toejam wrote:Well, Ehrman calls it as he sees it. He wholly accepts the Q hypothesis. I lean towards the existence of some sort of Q also, but am not as convinced as he. But I agee that it is problematic to use a hypothetical source as "evidence". I agree with you on that one. But I think you have to read the Huff Post piece for what it is - an edit/summary of his views - the idea being that you read the book to find out how he comes to those conclusions. Whether you agree with him is a different issue. I agree with Ehrman on some things, and not on others. But I think these accusations of "slimey dishonesty" are uncalled for. As to the accusations of vitriol and unprofessionalism, it's like "Who shot first, Greedo or Hans?" ... I couldn't give a toss.
It is slimey dishonesty to say there are no sources which mention Pilate and that we have numerous Aramaic accounts of the life of Jesus, dated within a year or two of his life.
That is what Ehrman said, hence his belated claims that obviously he didn't mean what he wrote and anybody reading his article should have read the book to see that he just didn't mean what he said in his article.