Nice post Rod P. It was worth waiting...
I tend to agree that the question whether there was a "historical Jesus" is undecidable. Which means that we have to cope with several, more or less likely, yet possible historical paradigms for the rise of Christianity. However the theological consequences of such a situation are important: and they all boil down to what Bultmann (who believed in a historical Jesus but thought very little could be known about him) meant when he pointed out that the historical Jesus is not the object of the Christian faith. Leaving aside Bultmann's existential (Heideggerian) interpretation of it, the Christ myth is what matters to the Christian religion, and whether there is a historical individual behind it becomes quite secondary from a theological standpoint -- except from a fundamentalistic perspective of course.
I also deeply agree with your "network" approach of knowledge. But I tend to think that this approach has already led us past the need for a "centre" (as in your wheel comparison). Unless perhaps if this centre is thought of as negative (as the void in the middle of the wheel in Tao te King) -- and still I feel that imagining it as central is somewhat misleading. The relative intersections of "meaning" resulting from our encounters on the (worldwide) web do not connect us to a centre; everyone of us projects his/her threads from his/her individual connection with reality, on the periphery of the web; and the web of logos itself measures over against the wider potential infinity of the unsaid and unthought: "the light shines in the darkness."