How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[Copernicus]

You can continue to claim you don't care about credentials...

Legion, you are like a dog chewing on a bone. I never said I didn't care about credentials, but you are clearly going to continue to distort and spin everything I say. This last game of quote-mining and juxtaposing my words from different posts out of context is no better than some of the nitpicking criticisms that an enraged Carrier made about Ehrman. Get a grip, man. I honestly have nothing against you, and I hope you can calm down enough to keep discussion here civil. I have no interest in pursuing a flame-match with you. If that is important to you, I declare you the winner. Let's return to relevant issues.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let's return to relevant issues.

You asked for information on James and why we have any reason to believe that he was Jesus' brother, or that Galatians wasn't altered, etc., that would match what you got from Carrier. So I linked in my last post to a thread I created mostly on that issue and answering questions like those.

 

[Copernicus]

You asked for information on James and why we have any reason to believe that he was Jesus' brother, or that Galatians wasn't altered, etc., that would match what you got from Carrier. So I linked in my last post to a thread I created mostly on that issue and answering questions like those.

Thank you for the link. Actually, the lengthy essay on Doherty that you posted, which was so long that it took you over 5 posts to fit it all in, was not quite what I was looking for. It may have contained something a bit more interesting buried down inside of it, but that kind of thing is ill-suited for an internet discussion forum. Our exchanges have already far exceeded what most people have patience for. You'll have to learn how to summarize and condense. If you feel a more lengthy exposition is needed, you should publish it in your own blog and link to it. I'm saying that as a criticism of your tactics, not of your content. This venue is only suited for relatively short exchanges, although I admit to my own tendency to use too many words.

The "brother of/in the Lord" conundrum has actually been addressed at length and in detail by Carrier in his blog. I understand the points on both sides, but he does acknowledge the possibility that he could be wrong. As far as I can tell, you do not feel any uncertainty at all--a lot like Ehrman in that regard. Maybe you have no reason to be, but I mistrust such passionate conviction on the basis of such a tenuous chain of reasoning. What Carrier says about Doherty is not that he is almost certainly right, but that Doherty was the first to convince him that there were plausible reasons to doubt history (at least in the things I've read). A lot of other people take Doherty seriously enough to try to knock his arguments down--just as you do--and I hope that that continues. However, I have seen enough of the other side to know that they address many of the points you raise in opposition--e.g. the standard "brother in the Lord" argument, which really relies too much on formulaic language to make me comfortable. Even if the argument is correct, it was already widespread belief by some Christians in 175 CE--the earliest date of our extant manuscript--that James was Jesus's brother. For some scribe to insert that phrasing to "clarify" a relationship (particularly if there were other Christians at the time who disagreed) would have been the easiest thing to do. It isn't a preposterous idea, but there is no evidence of interpolation. Does there need to be in order for us to hang so much argument on the point? It is weak.

 

[outhouse]

You'll have to learn how to summarize and condense
.

Agreed.

I think his philosophy though, is to not leave a stone unturned, in every angle.

The "brother of/in the Lord" conundrum

To me is a non issue either way.

The totality of plausibility for a martyred man at Passover is obviously what Paul believes, one who was resurrected and now lives in heaven. Earl makes it painful as he is forced to stretch the readers imagination to make his point. Out of context is the best word to describe the tools he is forced to use.



Both him and Carrier make a unnatural replacement hypothesis that doesn't really flow smoothly as a natural chain of mythology used in scripture unfolds. Their retelling is not what is written, and really doesn't fit the time period without a complete "set up" or insertion of imagination.



It takes no leap of imagination at all to look at Paul as a man who really wanted to be a apostle who talks to a heavenly Jesus, and jumps on the leg of the movement with vigor and passion building himself into a apostle he never could be due to the mans death before he finally turned towards their new mythology as Judaism was crumbling around their feet long before the temple fell.

 

[steeltoes]

If one does not read the gospels into Paul, then one cannot help but come to a lot of conclusions that Earl Doherty comes to.

 

[outhouse]

If one does not read the gospels into Paul, then one cannot help but come to a lot of conclusions that Earl Doherty comes to.

The problem with Earl here is that Pauls Jesus does live in heaven. But it takes leaps of imagination to state Paul believed in a celestial resurrection, and a celestial Jesus.

There are certain verses that state the exact opposite, but he will claim interpolation, yet this would turn it into a later conspiracy. Scholarships are not even 100% of said interpolations, yet earl will use those to force fit his evidence.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem with Earl here is that Pauls Jesus does live in heaven. But it takes leaps of imagination to state Paul believed in a celestial resurrection, and a celestial Jesus.

Do you believe that all of the forgeries done in Paul's name have been detected and that what is left over reflects what he wrote accurately? If not, what percentage of it do you think is false or misleading? Any idea? I'll admit that I have no idea. All I do know is that much of what Paul wrote that we believe he wrote was obvious BS. There is no evidence that he knew the Gospel stories. He didn't mention any details. He didn't mention the Empty Tomb or any tomb at all. And in all of Acts, James is not mentioned by name as being related to Jesus. There is just a brief mention in Mark. Strange, isn't it?

There are certain verses that state the exact opposite, but he will claim interpolation, yet this would turn it into a later conspiracy. Scholarships are not even 100% of said interpolations, yet earl will use those to force fit his evidence.

Actually, that isn't a fair representation. Many mythicists do not come off as certain of their position as historicists. They usually claim that there is a reasonable case to be made for the historical Jesus. The historicist rebuttals are usually quite a bit less willing to admit that there is a case to be made for taking mythicism seriously. Maybe there isn't, but why say it so often and so insistently? It begins to sound like people who need to brag all the time in order to cover up their insecurities. After all, we aren't talking about a scientific theory here that has been proven experimentally over and over. We are mostly talking about textual analysis of a chain of copied documents.

This unwillingness to even concede there might be an alternative case to make really hit me in the face when I read Ehrman's book. He started out sounding very reasonable, but he quickly slipped into rhetoric that suggested a very closed mind in the matter. He seldom said that Paul "believed" that Jesus existed--which was what he was setting out to prove. He almost always said that Paul "knew" or "realized" that Jesus existed, prejudging the conclusion even before he had gone through the evidence. It reminded me of the old Superman trailer: "You will believe that a man can fly." OK, but can I please see the movie before I am forced to believe it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thank you for the link. Actually, the lengthy essay on Doherty that you posted

It's actually a mishmash of things I've written previously, and as you've read "Carrier's argument at length on the subject" it's not very fair to ask me to refute lengthy arguments with a single post.
.

Our exchanges have already far exceeded what most people have patience for

So you don't read them (which is why, after multiple attempts to show classicists are historians, you thought I was saying something completely different). You've already expressed that you learned to summarize things to students. Then you state you have read Carrier's argument at length and the critiques, and you want me to do in short and simple ways what these various long critiques didn't do for you.


I am writing this after deleting a response I've been writing for 3 hours. I'm going to give you a breakdown of the problems of his argument instead.

1) You say the critiques relies "too much on formulaic language". I ran several searches through the TLG to compare uses of sibling terms in the NT. Out of a total of 17 forms and 370 instances, 145 were nominative/vocative, and out of these 98 were from the epistles. We have almost no "brothers of the Lord" and one "brother". This is where I got into the math.
2) Carrier states "all Christians are brothers of the lord", but does not show that all are called brothers of the lord. The phrase appears almost nowhere in the NT and as a general way of referring to Christian almost nowhere in several centuries. Every single approach in sociolinguistics, markedness, probability, construction grammar, and more tells us that Carrier's logic is flawed.
3) Paul does separate his teachings from those of the Lord, and in the thread I created for you I explained how this is true.
4) Your scribal interpolation theory assumes that Christians would want to add this. Eusebius, in HE 1.12.4-5, quotes Paul here, but adds in that James is an "alleged" brother. Eusebius later gives us the reason for qualifying this kin relationship: the perpetually Virgin Mary. In early Christian literature (Epiphanius, Origen, Jerome, Helvidius) there were at least five different explanations for James, including denying they were brothers at all. Jerome tried to prove he was a cousin. So if we imagine that scribal interpolation was likely and that your view of textual criticism was informed, then we'd expect to see this line removed.
5) That's the kind of manuscript treatment of James we find. We know of only one or two major alterations (i.e., they appear in the textual commentaries), but while Peter is mentioned 190, James is mentioned 11 times. As Freyne puts it, "To put the matter bluntly, James was not wholly written out of the official script of Christian origins, but only because those responsible could not have done so and remained credible." I quoted him at length originally to give his support for the statement, but there's your summary.

6) I can't summarize textual critical methods. However, as shown by 4 and 5, your theory about scribal alterations is based nearly complete ignorance of where to begin. We find the exact opposite of what you are claim is a good reason for suspecting this line is an interpolation. I can't point you to sources online and for free, or try and supply those I know of, but it is impossible to get into how incredibly you mischaracterize the nature of textual transmission.

7) You seem to think that Carrier is applying a much needed skepticism. This contrasts so utterly with his actual writing on ancient history that the mind boggles. When you can explain to me why he has filled his dissertations with descriptions of people we typically have only one or to references two and no context dating from the middle ages, not to mention turning inscriptions and epitaphs into short bios of eminent scientists, then perhaps you can explain why Carrier's skepticism is warranted rather than a double standard.

 

[outhouse]

Do you believe that all of the forgeries done in Paul's name have been detected and that what is left over reflects what he wrote accurately? If not, what percentage of it do you think is false or misleading? Any idea? I'll admit that I have no idea. All I do know is that much of what Paul wrote that we believe he wrote was obvious BS. There is no evidence that he knew the Gospel stories. He didn't mention any details. He didn't mention the Empty Tomb or any tomb at all. And in all of Acts, James is not mentioned by name as being related to Jesus. There is just a brief mention in Mark. Strange, isn't it?

Strange absolutely.


Paul only knew what he learned from outside the movement.


Paul talks so dang much, its hard not to know his exact stance. Context can get jumbled up but we are not blind to what he really believed. A percentage? no idea, but i dont think its all that far off. We can tell which redactions are possible and probabal, and there are a few were not sure if they are interpolations or not. But even then Pauls message is clear. He did believe a man who was Jewish did exist as a man.

They usually claim that there is a reasonable case to be made for the historical Jesus.

Are you in the other forum yet?

these guys are for the most part are just strange in methodology, and folow mythicism as Jesus was a myth.


I follow your description.

We are mostly talking about textual analysis of a chain of copied documents.

yes

In which most people with the highest education find a HJ plausible.

I started out a myther, and only through education did I find my own reasons to think a Galilean teacher existed.

He almost always said that Paul "knew" or "realized" that Jesus existed,

Because Paul never factually met Jesus. Ehrman was keeping this in proper context possibly.

This unwillingness to even concede there might be an alternative case to make really hit me in the face when I read Ehrman's book.

That is how strong the case is for a real Galilean.


Most of the mythers I knwo are umeducated and run with beliefs founded in ignorance.


Now the best mythicist I know make the weakest case for a HJ. You have earl who is educated but untrained as a real scholar.

Where earl shines is he is one of the vast few mythicist that has even come up witha replacement hypothesis. 99.99% just say nuh uh!!!!! he didnt exist and ramble on about nonsense.

There is "only" Carrier, Price and Earl that have come up witha replacement and all 3 are on very very weak ground, and not one is the same due to the sheer amount of imagination involved to create the hypothesis. Not really fair since most scholars paint different pictures of a HJ BUT, they all have certain foundations that are applied that do keep them similar, mythicist do not.

 

[steeltoes]

If Jesus was historical it appears that his brothers were non believers, at least as far as the gospel tradition and Acts of the Apostles is concerned.

If Jesus was historical it could be that Paul met with a James that was later portrayed by the gospel writers as James, the son of Zebedee.

Paul and his use of metaphors is difficult since he is completely concerned with woo woo. Josephus is late not to mention other problems.

So the gospel Jesus may have been historical and his brothers were non believers, I can live with that.

If Christ began as a mythical figure stemming from Jewish mythology and later historized, I can live with that too.

I am not taking a stance either way, but one thing I don't buy is that Paul's Christ had a brother on earth that he met, that to me flies in the face of Paul's Christ and it also appears to be a strained effort to prove Jesus' historicity IMO.

 

[Copernicus]

It's actually a mishmash of things I've written previously, and as you've read "Carrier's argument at length on the subject" it's not very fair to ask me to refute lengthy arguments with a single post.

And I never asked you to. Actually, Carrier knows how to use this format quite well. What you have on the blog link I posted was a moderate-length essay on McGrath's criticisms of his rebuttal of Ehrman. What makes it lengthy is the series of short interchanges between him, McGrath, and other posters. The exchanges reveal far more about his reasoning on the linguistic issues, and he also drifts into a lot of nonsense on probability and Bayesian analysis--a hobby horse of his that I find mostly irrelevant to his claims.

So you don't read them (which is why, after multiple attempts to show classicists are historians, you thought I was saying something completely different). You've already expressed that you learned to summarize things to students. Then you state you have read Carrier's argument at length and the critiques, and you want me to do in short and simple ways what these various long critiques didn't do for you.

Since I was reading Ehrman, I found it worth reading more in detail. No offense, but I wasn't reading your book or critiques of your work. And many of the issues you raise were covered by these gentlemen. It gave me a perspective on both sides of the issue by people who have studied and written on the subject before.

I am writing this after deleting a response I've been writing for 3 hours. I'm going to give you a breakdown of the problems of his argument instead.

Thank you. I appreciate your time and effort, but I really do prefer the condensed version.

1) You say the critiques relies "too much on formulaic language". I ran several searches through the TLG to compare uses of sibling terms in the NT. Out of a total of 17 forms and 370 instances, 145 were nominative/vocative, and out of these 98 were from the epistles. We have almost no "brothers of the Lord" and one "brother". This is where I got into the math.

These statistics may be a bit misleading. It is not just about frequency of occurrences in a corpus, but linguistic practices. Carrier bases part of his argument on rhetorical practices of the era that deal with pleonism and what he calls "variatio". That is, people were taught to insert such changes in phrasing occasionally. I didn't find it a particularly strong argument, but he is an expert, and he linked to materials to back his point.

2) Carrier states "all Christians are brothers of the lord", but does not show that all are called brothers of the lord. The phrase appears almost nowhere in the NT and as a general way of referring to Christian almost nowhere in several centuries. Every single approach in sociolinguistics, markedness, probability, construction grammar, and more tells us that Carrier's logic is flawed.

McGrath raised that point, and Carrier responded to it quite well, I thought. He also raised the same point that occurred to me that it could have been a simple interpolation, which would be undetectable. He also pointed out that Paul's singular claim of James' kinship was at odds with Acts and other Gospels, Mark having only mentioned it briefly. But Carrier gave several explanations of how the phrase "brother of the Lord" could have meant something other than kinship. He did not deny that kinship was a plausible interpretation, but he felt it a weak piece of evidence when you consider its importance in the foundation of the historicist edifice.

3) Paul does separate his teachings from those of the Lord, and in the thread I created for you I explained how this is true.

I don't see the relevance of that point to this discussion. Authors separate themselves from the fictional characters that they imagine. Smith separated himself from Moroni.

4) Your scribal interpolation theory assumes that Christians would want to add this. Eusebius, in HE 1.12.4-5, quotes Paul here, but adds in that James is an "alleged" brother. Eusebius later gives us the reason for qualifying this kin relationship: the perpetually Virgin Mary. In early Christian literature (Epiphanius, Origen, Jerome, Helvidius) there were at least five different explanations for James, including denying they were brothers at all. Jerome tried to prove he was a cousin. So if we imagine that scribal interpolation was likely and that your view of textual criticism was informed, then we'd expect to see this line removed.

You and I can only guess at the motives and calculations of such historical figures. Eusebius could not control all of the historical record, only parts of it. Eusebius was a known propagandist, whose veracity is somewhat questionable. "In hoc signo vinces?" I think not. But here you admit that even these early church figures were not as sure about the interpretation of Paul as you and other modern scholars are.

5) That's the kind of manuscript treatment of James we find. We know of only one or two major alterations (i.e., they appear in the textual commentaries), but while Peter is mentioned 190, James is mentioned 11 times. As Freyne puts it, "To put the matter bluntly, James was not wholly written out of the official script of Christian origins, but only because those responsible could not have done so and remained credible." I quoted him at length originally to give his support for the statement, but there's your summary.

It seems that mythicists are not the only people who engage in rank speculation and tortured logic. And that is kind of the point they make--not that Jesus couldn't have been real, but that it is plausible that he was wholly mythical, given an objective assessment of the record that we have. To address your argument more bluntly: not all interpolations are necessarily detectable or provable. We can base argument on the text that we have, but we can only say that we don't know for sure that it is unsullied by alteration. We are not dealing with autographs.

6) I can't summarize textual critical methods. However, as shown by 4 and 5, your theory about scribal alterations is based nearly complete ignorance of where to begin. We find the exact opposite of what you are claim is a good reason for suspecting this line is an interpolation. I can't point you to sources online and for free, or try and supply those I know of, but it is impossible to get into how incredibly you mischaracterize the nature of textual transmission.

This is so typical of the historicist side of the argument. Lots of words, most of which heap abuse and contempt on anyone who would dare to challenge their conclusions. Anyone who disagrees is unqualified and ignorant. I explained why I thought 4 and 5 did not make the case you thought they did. And I do know more about the problems with textual transmission than you give me credit for. Linguistic methodologies are often used to expose interpolations. That still doesn't mean that you can fully trust what is left over, especially when you are dealing with such a very biased method of textual transmission.

7) You seem to think that Carrier is applying a much needed skepticism. This contrasts so utterly with his actual writing on ancient history that the mind boggles. When you can explain to me why he has filled his dissertations with descriptions of people we typically have only one or to references two and no context dating from the middle ages, not to mention turning inscriptions and epitaphs into short bios of eminent scientists, then perhaps you can explain why Carrier's skepticism is warranted rather than a double standard.

I do not agree with your generalizations about Carrier. I have a problem with some of the things that he writes, but I also have a problem with things that you, Ehrman, and others write. Everyone makes errors of judgment and scholarship. That's why I criticize Carrier so openly for the way he attacked Ehrman, not just his scholarship. He made sweeping generalizations about Ehrman, just as you make very similar generalizations about him. This kind of abusive rhetoric is unhelpful, unnecessary, and irrelevant. It clouds the argument, because it is so obviously an attempt to poison the well.

 

[outhouse]

If Jesus was historical it appears that his brothers were non believers, at least as far as the gospel tradition and Acts of the Apostles is concerned.

.

So your saying we should believe these sources?

They wrote what they wanted about people they didnt know, to match their theological egenda.

If Jesus was historical it could be that Paul met with a James that was later portrayed by the gospel writers as James, the son of Zebedee.

Possible

Or he never met the real James.

Anyone claiming to be James in Jerusalem, could fit the bill.

Paul and his use of metaphors is difficult since he is completely concerned with woo woo. Josephus is late not to mention other problems.

But there are a few things we can tell from Paul that match the time.

he is a eye into the Hellenism and varied and wide movement that started. Just because it is a limited biased view doesnt mean we cant learn anything.

The man was wirting early first century and there are details to be had from this time period.

Paul desperately wanted to be taken as a real apostle, Paul believed in a earthly Jesus who died and lived in heaven.

So the gospel Jesus may have been historical and his brothers were non believers, I can live with that.

What do you mean? brothers are non believers?

I am not taking a stance either way, but one thing I don't buy is that Paul's Christ had a brother on earth that he met, that to me flies in the face of Paul's Christ .

I agree. I dont buy their meeting of a real Galilean apostle.

Why would a Galilean apostle hang out in a Hellenistic setting, they didnt do it while Jesus was alive and sepphoris and Tiberous were right on their door.

and it also appears to be a strained effort to prove Jesus' historicity IMO

I dont think Paul was trying to prove a historical man, he couldnt, he thought the man just died, and his apostleship, had everything to do with communication of a dead Jesus to prove Paul was a real apostle.

paul was much more interested in paul, and how he was viewed then a HJ

 

[steeltoes]

So your saying we should believe these sources?

They wrote what they wanted about people they didnt know, to match their theological egenda.



Possible

Or he never met the real James.

Anyone claiming to be James in Jerusalem, could fit the bill.





But there are a few things we can tell from Paul that match the time.

he is a eye into the Hellenism and varied and wide movement that started. Just because it is a limited biased view doesnt mean we cant learn anything.

The man was wirting early first century and there are details to be had from this time period.

Paul desperately wanted to be taken as a real apostle, Paul believed in a earthly Jesus who died and lived in heaven.




What do you mean? brothers are non believers?




I agree. I dont buy their meeting of a real Galilean apostle.

Why would a Galilean apostle hang out in a Hellenistic setting, they didnt do it while Jesus was alive and sepphoris and Tiberous were right on their door.




I dont think Paul was trying to prove a historical man, he couldnt, he thought the man just died, and his apostleship, had everything to do with communication of a dead Jesus to prove Paul was a real apostle.

paul was much more interested in paul, and how he was viewed then a HJ

I don't think Paul was trying to prove his apostleship, I think he was selling his religion and it was a tough sell. James and Cephas didn't buy into it, they agreed to disagree and went their own ways. Paul's problem was being an absentee apostle, other apostles homed in on his action when he was away and half the time he was writing in attempts to bring his miss led congregations back into the fold.

I think present day scholars and internet Jesus historian wannabes use "brother of the Lord" to prove an historical Jesus. I think it is a strained attempt. Why go to such feeble lengths such as interpreting Paul's metaphors to prove Jesus was historical? Is the evidence lacking that much? Why attempt to prove Jesus' historicity in the first place, why not enjoy the gospel stories for what they are, stories, and accept the epistles for what they are, so much woo woo? But I digress, that is for another thread.

This thread is about defining an historical Jesus. OK, so the historical Jesus had siblings that were non believers. Why believe the gospel writers on the matter? It's the only Jesus we have. It's the Jesus in question. If you want to believe that Jesus' siblings were believers then that is another Christianity that branched off sometime in the late second century. Take that route if you like, but I think the Jesus of the gospels is the Jesus in question and if they write that Jesus' siblings were non believers then the James that Paul met with was the brother of different Jesus, not the one we read of in the gospels. Was the Jesus of the gospels historical? That would be the Jesus that had siblings that were non believers. The James that Paul met with would have been James, son of Zebedee if we are talking about the gospel Jesus and the gospel James that was a disciple and an apostle. If Paul met with a brother of Jesus, then that is a different Jesus than the gospel Jesus. What Jesus are you arguing for, the gospel Jesus or some other Jesus?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

What Jesus are you arguing for, the gospel Jesus or some other Jesus?

To my mind, the miracle-working gospel Jesus was blatantly fictional. The question to me is whether the fictional gospel Jesus was derived from an historical person such as the Teacher of Righteousness or Judas the Galilean or some other person, or was JC a composite of historical and/or mythological people?

 

[steeltoes]

To my mind, the miracle-working gospel Jesus was blatantly fictional. The question to me is whether the fictional gospel Jesus was derived from an historical person such as the Teacher of Righteousness or Judas the Galilean or some other person, or was JC a composite of historical and/or mythological people?

Who knows? Brodie writes:

"[T]he Elijah-Elisha narrative is a ready-made synthesis of the Old Testament’s foundational epic (Genesis-Kings), of its narrative and theology. If you were writing a narrative about Jesus, and wanted to ground that narrative in the older scriptures, you could scarcely find a more suitable foundation than the ready-made synthesis, the Elijah-Elisha narrative."

That's one view. Of course there are the others that you mention.

 

[steeltoes]

To my mind, the miracle-working gospel Jesus was blatantly fictional. The question to me is whether the fictional gospel Jesus was derived from an historical person such as the Teacher of Righteousness or Judas the Galilean or some other person, or was JC a composite of historical and/or mythological people?

OK, but what of Peter, James, and John? Doherty and others suggest that the gospel authors drew from Paul. The gospel authors portray them as disciples of Jesus. However, Erhman substitutes this James with the brother of Jesus in attempts to prove the historicity of Jesus. That's fine but it conflicts with the very gospel portrayal that he argues for on one hand, that Paul met with Jesus' disciples, and the gospel authors name James, the son of Zebedee and his brother John, and his partner, Peter as disciples of Jesus. Now James, the brother of Jesus was a non believer if we look again to the gospels. So Ehrman conflates everything in an attempt to prove that Jesus was historical. That was the point I was making. I don't think Paul meeting with the James that was later portrayed as James, son of Zebedee makes Jesus any less historical if in fact this gospel Jesus is based on an historical Jesus. I am not saying he was or wasn't, just that Ehrman is straining himself.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Who knows? Brodie writes:

"[T]he Elijah-Elisha narrative is a ready-made synthesis of the Old Testament’s foundational epic (Genesis-Kings), of its narrative and theology. If you were writing a narrative about Jesus, and wanted to ground that narrative in the older scriptures, you could scarcely find a more suitable foundation than the ready-made synthesis, the Elijah-Elisha narrative."

That's one view. Of course there are the others that you mention.

I just want to ground JC to the historical messianic people of that time era, actual people who may have been modified/edited into the fictional JC character.

 

[Copernicus]

I just want to ground JC to the historical messianic people of that time era, actual people who may have been modified/edited into the fictional JC character.

This recalls the theme of the OP--how does one define a historical JC? How much reality does there have to remain to the story for us to say that there was such a historical person? Speaking for myself, I suppose that it would just have to be a person crucified by Pontius Pilate who triggered the birth of a new messianic cult. He doesn't have to have had any brothers or disciples or come from Nazareth or even gone around the country preaching wisdom to people. As you can see, I have very low standards.

 

[outhouse]

This recalls the theme of the OP--how does one define a historical JC? .

A Galilean peasant who was a handworker from a family of displaced peasants who entered Nazareth sometime in the beginning of the first century when Sepphoris was being rebuilt. Was influenced by a JtB and baptized in the Jordan. he traveled Galilee teaching and healing for food scraps with 3 apostles, John, James and Peter. He taught of the coming kingdom of god which is often mistranslated. He made at least one trip to the temple where he caused a disturbance and was crucified by Pilate on a cross, his body probably thrown in a pit.


Compared to the many books written about him, that is a minimal amount of information.

 

[Copernicus]

Too many details, outhouse. I think you need to eliminate some of those details.