Specific methods

A sketch of methodologies to develop:

embarassment layers:

for "reading between the lines", such as why did Jesus call "eli sambaktani" on the cross, what previous theology layer does that hide?

systemic coherency analysis:

for principle of grace and accuracy, do we really represent an individual or a group in a way that correctly, but neutrally describes that individual or a group honestly.

conflicting view analysis:

for explaining the evolution of a system, and determining what opponents antagonizes a system the most

marxistoid historicism, class analysis:

for determining prehistory and a cultural setting wherein a certain group preached, the marxistoid (heavily modified marxist) analysis discovers the material points of conflicts who triggered antagonism between groups, for example the Jerusalem temple monopoly with its sadducean big business monopoly, would have triggered opposition from poor classes who then were economically ostracised by the cult, and also the Samarians who had a competing cult center at mount Gerissim,

protective adhoc methodologies:

analysing methodologies used by a certain group to counter arguments against their beliefs, such as for example the Gnostic tendency to describe opponents as worshiping evil archons,

taxonomy analyses:

for classifying unclassified texts, and for determining the degree of coherence of the opinions within that group

likelihood analyses:

when comparing models of interacting groups, how likely is alternative interactions and reasons for interactions?

Bogus methods:

post-modern deconstructivism:

Derrida, most of the analyses of Robert M. Price, which by the way is the method used by Creationists to deconstruct, geology and paleontology,

malplaced burden of proof:

for example claiming that the opponents have the burden of proof among the mythicists, the mythicists have to prove that their discourse is the most probable, the factists have to prove that their discourse is the most probable,

parallelomania:

as for example Robert M. Price, if something in the late cult of Jesus looks like the cult of Dionysos, then this has no consequence at all for the existence of Jesus

textual conjuring:

as for example the conjured "Johannines", and the theologically pointless hypothetical group the "proto-Orthodoxes" as conceived by Bart D. Ehrmann, that might or might not contain Arianism, Homoiousianism and Trinitarism side by side, as the definition is posed.

story-telling without alternatives:

making a long story of how it was without countering expected counter-arguments and alternative theories on the way, this is a very common culture among fanatical believers, but flabbergastingly it has also been copied by mythicists and scholars who are labeled as "objective", among the mythicists there is René Salm (whose critical analysis of the existence Nazareth is valuable) who has produced such a story about "Yeshu ha Notzri", with flimsy sources as the foundation,

malreferring consensuses:

like the outbursts of Bart D. Ehrmann referring to "consensus" among archeologists that are in fact biblicist pseudo-archeological individuals having a "consensus of silence" behind them (cherry-picking consensus), or generally referring to a "majority opinion"; all real consensuses are coherent mind structures supported by a number of persons, they are specifically not the persons themselves or their authority (power-of-majority consensus), and they are specifically not a hodgepodge of disparate discourses (incoherent consensus) happenstance pointing in the same direction.