…he once again proves my point: He doesn’t read things with which he has a predisposition to disagree. He reacts to them. This is precisely the criticism I gave to him before. And because he doesn’t critically examine things he just flat out disagrees with, he makes gaffes and is then called on them and then he has to apologize and eat humble pie (he hasn’t yet, but perhaps he should). Which is a shame.
James McGrath responded to Richard’s criticism of Ehrman and anyone with eyes who read it could see clearly that he was missing point after point and his defense of Ehrman was dogmatic, to say the least.
Richard has made this all too obvious. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened where James, forgetting exactly how educated Richard is, just runs off on a tangent without really reading what it is he is supposed to be arguing against and then has to back-peddle and apologize later when he is called on it.
As I’ve said before, I like James a lot and think he is usually lucid and erudite, but when he deals with the subject of Mythicism it is like he falls into an abyss where all logic and critical thought just vanish and all he can do is make hyperbolic claims and throw around appeals to authority without ever feeling the need to challenge what is actually being addressed by his critics. I do hope this will end after today. I believe he can bring a lot of good to the discussion, that is, as soon as he starts getting involved in it.