Bernard Muller

J.D. wrote:
Save that the investigation involves evidence created 50+ years after the fact.

I am selecting mostly "against the grain" evidence, trivial & anecdotal. And then I look at it again and sort it even more. I agree that most about HJ is created, and that shows. I do not go for the shiny stuff, but look in the cracks, to see what is behind the facade.
Actually without Paul and his letters, I could not have done it. His tidbits about the human Jesus say what he was and wasn't. And these epistles were written around 25 years after the facts. GMark was written 40 years after the facts and provide most of what I consider good evidence (probably no more than 5% of the gospel). Plus a few sayings from Q and that's about it for the core of HJ.
You must know that many things are known to us about very historic persons from antiquity written more than fifty years after the facts (as far as preserved writings are concerned).
How do we know about Herod the Great?
Of course, we have to extricate HJ from only religious biased Christian writings, but because HJ was far from being a historic person, that's about the only kind of writings we can expect in that situation.

J.D. wrote:
False Analogy.

No analogy is perfect. And even if it were, that would prove nothing. Analogy is just a way to explain something, that's it.

J.D. wrote:
With all due respect this is an argument I receive from proponents of flim flam--"the establishment is just too threatened to publish the Truth. [Tm.--Ed.]" I think, on the contrary, a "well researched, coherent, documented, within reason, complete" theory would receive consideration--since they have received consideration and achieved publication.

I never made the aforementioned argument against the establishment. But the fact I am not from Academia might explain why my work is not considered, at least not beyond the generous bandwidth provided by concentric.net, or why I do not have the tools, the "buttons" and assistance for hard copy publication.
Some people think a work is good when published on paper. Do you really think so? Huge amounts of crap have been published!
Let's face it, the reason for publication are not because the work is good (except as well written, grammar & vocabulary), but can make money, one way or another.

J.D. wrote:
Nevertheless, the point of my clarification was that the lack of certain evidence close enough to "earliest Christianity" makes conclusions regarding it untenable.
...
Ipse dixit and, I am afraid, wrong since, as stated above, the evidence we have does not allow for such certainty.

A native from the deepest Amazonia, always isolated from the modern world, has the opportunity to see the picture of a car, by chance. He says: "that thing cannot exist, it is total fiction". A fellow tribesman tells him: "I saw cars at a place down the river, come in my canoe, I will show you.". The Amerindian says: "No need for that, because I know it does not exist."

Yes, I know, false analogy.

J.D. wrote:
evidence suggests otherwise, unfortunately. Of course "unfortunately" is in the eye of the beholder; uncertainty allows for graduate programs and grants.

I agree on your last point: there is interest in some circles to have that historical Jesus genre (and everything associated to that) continue forever, providing an income for some for a lifetime.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Vinnie wrote:
That looks like the embarrassment criterion or a modification of it.

Ya, that might be overlapping. And sometimes I state in my work "embarrassing" or "embarrassment", even if this notion has been discredited because of its use by apologetics for their own benefit.

Vinnie wrote:
For instance, GMark has material which goes againsts its own theological grain. For example, a paucity of gentile related material. Mark clearly believed in a gentile mission and if there was any evidence of a Gentile mission known to Mark of the other synoptists--the argument goes--they would have certainly used it.
Ergo, like Sanders and others argue, Jesus conducted a mission probably strictly to Jews.

Yes, I agree with Sanders on that one. Everything points to it, Paul's letters, all the gospels, 'Acts', HJ's background, etc. I did not assume it from the start, that's what became apparent through analysis.
Jesus preaching to Gentiles is NOT against the grain in GMark, which is addressed to mainly Gentile Christians.
"Mark" believing in a Gentile mission? I think I know where you are looking for that, but this is very disputed. Anyway, nothing is described, as far as him doing preaching there, or what he would preach, when "Mark" has Jesus going sometimes inexplicably through territories with Gentiles. All other gospelers dropped some of those trips. And Paul is affirmative about HJ the Jew dealing with Jews only (as did his closest disciples, the "Nazarenes", at least before Gentile Christians appeared in Antioch), even if it was not to his advantage.
If HJ went out of his way to preach to Gentiles whatever, that would be amplified all over later on, in Paul's letters and the gospels, except in GMatthew, of course. But we have none of that.

Am I missing you? Is this how you formulate specs of the HJ?

As I said, I did not assume anything. And this is not the way I formulated my specs.

I think I read a long list of your methodology somewhere once on your site? It was impressive. Mind posting it?

A combination of my line of thinking, my criteria and my methodology is sketched as soon as my introductory page (as for almost anything else related in my subsequent pages):
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/index.shtml

But you must be thinking about this (relatively short) page:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/author.shtml

Feel free to post whatever you want; I am sure you are on something.

Now I have to answer Layman.

Best regards, Bernard

Doctor X

Bernard:

Your appeal to the thieving magpie aside, you do not address the objections of my post.

Now I am reminded of a soliloquy in MacBeth.

--J.D.