My blog

[robvalue]

Thanks for the links

But I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. I don't believe appealing to motives is satisfactory, this was all such a long time ago that to try and "get into the mind" of people at that time is too much of a stretch for me. People have all kind of weird reasons for doing things, and I think that if motives are all HJ has to stand on, then it doesn't stand at all.

I'm not seeing any actual evidence, it seems more just mocking mythicists, making random assertions, assessing Paul's motives! As if Paul has even been established as a real person, and he never met jesus and many of his letters are forgeries. Paul believed in a celestial jesus, the ones referring to the man jesus are likely forgeries. It's likely a different myth woven into the story. Even the die for a lie argument which is bogus. This is logical fallacies all the way through, I could go through and rip it up bit by bit. I really see nothing of substance.

I also don't care about historians opinions if they are not supported, and none of these seem to be, it's hand waving. (I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just not seeing anything new to persuade me there's anything more than inductive guesswork at play).

---

For Ehrman to say he is certain of HJ is absurd. Certain? You have to be kidding me. I don't think there's even a 10% chance of it given the huge lack of evidence. I've read a lot about his book and I'm not impressed, it's full of fallacies. If there is one particular bit of evidence or argument you think I'm overlooking, feel free to point me to it

With regard to your argument, I have no idea what the results of anything would be, but again I don't see motive as enough of a convincer to fill in massive gaps in evidence. Just my opinion

---

Am I being a dick? I really don't mean to be.

I just find these scholars are not backing up their HJ claims, regardless of what mythicists say.