It just so happens I think that some (please note: some–not all, not most) mythicists have sounder arguments about the state of the evidence (because historicists will often take that evidence for granted). That doesn’t mean I agree with their conclusion about historicity.
I think this is a logical fallacy latent in certain parts of scholarship. Just because I agree with certain arguments about the status of the evidence does not mean I agree with other conclusions.
But, there has yet to be any sign of Tom disagreeing with Carrier, Thompson or others, or even the acceptance of positions from McGrath or others.
The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, I mean, if the pudding existed and the proof existed, but since the pudding doesn’t exist, then no real proof can.
I have yet to see where Tom actually disagrees with Carrier at all. AT ALL. Instead, he always comes to the rescue and defense of Carrier.
He somewhat concludes by proving my point,
But I have yet to see a historicist make a sound and reasoned argument without drawing on very crappy criteria and old data.
That’s the point of mythicism, isn’t it? The data is never good enough to prove any point, but some mathematical formula meant for something different, selected my mythicist is? Oh come on…
Pick a side, Tom.