@MJAlter it is not clear you understand @dga471 and my critique of your arguments. A few requests and questions…
-
What is a Gish Gallop? Why are we calling your book a Gish Gallop?
-
What is your historical methodology? Have you rigorously applied this to other events from the same period? Why is this important to us?
-
Can you enumerate the critiques of the historians you have relied upon? Can you enumerate the evidence behind these critiques? Why is this important to us?
-
Can you identify any historians who are willing to put their reputations behind your book? Who are they? Why is this important to us?
Though not part of your argument, I find your embrace of apologetics amusing. Why is a Jewish man emulating the “apologia” he disagrees with by becoming an apologist? Even among Christians, apologetics has a low reputation.
I’d like to start with those number questions yet. I’m hoping you can at least cogently explain our critique. Don’t worry about rebutting yet, because that will take longer time. As soon as you can articulate at least one of these critiques cogently, we can then address whether it is valid. Until we get on the same intellectual page here, further conversation is only valuable so as to clarify how @dga471, @Freakazoid and I would answer for you.
Once again you do not need to agree with us, but it will help immensely if you can show you’ve actually heard the substance our critique.
You have been bringing up COI. For the record @dga471 is at Harvard and I am at WUSTL. It is professionally far riskier for us to publicly affirm the Ressurection than dispute it. You in the otherhand are financially incentivized to push your book. If we are going to take COI into account, this places a large asterisk over what you say in relation to us. As you say, follow the money. This, however, is an absurd ad hominem in this context. So we will not make this the centerpoint of any argument here.