and Josephus include some statements which cannot be historically true and some statements which might or might not be historically true.

jules?

The actual, factual leeway for an historical jc is limited to almost nothing and seeing that the term 'historical' requires some form of documentation then an assumption of a HJ is just that. A best guess.
I would not dismiss the probability that some prophet called Joshua wander around preaching the end time. There were probably many over a century or so who postulated all sorts of interpretations from war to a loving caring new future where the poor rose up and overthrew the religious elite.
The fact that there are currently so many interpretations as to who JC was, everything from deluded nutter who actually managed to get himself arrested and nailed up just in time for Passover to a comic cynic, which would suggest we like to colour in the line drawings of history.

The other middle way suggestion with some documentation is that Jesus was simply a title of the representative of the saviour who sat at the head of an equally representative 12 tribes. The Essene appear to have followed this model and if it happened in one community I guess it happened in many. Being the 'brother' of JC then simply indicates a member of a fellowship, it also explains Paul description of the Jerusalem Community and his ghostly knowledge of JC. A battle between Jewish fundamentalists, poor in the eyes of the lord and some freelancer selling the message to anyone.

aa5874

Well, HJers should just say that they are GUESSING that there was an HJ and cut the CRAP about Parsimony.

One cannot use Ghost stories as historical sources and be Still be parsimonious.

The most likely explanation for Ghost stories is Mythology.

J-D

Nobody does treat the parts of the stories which refer to ghosts as historical sources; the question is whether other parts of the stories, not mentioning ghosts, are historical.

mountainman

The Vatican appears to treat The Holy Ghost in historical contexts.

gurugeorge

Compare and contrast: "well we know that Superman fighting Brainiac is made-up crap, but the question is whether other parts of the Superman stories are historical."

You need an independent reason to think there might be historical stuff in there in the first place (compare with Superman - perhaps the authors knew a genial hick who worked out and had a job as a newspaper reporter).

Otherwise, you are just making the classic mistake of looking at a piece of writing that has a fantastic figure. stripping away the fantastic bits and simply assuming that the quotidian remainder must refer to some human being.

Why? Apparently just because ... well, just because they sound like stuff that could have happened to a human being.

You mock aa, but he is actually right on the money. The intentionality ("aboutness") of most of the gospel stuff is about a divine being who has a human aspect of some sort. The texts are presented as historical proof of THAT being.

That intentionality (which makes the documents purportedly historical) simply does not automagically transform into historical intentionality about some human being hypothesized to be behind the myth of the god-man.

If they're not proof of a divine being, then you have to start from scratch as to what they are. "Evidence of a man mythified" is by no means the default, logically necessary position.

aa5874

There is a MASSIVE difference to Superman and the Jesus stories because we have Sinaiticus gMark.

In Sinaiticus gMark, Jesus died in DISGRACE and ABANDONED even AFTER he carried out SUPERHUMAN acts.

The Sinaiticus type gMark Jesus TRANSFIGURED, perhaps like "Clark Kent", and even OUTPERFORMED him at times but DIED in DISGRACE at the END of the story.

The Sinaiticus type gMark Jesus was NOT even a FICTIONAL HERO to his own disciples.

The last thing Peter did was to PUBLICLY DENY ever knowing the Sinaiticus type gMark Jesus.

The Sinaiticus type gMark was most likely WRITTEN after the Fall of the Temple and that was the STORY up to the Time he wrote.

The author of Sinaiticus type gMark did NOT about know about any Jesus cult that claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

The very LAST thing he wrote was that the VISITORS to the TOMB FLED DUMBSTRUCK and said NOTHING to anyone.

That was his story after the Fall of the Temple.

The disciples FLED, Peter DENIED ever knowing Jesus, and the Visitors to the Empty Tomb fled DUMBSTRUCK.

When Sinaiticus type gMark was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple there was NO JESUS CULT. There was NOTHING. NO-ONE before had heard the Sinaiticus type Jesus story.

That is PRECISELY why Sinaiticus type gMark ENDS at Mark 16.8.

There WAS NO Jesus cult up to the time Sinaiticus type gMark was written after the Fall of the Temple.

It is virtually impossible for the the original author of the Sinaiticus type gMark Jesus to have known of a Jesus Cult when he wrote his book that ENDED in DISGRACE at Mark 16.8.

mountainman

Well said gurugeorge and aa5874. But strangely enough there is also a MASSIVE similarity between the Superman Clone and the Jesus Clone stories because we have the Nag Hammadi and the Tchacos codices containing non canonical Gnostic gospels made out of Kryptonite. The Jesus Clone Stories were so lethal and outrageously contaminatory to the Jesus story that they had to be destroyed and burnt by the authorities, or buried by their preservers.

J-D

Treating a document as a holy scripture is not the same thing as treating it as a historical source. Treating a document as a historical source means questioning it; treating a document as holy scripture means not questioning it.

J-D

I know who wrote the Superman stories, in what context, and why. Can you demonstrate with evidence who wrote the canonical Gospels, in what context, and why?Obviously you have not been following my words with sufficient care. I have made no such assumption. I have never said that the 'quotidian remainder' must refer to some human being.

Although I have not done such a thing, I am curious to know how you would justify referring to it as a 'classic' mistake.Some parts of the stories do indeed sound like stuff that could have happened. I do not therefore assume that they must have happened.That is indeed how some people interpret them, but other people interpret them differently.I never said there was an automatic way of deciding between the different interpretations.I never said it was.