rlogan

When something is common knowledge we refer to it. Analogies are built around it. Related stories or concepts are anchored to it. The plain fu*%ing fact is that common knowledge means the exact opposite of what the apologist supplies as the excuse for seeing no evidence.

No, they don't Roger. In fact, you can't demonstrate a single person with this supposition.

There is a fundamental mutual exclusivity in your position. On the one hand, we should not expect Biblical tracts to be found. On the other hand, we have them.

And as always, throw all "literature" into the same category to hide as much as you can the extreme difference in probability of retention. Sure, sure - sacred, revered biblical tracts which were used as liturgical instruments and which were stored even when worn out instead of being destroyed (what is the name they used for a depository of old biblical tracts - I forget). Yea - those are just as likely as anything else to be lost, despite the finds we have at Nag Hamadi or whatever.


Also pretend the obviously long after-the-fact mythical constructions by anonymous authors alleging fantastical things in times past are in reality a contemporary recording.