- Comments Welcome|
A Look at a New Skeptical Cough and Go(ne) |
I'm grateful to Mr. Holding for making some interesting points and picking up a few typos. 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.
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. 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!) 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..."Given that it can be some time before new pages appear on Google - if at all - this policy seems rather wanting. 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. As one of these "rogues" point out:
Tekton Trophy Room, J.P. Holding, Tektonics"[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. In his "Rogue's Gallery" section, he appears to be fighting an army of foes that only he can see... Actions speak much louder than words, and clearly the problem here is that [Holding] is terrified of what skeptics write..."Second, Mr Holding seems to inhabit a strange world in which he, with no University position or standing in non-Fundamentalist scholarship, is able to pronounce the final word on almost any matter of debate. 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. Mr Holding, however, clings to his belief that the Bible is essentially inerrant. Tektonics defend their robust style of debate with reference to ancient apologetics:
J.P. Holding..., bbu84@aol.com"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.
Offensisensitivity, Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?, Tektonics
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. 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.
Further, Holding seems to think that two wrongs make a right. 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..."Mr Holding seems to think that atrocities by atheist dictators somehow lessen the impact of Biblical massacres:
Offensisensitivity, Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?, Tektonics"[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)"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...
SAB Story: Daniel, James Patrick Holding, Tektonics
In any event, these tactics allow Tektonics to claim victory on every issue. 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. Whatever his motivation, one wonders whether it bothers Mr Holding that his style of "debate" often seems childish, cowardly and petulant.
| Tektonics: Case in point. In my summary of copycat saviors I state that "In spite of having been pronounced dead even by intelligent skeptics, the thesis that Judaism and Christianity consist merely of stolen pagan myths and ideas continues to be promulgated by the uncritical and accepted by the gullible." This is called by PTET a "blatant misrepresentation" -- based on, what? On the assessment of the equally unqualified folks at religioustolerance.org, who disagree (but provide few specifics in doing so). That wasn't so hard, was it? Now all I have to do is quote Josh McDowell saying, "oh, yes it is" and PTET can go packing. |
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. Mr Holding, of course, doesn't seem to think that his readers would interested in reading my arguments for themselves.
The "blatant misrepresentation" complained of refers to Tektonics mis-statement of the working of comparative mythology.
No-one argues (of course) that Judaism and Christianity are "merely" "stolen" from other myths... 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 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!
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
I can't speak for "intelligent skeptics", but I can point out that mainstream academic opinion overwhelmingly holds that:
- the history of Israel found in the Old Testament is mythical rather than historical
- the Bible therefore is not "inerrant"
- none of the authors of the New Testament Gospels were eye-witnesses to the "life of Christ"
- the Gospels were completed after c. 70 CE
- the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from that of Mark - or from another common source
- There is no reason - beyond faith - to accept the miraculous accounts of the Gospels over any other miraculous account in any other ancient work
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.
| Tektonics: It is next admitted that while we here "are skilled at pointing out the differences between Christian teachings and pagan myths" and claims made by "popular works on the subject" we "refuse to accept any evidence that Christianity was influenced by pagan mythology." Um, well, now what does that mean, "any"? PTET doesn't go into detail here, though maybe when they get organized in a few dozen years they will. Do they mean, Christianity used some of the same terms as pagan myths? Do they mean, some pagan myths and some Christian stories look alike? What? The obvious intent of this mulluguthering is to paint with a broad brush and earn brownie points from readers while conspicuously avoiding specifics and buying time to figure out exactly what it is they do want to say. (Which it seems obvious PTET is doing, since they refused a challenge from one of our readers to take our Critic's Challenge with respect to the article on Mithraism.) |
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... 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? 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:
"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."As regards Tektonics's Critics Challenge (previously called the "Chicken Challenge"), what's the point? I never say that Jesus was "stolen" from Mithra, and even if I picked a more suitable topic, Mr Holding shows no interest in the usual etiquette of debate. 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.
First Apology, Chapter xxi, Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE)
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..."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."
...the Trilemma, by Brian Holtz, SecWeb
| 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... 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.
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. 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. Christianity expects us to believe story about a dying-and-reborn god-man as "true" while rejecting any remotely similar stories as "myths".
Tektonics refuse to accept that any parts of the Bible are mythological. Non-fundamentalist Christian scholars accept, for example, that the story of Noah's Flood is related to the earlier Gilgamesh epics; and that the story of the life of Christ evolved over time to meet the needs of the early Christian church."[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"
From a review of the work of Bart Ehrman, Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in Novum Testamentum 36, pp. 405-406 quoted here
| 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", 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...
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. 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."Holding himself offers a looser definition of inerrance:
Answers In Genesis Statement of Faith, (D) 6"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 'inerrant' 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, it is clear that he and his Fundamentalist followers are not able to approach evidence objectively.
Inerrancy and Human Ignorance, James Patrick Holding, Tektonics
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. 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."One ought first to follow reason as a guide before accepting any belief, since anyone who believes without testing a doctrine is certain to be deceived" (54).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. This was recognised from the very earliest days of Christianity:
Celsus (c. 175-180 CE), from Quoting Celsus, extracts from Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987."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.""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. 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".
Galen, Rome (c. 176-190 CE) (quoted at EarlyChristianwritings.com)
| 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.
"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 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."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 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).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 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).
Celsus (c. 175-180 CE), from Quoting Celsus, extracts from Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987."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."
The Religious Experience of Mankind, (1984), Dr. Ninian Smart, former Chair, Dept. of Religious Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
| 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. (See my page Exploring the Exodus myth). It goes without saying that my thesis is based upon the understanding that the story of Moses is mythic in character.
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! Elements of his scholarship may be controversial - but he is clearly more mainstream than Bryant Wood or David Rohls.
William G Dever, 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:
"the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region.""Leviticus and Numbers are clearly additions to the 'pre-history' by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the 'promised land,' and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical.... the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term 'myth': perhaps 'historical fiction,' but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs."For a fascinating review of the comparative arguments of leading archaeologists on the historicity of the Old Testament, I recommend Jack Cargill's article in the May 2001 issue of The History Teacher. This concludes:
From a review by Frank E. Smitha of What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? by William G. Dever"The Hebrew Bible is simply not a reliable source for the history of ancient Israel... If we are content to provide students with mythical, legendary, uncritical histories of ancient Israel, how can we have any legitimate grounds for complaint or criticism when others are willing to provide mythologized, fictionalized histories of other peoples and places?"Reading Tektonics, one would think that such opinions are at the extremes of academic thought!
Jack Cargill, "Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks," The History Teacher May 2001 (12 Oct. 2003).
| 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."...the fundamental narrative of the New Testament, the story of Jesus, could be understood as mythic in character. Thus various New Testament writers, although they differ in details, depict a Jesus who is superhuman in nature, the product of a miraculous birth, able to effect healings and exorcisisms and, most important, a being resurrected on the third day after his death. Moreover, according especially to Paul and the author of the gospel of John, there is found in Jesus evern before he is born a cosmic dimension that transcends this worldy space and time (...Logos). Thus the Jesus of Paul and John is described as one who was preexcistent, present in the heavens with God from the beginning of time..."The ludicrous thing is that from its outset, Christianity was recognised to be all but indistinguishable from its pagan forebears.
Susan Ackerman, Associate Professor of Religion, Near Eastern Languages and Civilization, Dartmiuth College, NH, writing in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan, p541
"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... 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. Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesiaus in Thessaly and above all Heracles and Theseus." (67).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".
"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).
Celsus (c. 175-180 CE), from Quoting Celsus, extracts from Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987."...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..."
First Apology, Chapter liv, Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE)
| 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. As I have repeatedly stated, the argument is not that Christ was a "copy" from an earlier mythology. 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. 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?"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."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. 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.
Chris Ho-Stuart, TalkOrigins Feedback, March 2002
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.
| Tektonics: Then we are told, "Moreover, without firm proof of that the Christian 'Life of Christ' actually occurred as claimed, there is no reason to accept it as 'true' while rejecting Old Testament accounts as 'mythology'." Come again, again? Who is it exactly that accepts the life of Christ as "true" but rejects OT accounts as mythology? Some liberals, perhaps. But no one here. |
Tektonics dismiss with the wave of a hand the vast majority of Christian and Jewish scholars who do treat the OT as largely mythological."The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became ‘the people of the Book’ was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic ‘school’ the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time."One charge sometimes levelled by Fundamentalists is that a rejection of the "truth" of the Old Testament is somehow "anti-semitic". This is an absurd lie.
Introduction to the Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973), Ed. Bruce Metzger & Herbert May, emphasis added, quoted here"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation."Mr. Holding dismisses everyone who disagrees with him as "some liberals". Here's Bryant Wood, a Young Earth Creationist quoted several times at Tektonics, admitting that modern scholarship rejects the historicity of the Old Testament:
"Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis..."
"The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document."
As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting, Michael Massing, New York Times, March 9, 2002 (quoted here)"...in academia it's an established fact that this whole time period is legendary... there’s a strong anti-Bible bias in the academic journals that publish archaeological findings... "Like Dr. Wood, Mr. Holding's position seems to be that Fundamentalists are right, and that everyone else is "anti-Bible" and wrong.
A Good News Interview with Bryant Wood, Ph.D., The Bible vs. Modern Scholarship, John Elliott, UCG Canada 2002
| Tektonics: Then we have a section citing Krishna as a parellel -- not to the point of the "Krishna was crucified" deal, which is wisely rejected, but apparently based on Van Eck's Hare Jesus article, which we have addressed here but PTET apparently hasn't seen yet. It is said: "Tektonics would have one believe that either Jesus was Krishna, or nothing." (Whatever that means! Jesus "was Krishna"? Que pasa??) "They fail, at every turn, to consider the possibility that Christian teaching is likely to be, as studies of comparative mythologies show, a mixture of common themes and historical events, made culturally acceptable to the group at which they are aimed." We have considered it. And we have concluded, as I clearly say to Van Eck, that "parallel phrases more likely reflect a widespread proverbial topos based on universal human experience than they do any suggestion of Jews and Christians having no good metaphors of their own and having to shop at the 7-11 for them...Our metaphors are created from our environment; unless the Jews had radically different experiences from the Hindus in these respects (and they didn't), it should be of no surprise -- and of no significance in this context -- that they came up with similar (or the same) metaphors independently. Invocation of Satanic duplication processes and of 'coincidence' isn't necessary. It should not be hard to find comparable advice and metaphors, as we did among the Greeks, likewise among the Amerinds, the Aborigines, and the Norse, without needing to suggest borrowing." So it's back to the drawing board for PTET on this one, perhaps they will have time for more detail work after web surfing. Finally we have this watermelon seed spat in the air: "In fact, by discussing the similarities between around twenty mythological events and Christian teaching, Holding and Tektonics only push their argument to an ever more ludicrous position." How this is so is not explained. Presumably this is a thesis statement that PTET plans to fill in as work progresses, but as it now stands it smells a great deal like someone starting with a conclusion and planning to prove it by hook or by crook, while in the meanntime getting backslaps from fellow skeptics who have no idea what the conclusion means either, but still thoroughly agree with it! |
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?
| Tektonics: A point made here about how those who never hear the Gospel may be saved is somehow seen as "about the truth of the Resurrection" (!). Then we get to some comments on our trial of Jesus piece. In response to my note that we would expect, based on genre considerations and style, Luke to be the one who would report best according to standards of historical reportage, it is said: "The only evidence Holding provides for the 'primacy' of Luke's account is the internal Gospel accounts. He provides no external evidence whatsoever." Then we are provided with a series of sound bites from a mere three sources about Luke that is refuted by our item here and here and here. PTET may perhaps learn more by reading Colin Hemer's extensive work documenting Luke's internal reliability based on external sources. |
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.
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...
| Tektonics: Seemingly meandering about aimlessly, PTET wonders whether there is a defense of the historicity of the Resurrection on the Tektonics site. There is, but not a traditional one, since that argument has been covered more than adequately by folks like William Lane Craig and I see little need to repeat their work. We do also have some answers/links to those who try to unseat the traditional arguments (like Robert Price here and Matt's resurrected saints here and here). But if PTET needs something productive to do we have just the cure for them at the end of this essay. The observations on the trial piece conclude with another of those "I plan to prove it later" just-add-water answers declaring that the Rez accounts in the NT do not stand up to scrutiny. |
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.
| Tektonics: PTET has also ventured to say a few words in response to our series on eschatology. In response to this so far, we have just a couple of burps. Much hullaballoo is made over a "gotcha" quote by C. S. Lewis, who did not understand eschatology either (which we do not fault him for, since he was a lit professor, not a Biblical scholar)... |
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!?
Mr Holding's arguments can be summarised as follows:When Paul warns:
- 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"
"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 13:11-12]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.
Here are some of the events, according to Matthew 24, which Jesus said would occur within the lifetime of his contemporaries, and which Tektonics argue were fulfilled by the sacking of Jerusalem in 70CE: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?
- Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. (9)
- And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (14)
- For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (21)
- And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. (22)
- For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (27)
- Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken (29)
- And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (30)
- And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (31)
- Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (40)
- Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (41)
"Paraphrasing [Tektonics:]...This bit is to read literally, but this bit is obviously not to be taken literally... Oh this bits nice we will have this bit... No that couldn't be right it disagrees with 2000 years of the christian creed!... Chop it, slice it, dice it, put it back together and presto! It says whatever your heart desires it to say... What a marvelous book!..."
Mark Richardson, Re: Preterism, alt.atheism, 2003-11-03 17:50:12 PST
| Tektonics: ...Another argument is made that the Gospels were written after 70 (which actually would not make any difference at all, since most scholars who favor post-70 dates do so on the grounds that the Gospels accurately predict Jerusalem's destruction in the key passages!)... |
"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!
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."[The gospel of] Mark is usually dated between 65 and 75 CE. The first of these dates is set by Irenaeus (late second centruy CE), who said that Mark wrote after Peter's death... The only clue is in chap. 13, which predicts the destruction of the Temple; many commentators contrast the vague reference to the fate of Jerusalem in Mark 13 with the clear reference to the siege of the city in Luke 21:20 and suggest that this indicates that Mark was written before 70CE. But Mark 13 is concerned to separate the disasters which are going to overcome Judea from the supernatural chaos at the end, and it is arguable that it was written in the period following the former to explain why the end was "still to come" (13:7). The gospel of Mark was probably written, therefore, either immediately before or immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE."
Morna D Hooker, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge, England, OCB, p493"It is commonly held that Matthew was written about 85 or 90 CE... A date towards the end of the first century seems probable because the destruction of Jerusalem , which occurred in 70 CE, appears to be an event that was rapidly receding into the past (22:7)."
Jack Dean Kingsbury, Audrey Lee Brooks Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, OCB, p502"Ancient church tradition attributed the third gospel to the Luke... as Paul's 'fellow worker' and 'the beloved physician' in Collossians 4:14... Most modern commentators... however, are skeptical about the validity of the traditional attribution. They regard the tradition as based largely on inferences from the text of the New Testament made when people were first beginning to wonder who had written the Gospels. They further call into question Irenaeus's description of Luke as Paul's 'inseparable collaborator'... [A] larger part of the problem is the relationship of the author of Acts to Paul. In recent decades it has become evident that only with considerable difficulty can one reconcile much of the depiction of Paul in Acts to that which emerges from Paul's own letters... The difference between the Lucan Paul and the Pauline Paul is not minor... The result is that many modern scholars are uncertain about the authorship of Luke-Acts"
Joseph A Fitzmyer, S.J., Professor of Biblical Studies, Emeritus, Catholic University of America, Washington DC, OCB, p470
| Tektonics: ...and a claim that "the idea just does not address some of the clear language of the New Testament" with quotes of passages already exegeted in our articles, with no attempt as yet to refute our exegesis. We also have a confusion of a point we made in an essay on oral tradition and not writing the Gospels down because of an imminent belief in the coming end; actually preterism makes the entire argument by liberals to this effect even more irrelevant, since it is clear no such end was expected that would mean it wasn't worth the effort to do any writing. Not surprisingly PTET fails to quote my exact point on this matter. It is said that our "reasoning is flawed" which seems rather presumptive for what is so far only a commentary of 2-4 pages on over 50 pages of material. There is also a brief comment on only the conclusion of our over-50-pages of material on secular references to Jesus that briefly reuses some of Earl Doherty's arguments. |
I do, of course, draw my readers' attention to the relevant Tektonics webpages to allow them to check matters for themselves.
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."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)."Of course, apocalyptic warnings appear in almost every culture in all but every age.
N.T. Texts on the Imminence of the End, Dr. James Tabor, University of North Carolina"All we see and admire today will burn in the universal fire that ushers in a new, just, happy world."
Seneca, Roman philosopher (c.3 BCE-65 CE), quoted at A Brief History of the Apocalypse
| 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.
| Tektonics: A recent check also shows PTET committing an even more egregious error, referring to "John the Baptist (who Josephus said died in 68 CE)," which is a real hoot and a half since Johnny B. is widely regarded as having died at least 32-40 years earlier. PTET makes him instead a contemporary of Vespasian and Titus! |
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.
| Tektonics: We are then told: "In any event, such a measurement would time John's account of the crucifixion to 6am, much early than the Synoptic accounts. Tektonics accept [sic] this, but argue that the general reliability of John means that this difference in time is not important. Since they will not consider, of course, that any of the Gospel accounts might be in error, one might reasonably doubt their judgment in the matter." Where I say anything in this context about "the general reliability of John" is a mystery. I appeal to the normal amount of time needed for a crucifixion (and I could add, that Roman governmental workdays usually began before dawn, and ran until 11 AM, when most people took a siesta), John's other time markers which make sense in a midnight-midnight model, martydom accounts in Asia Minor where John preached which clearly use the same chrono-reckoning, and an indirectly supportive comment from Pliny about how various professions reckoned time differently. I say zip about "general reliability" in that context. I would add that vague imprecision in time would indeed be expected in an era prior to portable watches; "about the sixth hour" (John's estimate) could mean anything from what we would call the fourth to the eighth hour. PTET needs to do some serious legwork and not just sit at home on the keyboard thinking the job will be done. |
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.
| Tektonics: So now let's close the matter. PTET clearly needs something productive to do, and since they want to talk Resurrection, we have an assignment. This essay, linked on our front page but apparently unnoticed by them, we regard as our own defense of the Resurrection as the only viable explanation for Christianity. Refuting this essay would require intimate knowledge of the social world within which Christianity grew. Therefore if PTET is really up to the task, they should have no problem refuting it and proving that their work is worth any attention. So we challenge them to do so, and when they are finished we'll debate them on neutral turf in a forum. We'll find out if PTET is anything more than a flash in the frying pan. ;-) |
I note with interest that another "skeptic" has written an essay in answer to Holding's Page. This is Brian Holtz'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:"There is an article we often link to here to describe critics, which speaks of those who are incompetent and unaware of it, and whose misplaced self-confidence makes them mistakenly think they are more competent than they are... Curious as to who it is? He has remained unnamed for rhetorical purposes. In the ancient world refusing to name one's opponent was a way of showing contempt for their arguments (but not the opponent himself, necessarily) by depriving them of their "name" authority. Interested in knowing who it is anyway? Write me... and I'll tell you where to find him. I'm curious to see just how many people are interested... Our critic is no one in particular, other than one with a high opinion of his own abilities to speak proficiently on any topic of his choosing. Such is our age of individualism, in which anyone feels themselves competent to comment on any subject merely by virtue of having teeth and a tongue. Had such as our critic been known to Thomas Jefferson, the First Amendment's free speech amendment might well have suffered a series of exception clauses.In this case, I was able to find the "critics" response relatively quickly using a Google search (and Holding now uses the author's name in the title of his page)... But it says a great deal about Holding that he felt the need to attempt control access from his target audience to his critics...
Tiptoeing Through the Dog Pound, James Patrick Holding, Tektonics
I will leave readers to revel in Mr. Holding's "intimate knowledge of the social world within which Christianity grew" for themselves, and to consider just how much his arguments depend upon the assumed historical reliability of the Gospels.
|
Tektonics:
Update: since the above PTET has made the following changes of relevance to us:
|
Readers can check my page Judgment overdue - Just where is Jesus? and its sources for themselves.
|
Tektonics:
|
For Josephus, see my notes above. For Luke see Testing the reliability of the New Testament. As for evidence for the Resurrection, the point is, of course, that is we have reason to doubt the historical reliability of the New Testament, then we have reason to doubt the events it relates. As for Mark, see my page The Resurrection on Trial.
I must confess that I'm slightly baffled by Holding's insitance that I deal with his "data" on "The End of Mark". Holding accepts that the "traditional" verses in Mark 16:9-20 are rejected by early Christian writers:"The above evidence is absolutely decisive. Indeed the internal evidence noted below is not so much proof as it is supplementation in light of the above. No argument for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (hereafter, M16) can move without refuting each of the points above."But while he offers reasons why Mark 16:8 should not have been seen as its original, final verse, he doesn't offer any evidence that as to what its original ending might have been. Does he think that this proves that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic? No-one else outside hardcore Fundamentalism seems to! (For more, see Peter Kirby's page on The Gospel of Mark at EarlyChristianWritings.com.)
The End of Mark, Did the Gospel End at 16:8 - and Would That Be a Problem?, J. P. Holding, Tektonics
As for Holding's response to Richard Carrier, he says:"...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? And what about any other possibility - such as that the story is simply a story that grew over time? Holding quotes Carrier:
Glycon Speaks Again, Part 1, J. P. Holding, Tektonics"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 know, after all, that they weren't completed until a generation after the events they describe. We know that the accounts are both inter-related and contradictory on detail. The question therefore becomes: why should we believe them any more than any other ancient miraculous account? Because to doubt them is to doubt Christianity itself? 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.
Holding's unwavering faith is a poison running through every word of his "scholarship" - for his conclusions are settled before he starts any argument. That may play well to the Fundamentalist peanut gallery - but it destroys any notion of objectivity or the search for anything other than "revealed truth".
|
Tektonics:
|
The point here, surely, is that the authorship of the works of Tacitus and Josephus are not at dispute. Authorship of the Gospels, on the other hand, was unclear from the outset, and is still at issue. As ever, readers can check my arguments for themselves at my page The composition of the New Testament."...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. 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. 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."The article Mr.Holding links to concludes:
Hypothetical Source, A Synoptic Gospels Primer, Mahlon H. Smith, Associate Professor, Rutgers University Department of Religion, 2003"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:
Gospel Dates, Gospel Authors, Gospels Freedoms, J. P. Holding , Tektonics"...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."Mr Holding's position on Gospel authorship is simply ludicrous. 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. This, one might think, gives some indication of why Tektonics don't think fit to provide links to material which contradicts their "theological agenda".
Inerrancy and Human Ignorance, James Patrick Holding, Tektonics"...Irenaeus claims historical priority only for a Hebrew version of Matthew which is no longer in existence. Unlike Papias, he does not mention the translation of this work. 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."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.
Irenaeus (ca. 120-203 CE), A Synoptic Gospels Primer, Mahlon H. Smith, Associate Professor, Rutgers University Department of Religion, 2003
| Tektonics: Fuss is also made about Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 (see here) as evidence that "the Gospels were not in the same form as we know them today," which actually only provides evidence concerning these two passages and says zero about the rest of the Gospel texts -- PTET clearly isn't too well informed on the principles of textual criticism: "Guilt by association" is not a valid argument! |
Assuming the unassailable truth of one's source text isn't a valid argument either! 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 that he copied liberally himself from Mark or other sources. Am I arguing from authority? Perhaps - but then I am no authority myself... 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.
"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. Therefore, he introduced the suggestion that the information in the gospel of Luke was supplied by anonymous 'other apostles.'"
Jerome, A Synoptic Gospels Primer, Mahlon H. Smith, Associate Professor, Rutgers University Department of Religion, 2003
"Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore. 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. 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... 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... 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"
Bart Ehrman, Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Text and Tradition, Lecture to Duke Divinity School, 1997 (quoted here)
|
Tektonics:
|
And isn't it nice to be back!
|
Please link to this page if you copy from or refer to it.
PTET homepage | top of page | e-mail PTET |
|