I was not moving the goal posts. I say if a reconstruction meets a large number of criteria, and is plausible (also coherent), there is a good chance it is correct. I have to add that reconstruction also has to explain the start of Christian beliefs (more so when ignited by a very minimal Jesus).Now that's not relying upon plausibility, Bernard. That is called "shifting the goal posts".
May I remind you wrote earlier:
But then you worry. Me too. I am still afraid my reconstruction might not be right. And I certainly do not want to deceive my readers. I was shown to be wrong before on minor points and made the correction right after, even if my credibility would be questioned. However I do not care about that, I just want to make my work better. I am not the one to defend my initial point with force, when I see my objector is right.There is one thing that leaves me slightly perturbed when I read your page, however. What concerns me is that you have done so much work, and you have spent a lot of effort to find ways to make all the different pieces of the jigsaw pieces of data fit, testing which pieces are genuine and which are fake, etc, to arrive at a model that makes the best sense of all the data, etc....
But then, I call it A reconstruction and not THE reconstruction as you already noticed.
I wrote in my introduction page:
I did not say it cannot be dismissed. My confidence in my reconstruction might be high but not absolute.the resulting reconstruction fits too well together (and explains so many things) that it cannot be easily dismissed ...
Documented by critical analysis mostly on Paul's epistles, Q, 'Hebrews' & 'James', etc, but more so gMark, with also Josephus' works. No, I did not mean independent attestation. The evidence is too limited to allow for that most of the time. We have to work with what is available.You know it needs to be "documented" -- by which I presume you mean it has independent attestation. That is what you mean, right?
Correct on your first question. Yes that what the Romans would think after Jesus was thought to be the future king of the Jews by a group of Jews and then made the disturbance in the temple, acting like a ruler trying to impose his rules.Didn't the inscriptions announce the crime? So the crime is pretender, or false claimant to kingship, etc. The "king of the Jews" placard is just delicious Gospel of Mark irony consistent with the irony throughout his composition.
I don't see any irony here, as well than in other parts of the gospel. Is it part of your literary finding on gMark? that looks very interpretative, more so when the alleged irony is far from obvious. And why would "Mark" would spread irony in his gospel? I do not see any reason.
Cordially, Bernard