It's easy to pontificate against a Bart Ehrman's approach to establishing the likelihood of the Jesus of history actually existing by establishing that different sources about him exist.
But that's exactly what Tom Dykstra does when pretending not to take sides between Ehrman and Thomas Brodie.
No, we don't have "Q." But we do have the Gospel of Thomas. But Dykstra nowhere mentions that.
We have John as a witness independent of the Synoptics. But Dykstra nowhere mentions him.
Given that Dykstra makes these claims, or lies by omission, in an academic paper, he seems pretty silly. And Dykstra in other writings has indicated he's mythicist-friendly.
No comments:
Post a Comment
There is no god and I am his prophet. — me
Nihil est ut in contentione ut memoria de mortuis. — me
==
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.