> ... intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative Unfortunately for the Gospel writers, they did

> ... intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative Unfortunately for the Gospel writers, they did have to square reality with theology, so that their theology is at times threatened by reality. This threat means nothing personal to the historian qua historian (giving them the benefit that they can dispose of their religious or anti-religious inclinations), but it does reveal some important possibilities worth pursuing for history's sake. For example, Jesus is baptized by John in all four Gospels. But the baptism narrative contradicts a question that any first-time reader will naturally imagine: of what sins does Jesus need to be cleansed? Unsurprisingly, all four Gospels make an earnest attempt to undermine John the Baptist's authority. So why include the narrative? Maybe because it actually happened. We can say the same about Jesus being portrayed as violently confronting the money changers, or something like Matthew 19:17, or even the prevalence of women in Jesus's cohort, all which contradict various theological values of the Gospel writers that are discernible through textual criticism. This is just yet another criteria in the method of historical Jesus research, albeit one of the more artistic ones. > The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written) ... Many sources indeed... All lying about the existence of a man who was allegedly widely known by both rural and urban Jews and crucified by edict of the state? The hoops you have to jump through to hold fast to the claim that Jesus was not a real person... It's a conspiracy theory whose inverse is "ancient aliens." Isn't it much more reasonable to say that the petroglyphs in Utah were made by humans, and that there is a distinct human basis for Jesus? Sorry if this doesn't describe you, but: It's clear that most people have an interest in disproving Jesus's existence because of their atheism. I just don't get it. What's so threatening about the historical Jesus? Jesus wasn't the first prophet and he wasn't the last; we see crazy people amass religious followings frequently to this day. That's what I meant by short-circuiting the discussion at "miracles don't happen."