Historians do try to figure out the "real story", and much have been written about the "historical Jesus", but the practice of finding natural explanations of s

Historians do try to figure out the "real story", and much have been written about the "historical Jesus", but the practice of finding natural explanations of supernatural events is not well regarded because it is often purely speculation. I used the example of Jesus walking on water in another thread. A natural explanation might be it was a cold day and there was actually ice on the lake. Sure this is a possible explanation, but there is absolutely no evidence and no way to substantiate such a theory, and it is clear our closest sources did believe he walked on water. So from a historians standpoint the ice-explanation is useless. Furthermore these natural explanations often are a bit naive since they take the stories at face values and just try to explain away the supernatural aspects. Isn't it actually more plausible the event s just a legend or myth rather than Jesus actually walked on ice? As for the resurrection, which the "swoon theory" tries to explain naturally, be aware that the oldest known version of the oldest Gospels doesn't even feature a resurrected Jesus. Just an unidentified white-clad guy which says Jesus is resurrected. You don't really medical explanations for how this could come to happen.