IPTET gets thrummed by Tektonics

- Comments Ignored

Introsuction

I'm grateful to Mr. Holding for making some interesting points and picking up a few typos. Interesting points indeed. That's a mild way of admitting that we nabbed someone here who has problems with both critical sourcework and actually completing a full sentence before starting another. I'm also happy to concede to his data relevant to my page Did John the Baptist die after Jesus?. However, I think my site does provide a useful starting point for those interested in investigating the issues covered. At the very least, they seek to be open about mainstream academic opinion - and that can't be said for every site on the net. Please. To call PTET a "useful starting point" is like saying you can check under your shoe and from that get a "useful starting point" on the mechanics, finances, and technical aspects of the chewing gum industry. Biblical scholarship involves many fields; there are literally tens of thousands of scholarly monographs and articles out there, and it is the height of arrogance and/or naivete to suppose that one can pound out a few "thoughts," pick up a few online articles and a Microsoft Encarta, and provide any sort of useful "starting point" for anything but a study of egotism in action. I have called Lee Strobel's works useful "starting points" -- and would even then say so a quite limited sense, inasmuch as anyone with real interest will go a lot farther.

Aside from his obvious sense of humour and encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, Mr Holding exhibits certain other notable characteristics.

First, he shows utter disdain for those whose pages and arguments he seeks to refute. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it's because (per last link) those being refuted, 95% of the time, do (or "do nothing," in other words) every bit to earn their "calculated contempt" by showing such gross ignorance of critical scholarship. I'd like to see one of these chaps try that nonsense with Greco-Roman secular history, posting some "thoughts" on Tacitus or Livy, using encyclopedias and a website or two, and calling it a "starting point" for learning about the great Greco-Roman historians. What nonsense. In over 5,000 words about my humble work, he does not link to my pages even once. (Perhaps he wishes to save their readers from my poor scholarship!) That is quite true: As I say, Skeptics with largo egos who complain that this site does not always link to the articles it is addressing need to be told that their efforts -- engaging what I will call from here on "trailer park scholarship" -- do not deserve links. The Aryan Stormfront page may as well complain that Holocaust memorial sites do not link to them; or, the Flat Earth Society may as well demand links from professional geology and geography departments at college websites. Who are these people trying to kid? Their scholarship, as a whole, is reckless and pitiable; what they know, they have learned from reading a few popular books with no conception of the broader issues and fields at hand. Why does this site need to link to some injudicious blunderbuss who claims that Lev. 25:23, which has God saying the land is "mine," has to be read figuratively because if it were literal, then it would cause problems because people would then covet the land owned by God and that would cause them to break the commandment against coveting? Why do we need to link to people who refuse to come to the social world of the Bible on its own terms, and accuse scholars who are experts in the social world of the NT of being ignorant, based on nothing more than a bare English reading of the texts? These people deserve not links, but contempt and obscurity. What kind of obnoxious arrogance thinks that such work as PTET's deserves any sort of link? But it's not just me... In his page parodying a list of Skeptical Reviews regarding his ministry, he provides deliberately broken links, explaining:

"Many of the links [provided to those answering Tektonics]...are NOT to the page where the works are located. Rather, they are links to the Google search engine... The purpose of this? To settle some of these whines about not having links being a way of "hiding" things. What crockery!... This parody is also part fun, part self-defense, part answer to some of the more delusional personages peeling their bananas out there in their spare time. Such persons deserve a little pity for the dull lives they lead..."

Tekton Trophy Room, J.P. Holding, Tektonics

Given that it can be some time before new pages appear on Google - if at all - this policy seems rather wanting. Well, too bad -- I found that my review of The da Vinci Code appeared on Google within a week. I wonder why. The likely reason is that the engines know when a page is being used -- and if this means no one is reading any of these skeptical pages, all the more reason why they don't deserve the time of day or "affirmatrive action" linking, and deserve all the more obscurity. The saying goes, "If you build it, they will come," and it obviously means you need to build it with quality -- which is notably lacking from these guys. What is clear, however, is Tektonics' assumption that its intended audience - hardcore Christians seeking succour and comic relief - have no interest whatsoever in what reading skeptics' defences of their positions. Many don't, as it happens, which means links wouldn't be of any use to begin with. No one forces anyone to follow the links and read them; that's one reason I could not care less if some skeptical site that gets 2 hits a week does not care to link to mine. But those that do have had no trouble to speak of finding these skeptical websites, even without Google appearances. It just isn't that hard, and if PTET and these others can't find their own patoots, we are hardly obliged to go and wipe them for them. As one of these "rogues" point out:

"[Holding] seems to have a great deal of trouble actually providing links to the articles upon which he heaps his scorn, which makes for a bizarre website. Nothing "bizarre" about it -- see my response to this whine here. In his "Rogue's Gallery" section, he appears to be fighting an army of foes that only he can see And that only utter incompetents can't find... Actions speak much louder than words, and clearly the problem here is that [Holding] is terrified of what skeptics write..." Sure thing, as terrified as a German shepherd is of dust mites...this is the sort of bravado that subs for actual answers from this crowd. Which is why I encourage it.

Second, Mr Holding seems to inhabit a strange world in which he, with no University position or standing in non-Fundamentalist scholarship, Funny comment from a guy who has none of the same himself. But my sources have university positions and standing; that's who the likes of PTET refuse to deal with, preferring to keep the focus on "me". is able to pronounce the final word on almost any matter of debate. Only after gathering of data is done. So if PTET thinks it can be done, why does he avoid direct answers, quoting .01% of materials, and just throwing back things like, "this person does not agree with that stance" as though the job is done? It's very simple: To do so is beyond his ability. Outside Fundamentalism, academia universally accepts that much of the Old Testament is mythological rather than historical in nature, and that the text of the New Testament evolved over time to meet the needs of the early Christian Church. Nothing like a vague, non-specific sound bite to win the day. How about actually coming to terms with arguments on the subject? No, sound bites are all PTET is capable of. Mr Holding, however, clings to his belief that the Bible is essentially inerrant. PTET meanwhile clings to his belief that it isn't, and staunchly refuses to provide more than sound bites as retorts. Tektonics defend their robust style of debate with reference to ancient apologetics No, not "ancient apologetics" -- just another sample of PTET's inability to read clearly. Challenge-riposte was a normal means of exchange and debate in the ancient world, apologetics or not:

"Modern skeptics immediately reject [such]... language as distasteful and insulting, but by now it is clear that they are entrenched in subjecivity and beholden to a straw-man Jesus exegeted forcefully from the text with a fundamentalist-atheist hermeneutic..."

Those pushing a "fundamentalist-atheist hermeneutic" seem to include ReligiousTolerance, the Jesus Seminar, and anyone else who dares to try to find a "historical Jesus" amongst the tangled myths of the New Testament. Yeah. Religioustolerance.org, a collection of non-scholars collecting sound bites from sources uncritically like PTET. Needless to say they say not a word about challenge-riposte anywhere; and the Jesus Seminar -- sorry -- actually DOES recognize challenge-riposte in Jesus' words, and even uses it as a sort of distinctive. They do not try to claim that Jesus provides a model for wimpiness, as PTET would have it.

For the most part, Holding simply ignores the vast majority of Biblical scholarship, Christian, Jewish and otherwise, which rejects the idea of an inerrant Bible. And PTET continues to plough vague sound bites, avoiding specifics. The safest route. This allows him to concentrate on a straw-man representation of anti-Christian Skepticism. Of course, this isn't of concern to those who only care for Fundamentalist apologetics. Straw man, nothing. PTET proved no such thing; there is no train leading from one sentence to the other, and that "straw man" represents 95% of skeptics I have encountered. I was willing to think they might be exceptions, until the record went over the 75% mark.

Further, Holding seems to think that two wrongs make a right. No such thing is said at all. Speaking of straw men: Tektonics write of unspecified skeptics:

"..If you play the nice guy, you're likely to get swarmed, not by any irrefutable arguments, but rather, by a veritable skyscraper of excess and inflammatory verbiage. And unfortunately, there are those, on both sides of the argument, who are persuaded by such things. We are humans, not computers, and a show of confidence or arrogance does, to some, seem to equate with being the victor. So what does the Christian apologist, in dealing with such as these, do? He fights a spark with a blow torch..." This is not "two wrongs make a right" because it follows an extensive social-historical analysis justifying the use of riposte; what is in this paragraph gives an example of that playing out in modern times and does not use any sort of "this is justified because they did it" reasoning. Speaking of straw men, the scarecrow just knocked! And he's at the door again:

Mr Holding seems to think that atrocities by atheist dictators somehow lessen the impact of Biblical massacres "Seems," yeah:

"[SAB:] 3:29 Nebuchadnezzar, after first trying to burn to death the three Hebrews, now decrees that everyone who says anything against the Hebrew god "shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill." This is an example of the loving kindness and tolerance that supernatural belief inspires in humans. [Holding:] Yes! For more lovintg kindness and tolerance, be sure and look up "Stalin" and "Mao". (sic)" I don't see any "this lessens that," do you? It isn't there. The point rather was that Skeptics' Annotated Bible, to whom this was directed, wanted to make an issue of "loving kindness" inspired by "supernatural belief," as though rejection of it were some kind of panacea for virtue. Not a word is said here about "lessening impact" in any sense. Typical PTET inability to do simple reading comprehension tasks.

Perhaps we can agree that it is blind belief in the infallibility of one's position, with utter contempt for the rights of others, which leads to such terrors? Well, perhaps not... Better not. Especially when "we" have not yet had the guts to address more than .00001% of "our" opponents' website. Which reminds me, PTET had better cut that "we" stuff or Farrell Till will have a coronary.

In any event, these tactics allow Tektonics to claim victory on every issue. They do? Where do I say that? The effect is rather like being stuck next to a stranger on a long bus journey, who goes on and on about this triumph and that achievement, without one ever having the opportunity to hear another side of the story. As if. The news is: The "other side" is ALWAYS accurately represented here; charges that it has not been have never, ever, been justified beyond simple misunderstandings caused by inexact verbiage; my readers have the intelligence to find the "other side" if they want to, and all of this is no more than an exercise in egotism by skeptics who are convinced that the only reason people are not appreciating their brilliance and converting to atheism in droves is because they must not have read any of their arguments. Whatever his motivation, one wonders whether it bothers Mr Holding that his style of "debate" often seems childish, cowardly and petulant. To cowardly, petulant, and arrogant people? Not at all. It is interesting that the most intelligent, least judgmental skeptics -- like my friend Kyle Gerkin, and a handful of others -- are the ones who find the least offense in my methods, and even appreciate it at times.

Pagan Influences On Christianity

This whole section refers to my webpage Pagan influences on Christianity.

I had assumed that my readers, if any, would have been quite able to follow my arguments.I am quite willing, however, to accept that I should have spelled out my position in more detail. A backwards way of saying, "Oops, I got caught making sound bites." Mr Holding, of course, doesn't seem to think that his readers would interested in reading my arguments for themselves. Since as PTET admits that is was not spelled out properly, one wonders what the heck difference it would have made. And we're still waiting for an example of how PTET was misrepresented in a way that would have been fixed by letting people "see it for themselves". If my words were accurate (as is admitted) why is this necessary?

The "blatant misrepresentation" complained of refers to Tektonics mis-statement of the working of comparative mythology. No such "mis-statement" was made because no statement was made about the "working of comparative mythology" to begin with. If PTET had had his eyes open rather than his head down a hole, and had an idea to read more than .01% of an article before talking about it, he would know that the comment was directed to people like Acharya S, Freke and Gandy, and others of that ilk -- not the sort in PTET's neighbourhood, perhaps (thank Zeus!) but also not "comparative mythologists" in any sense. Someone like Joseph Campbell fits that bill; but while he has issues of his own, he is not the sort of person being addressed here.

No-one argues (of course) that Judaism and Christianity are "merely" "stolen" from other myths No one? Uh, let me introduce you to Acharya S....... The question is, of course, whether it is reasonable to believe that they are "true" while other belief systems - often containing remarkably similar elements - are mere mythology. It is not an issue at all in the context of what I was discussing. PTET just jumped out and made a fool of himself assuming he knew what I was talking about. It says a great deal that Mr Holding offers Josh McDowell in defence of his straw-man - he is simply not able to quote his opponents in support of his caricature! Gee whiz! Check the series of articles linked below that paragraph PTET quoted -- quotes almighty from Acharya, from Freke and Gandy, from that camp all over. And sorry, McDowell is NOT offered as a "defense" -- he is referred to as exemplary in method of PTET's own level of scholarship. This guy clearly has reading problems.

Myths are historical fictions told primarily to validate religious beliefs. We can be quite certain that Mr Holding doesn't believe that the central stories relating to the birth of Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism are true. Depends which ones they are. Meanwhile PTET applies mustard to his foot being "quite certain" of what he thinks I believe. He accepts, of course, that while these stories may initially have been based on true events, they grew over time to reflect the cultural history and expectations of the people who re-told them, generation after generation. Gee, where did he get all this information on whatI believe? Must have been one of those big hats like the kind Johnny Carson used to wear. Sometimes, these stories become so far removed from our present experience that we can no longer be sure which parts of any of the initial stories are true. This is the central tenant of the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis. No, frankly, it isn't -- not from the crowd I was addressing, like Acharya S. This is why PTET is miseducated when he thinks I am building a straw man: Holding builds a straw-man version of this argument in which Jesus Mythers" such as Earl Doherty operate outside the fundamental premises of comparative mythology. No, no, NO! Not EARL DOHERTY! Earl has problems of his own, but he is at least wise enough not to make such idiotic claims about Mithra being crucified and resurrected. Doherty is in fact mentioned in NONE of the articles linked under that paragraph. Holding presents their arguments as a false dichotomy - he mis-represents scholarly arguments against their work as support for his view that Jesus can only have been as a literal reading of the New Testament provides. "Scholarly arguments"? Sure, from Acharya S and Freke and Gandy, non-credentialed in the proper fields, all -- in the meantime PTET cannot even identify my target correctly, so what does this tell us about his abilities otherwise, and his claim of "mis-representing" certain works? Take a guess!

I can't speak for "intelligent skeptics", but I can point out that mainstream academic opinion overwhelmingly holds that I.e., he can only appeal to vague claims and refuse specifics:

• the history of Israel found in the Old Testament is mythical rather than historical Will he debate it specifically? No, just rest on those laurels -- same for all of these:
• the Bible therefore is not "inerrant"
• none of the authors of the New Testament Gospels were eye-witnesses to the "life of Christ" Aren't these laundry lists impressive substitutes for actual, detailed argument?
• the Gospels were completed after c. 70 CE He'll never touch this and has even refused to debate the subject
• the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from that of Mark - or from another common source Fine conclusion after he quotes one line or two out of my huge article on the subject
• There is no reason - beyond faith - to accept the miraculous accounts of the Gospels over any other miraculous account in any other ancient work Who says we do? BTW let's make sure we define faith properly, please

Tektonics presents a fantasy world where the opinions of Fundamentalist scholars like Josh McDowell and Bryant Wood present views on the Bible which are relevant to modern scholarship. They do not. More of PTET's ignorance. I NEVER quote McDowell as support, and slap him hard several times for incompetence; I do use Wood, and he is a worthy scholar whose works PTET is unworthy to critique. In the meantime, here are some names for PTET to swallow: Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, Henri Blocher, Raymond Brown, Craig Blomberg, Bruce Malina, Richard Rohrbaugh....he's never heard of any of these; and he thinks we use Josh McDowell, not these, as sources!

Critics's Challenge

What I mean, of course, is that similarities between different stories of God-men - regardless of their differences - would seem to raise at least some doubt about the veracity of any one account...They wouldn't "seem" to do so at all. The differences are vast and significant, and a "regardless" will not cover that up in the least. It is also patently ridiculous even if there were similarities worth while; no more so do similarities between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy make one of their stories questionable.   If Jesus really existed, what reason is there to believe that the New Testament gives an accurate account of his "miraculous" life? Because it says so? Because his followers have said so for thousands of years? Because of the same reason one believes any historical account: All evidence for; no evidence against. The scary details PTET refuses to engage beyond sound bites. The fact is that from the outset, pagans and Christians alike recognised the similarities between the stories of Jesus and those of other mythological god-men Not quite. Watch PTET now abuse Justin Martyr the same way others have:

"When we say also that the Word, which is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." Hold on there. Justin is not "recognizing the similarities" here. He is saying, "You say we believe this though it is ridiculous; but you believe this, which is no less 'ridiculous' that what we believe!" He is NOT saying "A is similar to B"; he is merely drawing a comparison on the same broad category of "miracles of birth." To abuse this for "copycat" claims to to completely miss the point.

As regards Tektonics's Critics Challenge (previously called the "Chicken Challenge"), what's the point? I never say that Jesus was "stolen" from Mithra, Then why did PTET take on the opening paragaph to an article that heads up material on Mithra? Obviously, he was not paying attention to subject matter, as we have already shown. and even if I picked a more suitable topic, Mr Holding shows no interest in the usual etiquette of debate. Meaning, what? Affirmative action linking to non-competent skeptics? Pointing out that you are wrong and hurting your feelings because of it? Please. In any event, my e-mail "challenger's" main point seemed to be that I used sources "selected" by me to back up my opinion, while Mr. Holding et al. supposedly uses more balanced sources. That's a rather silly statement. It's a 100% accurate statement, but less about balance than about competence and familiarity with the literature. PTET has not considered even one tenth of one tenth of one tenth of the available literature.

Tektonics do not believe that non-Christian religions are other than mythological. Non-fundamentalist Christian churches accept that at least parts of the Bible are essentially mythological. Draw your own conclusions Based on a sound bite? Then PTET posts from his partner in spreading anachronisms:...

"In our debate over the Trilemma (that Jesus was liar, lunatic, or lord), [Holding's] latest response to me contained no less than 137 polemical blunders, each categorized and separately identified below. On substance, [Holding's] version of the Trilemma argument, like so many others, ignores a fourth possibility: that Jesus was a faith-healer and apocalyptic preacher whose deluded belief in his importance was strengthened in the months leading up to his anticipated martyrdom, and then was misinterpreted and exaggerated afterwards." And see this crybaby comment debunked here. It's just more mulluguthering from an expert backpedaller who got caught making outlandish statements about the Biblical world and is now trying to extract my foot from his patoot.

Related Myths

Tektonics: PTET sums further: "Their argument is that because no one pagan myth is exactly the same as any particular element of Christianity, then the two cannot be related, or come from a common source or theme." Actually PTET simply has trouble with reading comprehension. Our argument is that a) the elements are not the same at all, so that mere holding of one beside the other and gasping with amazement and yelling, "Wow, they're the same!" is ludicrous; b) pagan copycatters merely throw these parallels in the air uncritically without bothering about whether there is any evidence of borrowing directly; c) common themes and motifs are best understood as founded in common human experience (i.e., shepherd imagery is used of many deities and persons because of the universal role of the shepherd, not because A borrowed from B; or "salvational" religions are common because of the universal question of what happens after death). PTET would know this if they had done more than a cursory reading of Tekton material looking for useful sound bites, but we have not expected such careful study from skeptics in the past and do not expect it in the future.

It is clear that many alleged parallels are specious - I say so myself...Then why did PTET have problems comprehending this about our paragraph he commented on? Why did he think that I was addressing Earl Doherty, of all people?? But two stories from related cultures do not have to contain the same elements to give rise to a suspicion that they might be related... They need only contain similar elements. And they are not EVEN similar, except by the vaguest and most illicit generalization. Consider the example of the fish symbol. It is not enough to say, "well, these are similar; both are fish." By that "logic" Kellogg's has a rock-solid case against Exxon!  

Does Christianity contain the story of a dying god-man who is reborn with the promise to save the world? Yes it does. Can we demonstrate that other cultures related to early-Christianity have similar stories? Yes we can - even if those stories are different in detail. No, we can't. The terms "dying," "god-man," "reborn," and "save" are are illicitly generalized; in not one case do the concepts behind the words match with other figures. There is no comparison between Jesus' and Osiris' "death" and "resurrection" (as an Egyptian deity with Lego-block qualities, he never "died" but became inert, and thus never was "reborn" -- as if collapsing down a Jewish resurrection and an Egyptian Lego show under the frame of "reborn" were licit to begin with!). There is no comparison between Jesus' "save" from personal sin and eternal damnation, and Dionysius "save" of whatever (it is never quite specified, but it seems to be the ire of Pentheus!). The main issue here is what conclusions we are prepared to draw from our data. If we can show that a story appeared in one form in one culture; and that a similar story appeared later in a related culture, then it is reasonable to recognize at least the probability of a link in the two stories. But they can't even get that far. There are no "similarities" worth speaking of. That Lincoln and Churchill were "world leaders" who strove for "peace" and "led at a time of war" tells us zero and makes no link to speak of. This is nothing but a generalizaing game. PTET meanwhile refuses to discuss specifics like Mithra's. Christianity expects us to believe story about a dying-and-reborn god-man as "true" while rejecting any remotely similar stories as "myths". I don't "expect" any such thing from anyone. If PTET wants to pledge allegiance to Mithra, he can knock himself out. If he wants to be an apologist for Mithra, he knows where to find us.

Tektonics refuse to accept that any parts of the Bible are mythological. Critics have yet to give a single good reason to think that any part of it is. Non-fundamentalist Christian scholars accept, for example, that the story of Noah's Flood is related to the earlier Gilgamesh epics Note the slippery "related to" -- I agree it is "related to" -- as an independent tradition recalling the same historical event. As noted, though, Gilgy has some weird ideas that point to it being less original than Genesis.; and that the story of the life of Christ evolved over time to meet the needs of the early Christian church. Actually the greater number of even non-fundy scholars have rejected this sort of reasoning; more critical views have emerged since then that recognize this sort of argument as an immensely begged question. But as usual, PTET avoids specifics, other than a sound bite:

"[the New Testament] text was regularly adjusted in such areas as the birth of Jesus, the agony in the garden, the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus' death, his cry of deriliction, resurrection and ascension... And these adjustments were not made by those who were labelled as heretics, but by the 'proto-orthodox,' to use Ehrman's term... Ehrman vividly shows how scribes have preserved or created within the MSS. they were copying reflections of early Christological debates that helped to shaped mainstream christianity" This is from a review of Ehrman's nook on textual corruption, and it's not quite complete. See here, last section. Ehrman is not only out of tune with other textual scholars; he is also using the ideological bat of conspiracy to make ridiculous claims about scribal intent.

"G"

Tektonics: Of great amusement, and exemplary further of PTET's disdain for real scholarship, is its comments to the work of our classical scholar "G." to the effect that he "cannot think of a single case in which Christianity can be shown to have borrowed a core doctrine from another religion". PTET responds (with the air of one fully educated in classics and aware of all the issues) that "'G' does not seem to be much of a scholar. The parallels between Christianity and other mythologies are evident, and are accepted even by such mainstream works as the Oxford Companion To The Bible." (Well, it's better than Asimov's Guide at least.)...

While I am perhaps harsh on "G" Perhaps? PTET practically insulted him., it is ironic to be accused of showing "disdain for real scholarship" by the same Mr. Holding who dismisses The Oxford Companion To The Bible (OCB) with an ad hominem quip...Excuse me? I did no such thing at all: I did not "dismiss" OCB, but noted that it was at least a better source for PTET to quote than Asimov's Guide; though not as good, the point being, as something far more detailed, like a commentary, a topical work, or a journal article. Therefore PTET's following comments are (no surprise) completely misdirected.

The OCB is as close to mainstream, moderate, academically respected scholarly opinion as one could hope for... It was edited by the renowned academic Bruce Metzger (described at Tektonics' page A Review of The Daughter of Babylon as "an excellent scholar" and the author of an "excellent" work on the transmission of the New Testament). Metzger wrote, in his The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, 1965, p86:

"What each evangelist... preserved...  is not a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus, but an interpretative portrait delineated in accord with the special needs of the early church."

It is worthwhile quoting "G" in a little more depth... He writes:

"Points of contact between Christianity and other religions are damaging to Christianity's truth claims only if actual borrowings can be proven - not if the parallel features have simply sprung from the same psychological source common to all humans - that is, from the innate religious instinct which Christians regard as a gift of God."

The first question this raises is the standard of proof expected to prove "borrowing". If the Bible is held to be "inerrant", then no evidence could possibly be allowed to prove it wrong. As it happens, though, "G." is no inerrantist. He's actually a moderate-liberal sort of believer. Oops. Now better find that crowbar; PTET needs to get his foot out of his mouth.... Although Tektonics itself has no "statement of faith" on the point, Mr Holding has written ("Is the ’erets (earth) flat?") for the technical journal of Answers In Genesis, whose editors adhere to that organisation's creed which contains the following statement:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

That's nice. However, "G." is not an inerrantist, has no agreement with AiG on any point other than perhaps (being British in origin) that tea is a good thing, and PTET just keeps cramming more feet in his mouth with every paragraph.

Holding himself offers a looser definition of inerrance [sic] Not really. It's more detailed, but not looser in any sense.:

"I believe that the original manuscripts of the Bible were produced inerrant, but it is my discernment that many, many believers today have a view of inerrancy that could not possibly have been that of that of the writers of the Bible. They fail to account for differences in the way ancient persons thought, acted, or perceived the world... The question that must be asked is, "Would this be regarded as 'errant' by the standards of those who originally wrote the text?" The answer in every case I have found so far is NO..."

Since the acceptance of even one error in the Bible would destroy the foundation of Holding's worldview, Uh, no it wouldn't. It would simply mean abandoning one aspect of that worldview. If PTET didn't have problems with reading more than clips he can abuse, he would see in the same article: Nor does salvation require a functional belief in inerrancy; indeed, if it did, those who were illiterate or did not have a Bible in their own language could never be saved. So what's all this guff about my "worldview" being "destroyed"? Uh huh. Next time, PTET, read the WHOLE article before you wet your drawers getting excited over a sound bite. it is clear that he and his Fundamentalist followers are not able to approach evidence objectively. In that case, why won't PTET get off his duff and show us this? Anyway, as noted, his classing "G." in this crowd is a case of PTET flushing his own polemic down the toilet. He also writes as "Justin Martyr" for Venerable Bede's non-fundamentalist website.

The second question arises from what "G" calls "the same psychological source common to all humans". "G" assumes that this is a "gift of God". But what, one wonders, is this gift? All religions deal with common themes - the source of all that is around us; guidance for life; and what happens after death. We find themes of rebirth, divine punishment and eternal life universally (but very different in detail) across cultures. More specifically, we find stories of re-born god-men throughout ancient European and Middle-Eastern mythologies. But "G" expects us to accept one set of stories, and to reject all others as mythological perversions. That isn't scholarship. It is however a fundamental strawman of G.'s position: That the "themes" are NOT enough of a parallel to justify the sort of conclusion PTET offers; that vague generalization, and collapsing down into catch-all words like "reborn" is illegitimate; that much of the evidence claimed is false or outdated (as with Frazer); that common experience (and whether it is "from God" or not is of no relevance in this context) is a better explanation for the common themes. PTET as usual misses the forest because he slammed headfirst into a tree of his own misapprehension. Of course, this doesn't mean that Christianity isn't "true". The question is rather whether it stands up to historical and scientific scrutiny - and the fact that "parallel features" exist across religions must shed some doubt on the "truth claims" of any one religion. It does not stand up to scrutiny, as my series of articles showed, and as G. supported.

If, as Metzger points out, the New Testament is "an interpretative portrait delineated in accord with the special needs of the early church", then the foundation of Christianity can be based only on faith. How that conclusion derives from Metzger's comment is a mystery. PTET apparently does not consider that the "needs" in question prompted selection of material from a bank of valid accounts, not creation of material on the spot. In any event that's a bad definition of pistis, which hurts PTET here: This was recognised from the very earliest days of Christianity:

"If I had in mind people who taught their pupils in the same way as the followers of Moses and Christ teach theirs - for they order them to accept everything on faith - I should not have given you a definition." By Galen. However, Galen here says zero about the origins of Christianity; he speaks only of conditions in the church, as he observed in his area, at his time (176-190). Using this quote to reference Christian origins is bogus.

"G" relates the life of Winston Churchill to show that he could be described as a mythological hero. Astoundingly, he seems completely oblivious to the fact that this same process can be reversed to show that the New Testament's life of "Christ" can be stripped away of miraculous accounts to leave a real, human being - very much as the Jesus Seminar strives to do for Christ. He is not oblivious to it at all. The process has been and can be done to anyone, including Lincoln and Napoleon. All this shows us is that the Seminar is pursuing the same sort of fallacy, which is why -- contrary to popular belief -- they are nothing but a fringe element in Biblical scholarship, an embarrassment. See here for what I mean in all senses. It is this lack of lateral thinking that leaves "G"'s entire argument wanting. That's why, in my humble opinion, I gave "G" a comedy "F". "Humble" is the one word that is right. In short, PTET made his evaluation based on his own ignorance. It's like Jed Clampett telling Fermi that atoms really do have whipped cream in the center.

Parallel Myths

Tektonics: ...But what are these "parallels"? PTET selects four examples. Three are from Judaism and the Old Testament (not "Christianity" except by adoption[!], and so having nothing to do with the subject of G's essay, which is about pagan parallels to Christ). Two have to do with claims of borrowing on the creation story (which we have covered here, but PTET has apparently not noticed yet) and the Flood. In both cases we would attribute similarities to the commonality of historical experience rather than borrowing either way...

Whatever Mr. Holding says, the majority of scholars - not being Christian Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, admittedly - do hold that Genesis and Noah's Flood are derivations from older, related cultures in the form of the Enuma Elish and from Gilgamesh respectively. No, they do not. Heidel was no Evangelical or Fundy; he was out of the U. of Chiacgo, hardly a bastion of fundy fun to begin with. In essence, though, PTET as usual brushes off challenges of critical comparison, preferring to hide behind the invisible "majority" and unaware that his pants have fallen down.

"G"'s problem is his failure to recognise that the "commonality of human experience", as Mr Holding puts it, is the central point at issue. It is not "the central point at issue" where the particular matter of parallels to Christ are the subject. PTET has simply made an embarrassing blunder and is now trying to excuse it away by stretching to make the subject relevant, through a diasy chain of word games. It is well recognised that large parts of Christian tradition - Easter, Christmas, All Saints Day, etc. - derive from "pagan" influences. Yet without proof of actual copying, they reject any notion that the central tenets of Christianity are essentially indistinguishable from pagan lore. Whatever sense that made. Taking over the holidays of your competitors was normal practice; it's like running a sale at your store the same day as your competition. Another irrelevancy to the matter of conceptual borrowing.

"They [christians] postulate, for example, that their messiah will return as a conqueror on the clouds, and that he will rain fire upon the earth in his battle with the princes of the air, and that the whole world, with the exception of believing christians, will be consumed in fire. An interesting idead-- and hardly an original one. The idea came from greeks and others-- namely, that after cycles of years and because of fortuitous conjunctions of certain stars there are conflagrations and floods, and that after the last flood, in the tiome [sic] of Deucalion, the cycle demands a conflagration in accordance with the alternating succession...This is responsible for the silly opinion of some christians that god will come down and rain fire upon the earth." (77) Oops. Bad news for this one: We DON'T postulate a return on clouds; etc; in fact our eschatology is miles from that once you get past popular lit. So much for that parallel. Celsus was one of the original fundy atheists.

"In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about god. They believe in eternal punishment; well, so do the priests and initiates of the various religions. The christian threaten others with this punishment, just as they are themselves threatened." (121). Notice that Celsus here names none of these religions; he also collapses it down to the phrase "eternal punishment" while ignoring the detailed descriptions that would make all the difference. Notice as well that he says nothing about Christians stealing the idea; this is no more a claim of stealing than Kellogg's vs Exxon. In short Celsus isn't any help to PTET here at all.

Readers of Tektonics would never know that the archeological and other evidence (outside the essentially mythological tales of the Old Testament) are that monotheism did not take hold amongst the ancient Jews until after c. 800 BCE - centuries after the supposed time of Moses, or that the dualistic eschatology found in Christianity and later Judaism almost certainly came from Persian influences during the occupation of Judea c. 539-332 BCE. In a sense that's true. "Tektonics" readers WOULD never know that, because they know from Tekton that monotheism is not the best word for early Jewish belief anyway, and probably also would not be any good in 800 BC either. As for borrowed eschatology, sorry -- preterism is not a thing like Persianism. Too bad.

"After the Exile of the Jewish people and later through contacts with Jews of the Diaspora in many parts of the Mediterranean world, Zoroastrian concepts influenced Jewish thought. Certain ideas about last things, salvation, and Satan (the Evil One) stem from Zoroastrianism." This sound bite is from a religious studies scholar, but it's not an accurate reflection of what scholars of Zoroastrianism say. There is no firm consensus on this subject; some say the Jews borrowed from Persia, some say Persian borrowed from the Jews; some say neither borrowed from the other. There is no proof either way; and sorry -- collapsing it down vaguely is not a reply.

Exodus

Tektonics: ...but in any event, it is out of order to have even selected OT examples in the first place when the subject is Christ-parallels. The third OT example is a claim that an Egyptian story about a character named Sinuhe parallels the Exodus -- this is the first I have heard of such a claim (it has not even come from a source as wild as Acharya S) and we would like to look into it; beyond that PTET claims that the Exodus has "no archaeological evidence to support it," a throw-it-up argument that doesn't deserve the time of day and doesn't even specify what "evidence" should be there that is lacking, much less show any sign of critically analyzing the issue. No doubt we will be eventually fed quotes from Finkelstein and Silberman and expect to believe that this does the job. PTET seems to have a detail-project in the works in this subject, but it has a long way to go, and it's clear they want the victory of the sound bite in the meantime.

The parallels between Sinuhe and Moses were brought to my attention by the Christian website BibleAndScience.com. Oh, that's a good excuse for using a non-authoritative source. (See my page Exploring the Exodus myth Which we will address in context.). It goes without saying that my thesis is based upon the understanding that the story of Moses is mythic in character. Needless to say. In the meantime I looked into Sinuhe and found, as usual, support wanting.

Mr. Holding makes Finkelstein sound like some sort of crank, when in fact he is Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University! He is, in fact, a crank -- as William Dever even indicates, albeit a crank on the least cranky end of a spectrum of cranks. See also here for examples of his poor argumentation. Elements of his scholarship may be controversial - but he is clearly more mainstream than Bryant Wood or David Rohls [sic]. Which of course, in the fantasy land of PTET, means "more accurate". Right.

William G Dever is Professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, and widely recognized as one of the leading archaeologists in the USA. Despite being a noted critic of Finkelstein and the "minimalist" approach to Biblical Archaeology, he is clear that the story of Exodus is unsupported - and contradicted - by several decades of careful research. This is Dever in his own words, from a review of his most recent book I.e., another sound bite. This is not an answer to the chronology shift that Rohl, for example, offers; as such, I will hereby delete it, along with another mere sound bite from Cargill. When PTET can offer more than summary sound bites lacking detailed arguments, we will pay attention.

top

God-Men

Tektonics: The one relevant parallel cited, with reference to Christ, is this mere sentence: " The story contains elements found in the mythologies of almost every culture - a god-man who is killed but reborn, who will return at a future date to offer liberation." Hokey smokes, Bullwinkle! :-) That sure was specific. "God-man"? "Reborn"? "Liberation?" Such broad-brush descriptions are useful for those wishing to obfuscate, or for those of popular mindset with a limited vocabulary, but they fail to do justice to any of the faiths in question. The different "god-men" did their "liberation" in as many ways as Julius Irving has dunks. Big Brother would be proud of such semantic simplicity.

Tektonics work on the assumption that Christianity's miraculous stories should be accepted as true, and that everyone else's are false. Gee, where does it say that in the above? It doesn't PTET completely ignores the point about vague generalizing, and instead resorts to yet another sound bite, this one from a professor of religion, which does not as much as touch the point. Ignoring that still, PTET continues:

The ludicrous thing is that from its outset, Christianity was recognised to be all but indistinguishable from its pagan forebears. And for this, we get another sound bite from -- Celsus! A real scholar of the Bible! Who makes the same mistakes:

"Let's assume for a minute that [Jesus] foretold his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead simple minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolxis, Pythagoras' servant, convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead...Uh huh. Nothing in the least like a Jewish resurrection, as we have shown here. All PTET proves with this is that Celsus was the first to make these sort of idiotic mistakes, which was also the point of my first article in the Christian Research Journal showing that many modern skeptical arguments are just Celsus replayed over and over again. and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy! -or Rhampssinitus in Egypt. The last of these, by the way, is said to have played dice with Demeter in Hades and to have received a golden napkin as a present from her. What about them? Jesus never went into Hades, much less got table settings as a gift. Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesiaus in Thessaly and above all Heracles and Theseus." (67). What about them? The sound bite of no details, obviously, was invented long before PTET.

"Not only do they misunderstand the words of the philosophers; they even stoop to assigning words of the philosophers to their Jesus. For example, we are told that Jesus judged the rich with the saying 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.' Yet we know that Plato expressed this very idea in a purer form when he said, 'It is impossible for an exceptionally good man to be exceptionally rich.' [Plato, LAWS, 743A] Is one utterance more inspired than the other?" (94). Fantastic. Maybe Celsus was unaware that Plato had no word about the kingdom of God. (though maybe that's his "purer" problem, a bigotedness against Judaism). In fact the whole comment smacks of anti-Semitism. Maybe he also needed to check Proverbs for stuff about how riches and goodness don't always get along.

As I point out in my page on Justin Martyr, that proto-Tekton even claimed that satanic forces had planted early stories of mythological god-men to dissuade future generations from believing in "Christ".

"...For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales... And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in..." That's nice. So what? C. S. Lewis said the opposite, that God placed those stories to point people towards the truth. I find it more likely that there is no connection at all, since the comparisons to the other "god-men" as so weak.

Comparative Mythology

Tektonics: Then we have some summary statements that seem to have come straight out of a cereal box prize package: "By Tektonics logic, there would be no reason to doubt the 'truth' of any of the stories of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastarianism or any number of other religious beliefs - since it would be impossible to 'prove' any relationship with other mythologies." Come again? The point of this amalgam seems to have been lost on the way to the 7-11. But if it says what it seems to be saying, then it's a straw man. I happen to think that playing "copycat" with any religion is out of order. If there is not a demonstrated and documented historical link (as with Judaism ---> Christianity) then it is just as asburd to claim Christ is a copy of Mithra as it is to say Zoroaster is a copy of Mithra. In either case it amounts to an insult to the intelligence of people removed from us by thousands of years who cannot defend themselves and make easy targets for the self-assured critic who makes a face out of pretending to be humble, amusing, and objective.

The straw man here is from Tektonics. There is none, since PTET never made a clear statement. As I have repeatedly stated, the argument is not that Christ was a "copy" from an earlier mythology. It may not be PTET's argument; it is the argument of legions of others he apparently has no idea exist. It is that mythologies influence each other, and that we can demonstrate and document conclusively that Christ has similar characteristics to any number of pagan god-men. One can only do that, as has been noted repeatedly, by commiting serious linguistic equivocation. And is Mr Holding seriously saying that without some sort of smoking gun signed confession from the apostles that they copied their life of Christ from some ancient pagans' homework, that we're not allowed to offend their dead memory by actually comparing their claims with those of their opponents? No, I am am saying that the mythologists -- from Acharya to Campbell -- have not so much as even come close to providing worthwhile evidence; much less a smoking gun. Compare all you want' just don't make asinine claims of similarity by yanking on the least common denominator. PTET follows with a few pointles soundbites from a nobody on Talk-Origins who says, "It is the last gasp of a discredited and disproven position to deny that the tools of evidence and reason have a role to play in shedding light upon the past," though who here has done that and how is just one of those sound bite mysteries; and then goes on:

The ancients believed in all sorts of nonsense... in giants with eyes in the center of their chests; that frogs were born from mud; that hitting a woman with a stick could make her fertile... Even today, people believe in such irrational things as channeling, astrology and reincarnation. They also believe in such ridiculous ideas as that making uncritical lists of such things proves that something else they have selected is also irrational. It's called a fallacy of guilt by assoication. In fact, according to a poll by the Christian Barna Research Group (quoted by ReligiousTolerance), born again Christians are more likely to believe in such things than other groups in the USA. Which proves exactly zero about what people believed in the early first century, a time when, as Miller has documented, an attitude of the most extreme skepticism in the ancient world ruled.

We should judge any miraculous claims with at least some air of skepticism... Tektonics argues for the truth of the Bible on nonsensical evidence (Paul says there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection, so there must have been!), while asking for a farcical level of proof to demonstrate that Christianity contains mythological elements. I do no such thing. The "mythological elements" idea is not based on any sort of direct testimony from any person; qualitatively, it is patently ridiculous to compare it to Paul's 500, especially in light of the social factors I named in the link above. The only "farce" here is PTET's continued (non-)defense of the mythologist position.

Old Testament

Tektonics dismiss with the wave of a hand the vast majority of Christian and Jewish scholars who do treat the OT as largely mythological. "Dismissed"? I did no such thing. I asked who the heck PTET was talking to with this comment. Once again PTET has problems handling what I actually do say, so he makes up some crazed idea of what I said instead. PTET follows with yet another generalized, sound bite quote with no specifics argued; an answer to some never-made-here claim that rejecting the OT is anti-Semitism; yet another claim that I "dismiss" people just by asking who the heck PTET is talking about; a sound bite from Bryant Wood, and nothing at all proving I took any such position here. That's a lot of wasted typing on something I didn't say.

Krishna

My position, of course, is that there are obvious similarities - related or not - of various mythical accounts to the story of Jesus Christ. What reason is there, therefore, to accept the life of Christ as "true" while rejecting every other account as mere fantasy? This "conclusion" does not answer a thing I asked, because it refuses to engage specifics. As usual. How about defending the Krisha claims? No? Figures. 

Resurrection

This refers to my page The Resurrection on Trial, where I quote a number of mainstream Christian and other scholars who disagree with Mr Holding's premises and conclusions. As for Hemer, he died in 1987, well before the sources I cite. His work has had a negligable effect on modern Biblical criticism. In other words, PTET hasn't got the guts to actually interact with any of this; not does he apologize for misreading my article. Instead of intreracting, he returns to the old security blanket:

Here's a challenge for readers... Go into any Christian bookstore... Open a number of Bible commentaries at Luke... See how many date it to before 70 CE, and how many to after... The fact is that most scholars recognize that Luke borrows heavily from Mark or a common source; and that neither were eye-witness accounts. See how many (if any!) quote the work of the late Hemer. Then ponder how strange it is that Tektonics can simply ignore such a wide range of opinion...Ponder rather why PTET is too chicken to engage the details. I consulted that "wide range of opinion" and it ignores works like Hemer's (whenever he died, which is of no relevance) to their own detriment; though his work was on Acts and probably would not be quoted or used in Gospel commentaries. Bottom line, this is PTET's usual chicken end-around. If he can't deal in reasons and arguments, he should just hang it up.

New Testament

This I am happy to leave to readers to consider for themselves. My arguments and references are available on my page Testing the reliability of the New Testament. In other words, he refuses to answer, as usual.

Eschatology

This refers to my page Judgment overdue - Just where is Jesus?. Would it be ungracious of me to feel honoured to have so much time spent on my writings by a greater biblical scholar than C. S. Lewis!? Whatever the heck that means.

Mr Holding's arguments can be summarised as follows:

• Nothing in the New Testament indicates that Jesus predicted an imminent final tribulation in the lifetime of his followers
• The New Testament language refers not to "literal events", but to "apocalyptic imagery"

When Paul warns:

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." [Romans 16:11-12]

Mr Holding surmises that this refers to events which took place in 70CE - and that the prophesy was thus fulfilled. The argument continues with references to the thunderous language of the Old Testament prophets which, as Mr Holding points out, demonstrably failed to live up to their literal expectations. In short, Mr Holding's view seems to be that since the literal words of the New Testament have failed the test of time, they can only have been meant to be allegorical. No, it is our view that the "literal" reading was a mistake to begin with. Needless to say, while the summary is reasonably accurate, if you expect PTET to actually interact with it, you may as well go fishing. All PTET does is list what Jesus prophesied, as though by mere statement it would be obvious that it ought to be literal, and then presses this panic button of ignorance: But, if these most portentousness words attributed to Christ are mere allegory, then what reason do we have to believe that anything else he is supposed to have said is literal truth? Uh, gee. How does one NORMALLT tell allegory or metaphor from literal words? Could it be, you do your homework and figure it out based on knowledge of the literature and nature of the period? This isn't rocket science, but it certainly is beyond PTET's ability to reply to, or that of his non-expert Richardson who declares the process arbitary -- as if he or they knew a single thing about ancient lit.

Dating The New Testament

"Most scholars" do indeed date the Gospels to after c. 70 CE (See my page on The composition of the New Testament), although you wouldn't know that from reading Tektonics! You wouldn't? I say so in my articles on the subject!

The one thing that scholars of every persuasion can agree is that the Gospels contain several clear references to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The question then, of course, is whether these references were written before or after that date. Now, given that not one scrap of the gospels has been found - or is even referred to in other writings - before the second century CE, non-Fundamentalist scholars all but universally agree that the only safe conclusion is that the gospels were completed after the fact. Sure they do. And they never answer the question, "Why then should we date the Annals to the second century when we do not have a scrap of them from before the 11th, and never see them referred to before the third?" So where's the "safe conclusion" that Tacitean scholars seem to be avoiding? PTET has no answer for this; neither do those who date the Gospels after 70, and they never will have an answer, other than bias against predictive prophecy. We skip PTET's sound bites on this subject, which contain arguments already answered in our series on Gospel dates.

Eschatology 2

I do, of course, draw my readers' attention to the relevant Tektonics webpages to allow them to check matters for themselves. "Draws attention to" by quoting one dadburned line out of 50 pages. That's really drawing attention and dealing with what was written, all right.

Tektonics pretend that they have settled the issue of "preterism", when in fact their suppositions fly in the face of everything known about first century Judea and early Christianity from extra-Biblical sources - as well as, most scholars say, from the New Testament itself. It does no such thing. It fits in precisely with what we know of Jewish Palestine and early Christianity, and PTET has no actual reply other than sound bites, as usual:

"There is absolutely clear evidence running through the New Testament documents that the early followers of Jesus (Nazarenes) were convinced that they were living very close to the end of the Age. They expected the "Parousia" (arrival) of the Messiah within the span of their generation. This apocalyptic hope was largely based on the preaching of Jesus himself that the "Kingdom of God was at hand," as well as a general understanding of the prophecies of the book of Daniel, especially chapters 9 and 11. It is only in some of the latest texts of the New Testament that this hope begins to wane (e.g., 2 Timothy 4:6-8; 2 Timothy 4:6-8)." That's nice. But we totally agree with this, except where the use of 2 Timothy is concerned. I see no "waning" here at all of any hope -- other than that Paul's own life will be much longer on earth. This has zero to do with the parousia. PTET offers an irrelevant comment on how apoc lit is also found in other cultures, and then:

Tektonics: We also have some comments with reference to our item here on the timing of Jesus' crucifixion. We were first alerted to a PTET claim that our point about John using Roman time was unjustified. We replied with more detail, to which PTET now petulantly replies, "The (sic) provide no references for their assertion about the Roman's 'legal' use of time, which would seem surprising in a culture which only measured time with the use of sundials." It would be even more surprising if PTET were to actually do some real legwork rather than taking the part of the "the ancients were stupid" line. What only having sundials would have to do with it is a mystery, since that would hardly seem to reduce competence in terms of setting rules of measure on those dials or making a simple numeral conversion if one liked, and it is incorrect anyway since the Romans also had water-clocks...

This again refers to my page Testing the reliability of the New Testament. Readers may check my references and arguments for themselves. And we will reply to that in the next few days.

John The Baptist

This refers to my page Did John the Baptist die after Jesus?, which discusses the date given by Josephus for "Johnny B"'s death. On this issue, I'm happy to concede that Tektonics have a good point - Josephus does seem to be woefully inaccurate in his use of dates. I have updated my page accordingly. Josephus isn't inaccurate at all -- modern people just have problems reading. Anyway, it is nice that PTET has conceded his error.

Time of the Crucifixion

This seems to be an argument that daybreak is around the same time as midday. The fact is, of course, that most scholars do think that this is a clear discrepancy in the Gospel accounts. This seems to be PTET not getting the point, and so making up an argument for me and then dodging behind his blanket again. I say no such thing as "daybreak is around the same time as midday".

I note with interest that another "skeptic" has written an essay in answer to Holding's Page. This is [Daffy Duck]'s The Not-So-Impossible Faith. Not only does Holding refuse to link to this rebuttal - it seems that he originally didn't even name its writer That's correct, and he doesn't deserve it, as he is a nobody the same as PTET. I also responded to his lame "rebuttal" here, which PTET is aware of, but rather than attempt his own reply as challenged, he dodges into the "he didn't give a link" crybaby routine. In short, as usual, don't expect an actual answer from this coward..

Readers can check my page Judgment overdue - Just where is Jesus? and its sources for themselves. In other words, he refuses to answer, as usual, and will not admit his mistake this time.

MARK

For Josephus, see my notes above We'll cut it off there. All PTET does is refer back to his original articles, as though no reply had been offered at all. Not surprisingly PTET is "slightly baffled" by my insitance that he deal with his "data" on "The End of Mark". It's very simple: there is a part where I argue that the "abrupt end" is not point for argumentation, since the evidence is clear that the abrupt end is not the original end. Thus it can't be used for any purpose.

As for Holding's response to Richard Carrier, he says a lot more than is reported here:

"...when one is forced to rely on such contentions as a spiritual resurrection, an all-out lie by the Apostles, Jesus surviving crucifixion, the Apostles being deceived over something they were not expecting and could not comprehend in the first place, and the possibility of a lesser deity being responsible for raising Jesus from the dead, I think it becomes quite clear that one can only avoid Christianity by appealing to an all-out desperation card..."

But why should a spiritual resurrection or Jesus surviving crucifixion be any less likely than Holding's interpretation of the Gospel accounts? Uh, because a "spiritual rez" is an oxymoron and not supported by the texts, as we showed here but as PTET ignores. And what about any other possibility - such as that the story is simply a story that grew over time? What about it? It is merely a contrivance and an excuse. No one can or does documents such stages, except by the flawed "spiritual rez" thesis, or my use of phantom documents (like Q) which are said not to mention a rez, or by dating nonsense like the Gospel of Peter far too early and in a way they'd never grant dates to the canonical Gospels. Contrivance is not sufficient. Holding quotes Carrier:

"Since no God would do this, it is reasonable to believe that no God did. And as I explain in my Lecture on the resurrection, it would in fact be cruel of a god to expect us to come to any other conclusion, much less punish us for it, or through inaction let us suffer for it."

Holding's arguments are that if the Bible accounts of the Resurrection are true, then it is unreasonable to believe anything other than that Jesus was bodily resurrected as a miraculous act of God - and that it is "snake oil" to argue otherwise. But what if we have reason to doubt the gospel accounts? We don't. We know, after all, that they weren't completed until a generation after the events they describe. Actually 10-30 years, but we know the same thing about much of secular history recorded by Tacitus, et al and that excuse is not floundered around by secular writers as a reason to dismiss Tacitus. We know that the accounts are both inter-related and contradictory on detail. We know that critics need some education in ancient composition. See again here. The question therefore becomes: why should we believe them any more than any other ancient miraculous account? The question then becomes: When will PTET do some real homework? Because to doubt them is to doubt Christianity itself? No, because the evidence points the other way. The key point here, of course, is Holding's complete inability to doubt any parts of the gospel accounts or of the "truth" of Christianity. They key point is PTET has nothing to offer but a cheap psychoanalysis, and absolutely, steadfastly, refuses to deal with the arguments we present. Period. We skip a paragraph of further such psychoanalysis.

Andrew Bernhard

The point here, surely, is that the authorship of the works of Tacitus and Josephus are not at dispute. The point here is, actually, that if you treat the Gospels as you do these works, then there should be no dispute about them, either. That's the point PTET avoids like the plague. Authorship of the Gospels, on the other hand, was unclear from the outset, and is still at issue. But if they were treated fairly, like Tacitus, they would not be. As ever, readers can check my arguments for themselves at my page The composition of the New Testament as ever, PTET dodges, and merely refers back to his former material as though it had not been mercilessly crushed. Then this sound bite from Mahlon Smith:

"...Origen's identification of the author of the gospel according to Matthew with a character in that gospel named Matthew can be validated only if the description of the character fits the characteristics of the gospel. We agree, and show it our article that it does fit. Papias popularized the hypothesis that identifies Peter as the source of material in the gospel of Mark. Whether he was or not can be determined only by comparing the contents of Mark with what is known about Peter. Very little is known about Matthew & Mark & Peter, however, & what is known does not confirm the claim that the material in our current gospels came from them. Yes, actually, it does, 100%. But where are the specifics? Uh -- Thus, most modern scholars put less stock in legends about persons as sources than in tests indicating that one written document was used as a source by the author of another." You guessed it. No specifics. Typicap PTET.

The article Mr.Holding links to concludes:

"And our bottom line, overall - the traditional view of the Gospels in terms of their authorship, date, and historicity, is supported by the weight of the evidence, and rejected only by those whose own theological agenda forbids them from accepting it."

Compare this with his statement elsewhere on Biblical inerrance [sic]:

"...it is plain that neither the Bible nor a belief in inerrancy is required to be a Christian. If this were so, then skeptics like Frank Morison or C. S. Lewis, who believed in the historicity of the Resurrection but not in the inerrancy of the Gospel reports of it, would never become Christians."Yes, compare it -- why? What was the point? None is given, as usual; PTET just wanders around in the woods pulling quotes from context for no apparent reason. Then, back to the usual posturing:

Mr Holding's position on Gospel authorship is simply ludicrous. But not "ludicrous" enough for PTET to provide an actual answer. Readers of his pages would never know that the vast majority of scholars, Christian and otherwise, reject the "traditional" position as being contradicted by the evidence at hand. Unless of course, they checked matters elsewhere. Or, my own first paragraph, where I say that the "usual" answers are late dates. Note that this "vast majority" merely follows the party line; few investigate the question afresh, and none but I have ever made a comparison to how secular documents are dated. This, one might think, gives some indication of why Tektonics don't think fit to provide links to material which contradicts their "theological agenda". So that people can't see PTET's non-answering sound bites? That's sure a delusion of grandeur. The reason we don't like is here.

"...Irenaeus claims historical priority only for a Hebrew version of Matthew which is no longer in existence. Like a great number of ancient documents that no one thinks are doubtful in existence. Unlike Papias, he does not mention the translation of this work. Why does he need to? Isn't it obvious? Thus, Irenaeus does not support the opinion of those who claim that the current Greek edition of Matthew was composed prior to the other gospels. Nor does his claim that Mark transcribed Peter's preaching support the view of Augustine, Griesbach & other western Christians that Mark condensed Matthew." That's nice. I susbscribe though to neither of these views.

As for Mr Bernhard, he is responsible for the excellent website >Gospels.Net, examining Early Christian Gospels. He majored in Religious Studies focusing on early Christianity, and is currently a graduate student in Greek and Roman History at the University of Oxford. The central tenant of his argument about the dating of the Gospels is that no clear reference exists to them in their current form before c. 150 CE - and that the traditional post c. 70 CE dates given for authorship seem to be a compromise aimed at pleasing both "liberal" and "conservative" academics. It goes without saying that Mr Bernhard's credentials are rather more impressive than either mine or Mr Holding's. And it goes without saying that PTET as usual refuses to offer specific answers to a word we said. I had to scout through Berhnard's article (the websoite says nothing about the canonical Gospels) and what I found was appalling. Despite his credentials, Bernhard does little but call dating of documents a "subjective exercise" and sets down no criteria for dating, refuses to as much as address such criteria (other than extant mss.), and naturally does not make any comparison to dating of secular documents. In essence I didn't miss a thing by not having it available. I PTET disagrees, let him (pfft) try some specifics rather than hiding behind Bernhard's credentials alone.

Redaction

Assuming the unassailable truth of one's source text isn't a valid argument either! In textual criticism, actually it is: Innocent until proven guilty. Saying "nuh uh" is not an answer. Mr. H argues that Luke wrote the "lost" text from John. But the vast majority of scholars believe that the author of Luke was no eye-witness And I agree, but how does that stop him from interviewing such people? Hello? - and that he copied liberally himself from Mark or other sources. Am I arguing from authority? Perhaps - but then I am no authority myself... That's the understatement of the year! And Mr. Holding, as ever, seems to pretend that conflicting authorities - no matter how prestigious and/or Christian - either don't exist or are on a personal mission against his God. I know they exist. I addressed their positions. PTET refuses to respond, merely shooting back the same already-addressed argument. When will hge stop hiding?

"Concerning Luke, Jerome [ca 347-420 CE] wrote (de viris illus. 7):"

"Luke (was) a physician from Antioch. As his writings indicate, he was not ignorant of the Greek speech. As a follower of the apostle Paul and his companion in all his traveling, he wrote a gospel. About him Paul said: "We have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches" (2 Cor. 8:18); and to the Colossians: "Luke the dearest physician greets you" (4:14), and to Timothy: "Luke alone is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11)... Some suspect that whenever Paul says "according to my gospel" in his letters (e.g., Rom 16:23), he means Luke's volume and that Luke was taught the gospel not only by Paul, who had not been with the Lord in the flesh, but also by the other apostles."

"As with his descriptions of Matthew & Mark, Jerome here amplifies standard Greek Orthodox tradition identifying a separate apostolic source for the gospel of Luke. But Jerome was the first writer to recognize a historical problem with the fact that Paul -- the reputed source of Luke's information -- was not himself an eye-witness to the events Luke describes. "Problem"? There is no such problem; the reliability of oral transmission, and that other historians of the day were equally reliant on such testimony, means this "problem" is a modern invention of a generation fooled by Thomas Paine. Therefore, he introduced the suggestion that the information in the gospel of Luke was supplied by anonymous 'other apostles.'"Yes, and what the heck is wrong with that? Who else and what other way would he get it? CNN? Now quoted is Bart "Panic Button" Ehrman, who writes:



"Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. Translation: No one shates Ehrman's paranoiad lack of discipline based on "guilt by association." In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. Vague claptrap. When you get into Ehrman's specifics, he turns into mush. I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not... Same thing: The others do not share Ehrman's unsubstantiated paranoia; therefore they are "ignoring" a problem of his own creation, and as an army of one claiming this, Ehrman flees to the high ground of claiming the problem is real, and he and his genius are being ignored. Try it on secular works and see what happens. It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances, because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly...Again, nothing but vague claptrap; no specifics. No one knows for sure how many differences there are among our surviving witnesses, simply because no one has yet been able to count them all. The best estimates put the number at around 300,000, but perhaps it's better to put this figure in comparative terms. There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the NT" What of it? This is nothing but panic button technique; prior to Ehrman, the deans of textual criticism, Metzger and the Alands, didn't go running around the room like chickens without a head claiming that for all we know the NT could have once been a sandal repair manual. Ehrman argues, simply, from "evidence" to non-evidence -- guilt by assoication. It's a fallacy.

End

And isn't it nice to be back! No. It would have been better to remain gone. Maybe it will happen again in six months when PTET finds a new job.