Why can't Christians Verify Exactly Where Jesus Was Buried?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, you went from Matthew to Mark here.

No I didn't, I merely made the point that James's theology & teachings is not based on the gospel of Mark , the gospel of Mark being the earliest gospel.

And now to Luke?

You shouldn't have any problem with following what I'm saying. The Sermon on the Mount is found exclusively in the gospel of Matthew. James's epistle is based more on that one sermon than anything else. The Gospel of Luke contains the Sermon on the Plain which is similar to, but different from, the Sermon on the Mount.

Fair enough. I'll back up and reread with this in mind.

Well yes, but they didn't have to have notes at all (it could have been transmitted orally to James), and nothing suggests that Jesus himself used written notes in his preachings - he simply remembered his sermons and delivered them to his audiences.

Obviously, in an age when literacy was rare. Writing "notes" myself, I wasn't meaning necessarily the written word, though obviously you believe it was the case.

My point, though, was that he selected that portion of what he'd heard or read which he cottoned to, and worked off of that theme. This is something writers do all the time.

You are missing the point. James has knowledge about one specific sermon, or so it seems, and he is ignorant of anything Jesus taught that is recorded in Mark, and most of the rest of the stuff that is in Matthew/Luke as well. In fact, if we didn't have the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain in Matthew and Luke respectively then it would like like James came up with his teachings from Judaism and not from Jesus.

"Or so it seems" is the important part of this section of your post. James wasn't restricted to reportage of the entire life of Christ. As a writer, he could certainly pick and choose those points, those themes he wished to emphasize. The idea that because he didn't write about this or that even in another Gospel could mean he hadn't read them, sure. It could also mean that they didn't resonate with him enough to merit his attention.

Your underlying assumption seems to be perfect knowledge on the part of the authors of the Gospels, and that seems pretty questionable, to me.

I'm not sure where you get that from, which is why I put "Mark" and "Matthew" in inverted commas...

I get it from your apparent taking them at face-value, and assuming that others (namely James) would not only do so, but endeavor to report their entirety as, ahem, gospel truth, when in fact any time an author sets pen to paper, he does so with an agenda.