I will next week.

Not yet.

Hansen and gregor have submitted another review of your methods of Jesus historicity. Have you looked at it?

I’m not sure what this in aid of. You should link to where you are reading this so I understand what it relates to.

First of all, Jacob is Israel: those names belong to the same person. So how would a different reading on that even matter? And what does it matter to?

Secondly, I have not checked the dispute you are referencing, but I am familiar with a different dispute about those same verses: whether the phrase “sons of Israel” originally read “sons of God” (it probably did) or even in fact “angels of God” (that’s likely a variant).

Which would render the Israel/Jacob dispute irrelevant.

Your analysis of that would be welcome here. Since I am not interested in Dutch Radicalism, I haven’t spent any time on that article. But just because I agree with her conclusion, doesn’t mean I would agree with how she arrives at it. If you picked the clearest cases of her being disingenuous or dishonest there, it could help add to the database of trends in her behavior.

The article was arguing against the view of New Dutch Radicals that Paul did not exist (I was looking for arguments for/against Paul’s existence), and Hansen makes more than enough good points to demonstrate that he is capable of complex reasoning, and he can clearly carefully double check esoteric evidence and sources if he wants to, but even there he was not giving a thorough or fair presentation of the arguments of the people he is trying to debunk, and he was cherry picking arguments claiming they are representative of everything else and presenting his case as won.

https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/HansenCM02.pdf

Hansen is not just moronic.

Thank you. Would love that. If you ever get together funding for a lecture or pubmeet I can do out there let me know.