archibald wrote:Byron wrote:
The only thing that matters for MJ advocates is producing a MJ scenario that better fits the evidence than HJ. This they consistently fail to do: even Carrier, by far the best MJ has got, is reduced to fragmented pedantry and nitpicking.
It's arguably irrelevant, certainly to me, what the alternative scenario is, especially with the time being so distant and murky. All that is needed is to describe it as 'one of the many varied ways in which people who did/do not exist were/are nonetheless taken by many to have existed'. In short,at least for the undecided, the case for HJ rests on the evidence for HJ, not the evidence for MJ. The evidence for HJ is such that if it were applied to any other figure whatsoever, I cannot honestly see how anybody could describe it as anything other than very weak.
And this is where your case slams into the buffers. MJ doesn't exist in isolation: as it's in competition with HJ, it needs to present a positive case that's more convincing than the HJ alternative. It's no wonder that many JM supporters are reluctant to do this, 'cause the results are either Acharya S new age baloney, or Earl Doherty pesudo-scholarship.
It's so much easier to be against something than for something, isn't it?
Oh, and which Hoffman cite of mine are you referring to? Point it out and (due to my total lack of interest) I'll withdraw it.