You must have meant "should not" instead of "should".You seem to think I have suggested that certain events in the gospel narratives should be rejected as unhistorical because they appear in documents that maybe were based on primary evidence.
I meant not systematically rejected because surrounded by embellishments and fiction. And I do not claim there are primary evidence (as you described it). More likely as heard from eyewitness(es) (for gMark).
Yes, I selected the options the most likely to be valid after thorough analysis. And then realizing these options when stringed together deliver a reconstruction which makes a lot of sense.I don't "reject" anything. I am not a black and white thinker like you. You have misread my point, it appears, on the assumption that I think in black and white terms like you do
It's easy to say you don't reject anything because you have not written yet any comprehensive study on the topic (whatever it is). But if you don't reject anything, your so-called future literary research will be a confusing array of options at every turns.
Not all historians followed methods as strict as you described them. And then I would not trust a historian to work on the very beginning of Christianity. A cold case investigator, with a lot of time, would be a lot more suited for that job, because of the nature of the available evidence.I am trying to point out what historians believe are solid methods. I don't understand why you are jumping the gun and assuming that I must be attacking your historical Jesus. I am sure if biblical scholars and you apply methods accepted as valid by historians generally you will have nothing to worry about. After all, don't you or others say that no modern historians doubts the historicity of Jesus? So what's wrong with looking at their methods?
But you are free to criticize biblical scholars. I would probably agree with you on many points.
"it seems" means you are leaning toward something I would call an assumption, even if you base it on "considerable scholarly argument", which is, BTW, not primary evidence, not even secondary.Please read my words, Bernard. I said "it seems". That is not "an assumption". It is based on considerable scholarly argument and is pointed out with full awareness that it is not an "absolute fact" or "unquestioned assumption" but something that I am presenting as an additional point, an additional point, with the status of "it seems". I am fully aware some people will disagree and I trust they will have enough awareness of what I am writing to get the point overall even if they don't agree with every "it seems" detail I add to it.
Anyway, I made a point that many items from gMark are not coming from the Pauline epistles.
I think you are putting a lot of faith in these ancient "historians", who, for most of them, were just amateurs. As I said, they often did not agree in the description of the same events.They don't? Why do you say that? I say they do -- at least when being seriously professional and writing for their peers. And if they fail to abide by these rules then their peers point out that they have failed to abide by them in their reviews of their work.
I was mentioning ancient historians. And do not put me in the same bag than these biblical scholars.It sounds to me like you don't like the rules that are indeed followed by mainstream historians so you want to poo-pooh them and coddle up with the circular methods of biblical scholars.
First, 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is most likely an interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html.Omg, Bernard! Assumption again???? I am damn well repeating what the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars say about Paul: that he learned about the gospel according to tradition passed on to him as per 1 Corinthians 15. And notice, please do notice, I said "according to many". That is NOT assumption. That is simply repeating what many scholars actually say!!
Second the gospel of Paul in 1 Cor 15:1 is about Paul's message (mostly here about future resurrections and the Resurrection) and not about the human Jesus.
Even if "That is simply repeating what many scholars actually say!!", are these many scholars saying Paul got by revelation from heaven his poor humble Jew named Jesus as Christ crucified? I doubt it.
If you think so, it is just a (false) assumption.