Holding has completed his (lame) defense of Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus in regards to my critique of it. It's hardly worth addressing, but, if I don't, he'll run around saying I'm too "afraid" to. So, I'll go ahead and address it.
Holding is of course infamous for being caustic and insulting to skeptics. Of course, I can be caustic and insulting to apologists from time to time. I try not to make it a regular habit, as Holding does, but, sometimes, I confess, I can't resist. For some reason, Holding has generally been somewhat soft on me, not giving me the harshest treatment that he hands out other skeptics. So, perhaps I should likewise give him less than my harshest treatment. Maybe.
Nah. Fuck him. He's a Grade-A jackass all the way. So, I will lay the scorn that his silly little rebuttal to my paper deserves. Warning: more naughty words ensue:
Challenge 1:
Holding says: "Nothing is inaccessible in terms of issues like Jesus' message of salvation."
Well, obviously not if, as according to Evans, scholars come to "unusual portraits" of Jesus by their not knowing Aramaic and Hebrew. He's contradicting that which he is supposedly defending.
Holding says: "The issue is not merely the making of myths, but how well they "stick" as history in the face of adverse conditions, as well as how well truth can be preserved with such functions as ancient orality. [Was the ancient orality as good as my wife's?] At any rate, apparently Jacobsen has refused to educate himself on these matters in the years since he has begun to be a critic of Strobel."
Apparently, Holding has refused to pull his head out of his ass. Yes, I've read his and Miller's stuff on oral societies. Its bullshit. Carrier already refuted this:
Recent studies of oral transmission have confirmed that prose stories become distorted--in fact, they are routinely altered to suit the needs and interests of each particular audience or circumstance. This is especially true when an oral tradition becomes important to some political, social, or religious agenda (for example, see the works of Rosalind Thomas or Greg Sarris). In fact, this is exactly why we turned to a reliance on writing and developed a distrust of oral transmission. Everyone knows that "this guy told this other guy who told this other guy who told me" is never a trustworthy source.
The ancients knew this too. That is why the best historians of the day, such as Thucydides and Polybius, insisted on relying only on direct eyewitness testimony, distrusting oral traditions altogether. Even mediocre historians, such as Herodotus, made a point of relying on no more than one generation removed from eyewitness testimony, and were suspicious of oral reports of more distant origin. Tacitus specifically wrote: "That everything gets exaggerated is typical for any story" and "all the greatest events are obscure--while some people accept whatever they hear as beyond doubt, others twist the truth into its opposite, and both errors grow over subsequent generations"
Given that even people of the day knew that oral tradition is not reliable, Holding is completely full of shit to say in effect, "oh, it was different then, they had MAGIC FUCKING MEMORY back then". Bullshit. The human mind memory is fallible. Holding might consider reading something about studied of the problems of eyewitness testimony:
Holding quoting me: "The point I'm leading to is, there are NO known contemporary references to Jesus--meaning there are no known references to him that date during his lifetime." Holding: "The point being what? This is not a required criteria for having reliable information about a person. Most of what Tacitus writes was written well after the people he relates the history of were dead. Yet I don't see historians throwing out his work to any extent because of this."
Wrong again, dumbfuck. For one, Tacitus lists his sources, and quotes them. The Gospels do not. Secondly, anything that any historian reports, if they are the only source, it is always considered of lesser attestation than if there are multiple good reports. That's not to say that we might not be forced to make best guesses when there is less attestation than we might like. And we might choose to accept something Tacitus says as being "probably true" even without any additional reference. But nobody claims Tacitus is inerrant. Nobody goes around telling people what they should or shouldn't do and that God is gonna get 'em if they don't do what Tacitus says they should.
Holding quotes me saying, "it is beyond my credentials to be able to assert with authority" in regards to my claim that "Which parts of the Gospels are real and which are fictional can, therefore, only be guessed at." AT LEAST I ADMIT MY LACK OF CREDENTIALS, FUCKHEAD. Holding, on the other hand, talks like he's the Pope of History, completely perfect with all knowledge. At any rate, he goes on to note that I used Gottschalk as a reference, and then says, "Why is hard to say, since what he quotes doesn't say a thing about references having to be contemporary for us to have any hope of saying anything about someone." Oh, Gottshalk doesn't, eh? Bullshit. Gottshalk specifically said that the historian relies only upon first-hand accounts (ie. CONTEMPORARY, you dumbfuck) whenever possible. And if not, only secondary sources that can be reliably traced to first hand sources.
Holding: "Gottschalk says clearly that a historian can use eyewitness testimony, which is what Luke does say he does." Except, of course, I covered that already in my article--Holding is too chickenshit to actually address the actual argument. Luke says it was "handed down". Without telling how many hands it was "handed down" from, and what data come from what hands, his claim is worthless. I also quoted from Carrier many other problems with Luke's presentation. And Carrier has much more information on this. But Holding of course does his hand-waving trick and doesn't address it.
Holding mentions my quotes of 1 Tim. 2:11-14 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35, saying they were, "answered ages ago by Miller." In his link, Miller himself admits, "Due to the intense nature of the current debate about this subject, this section will simply NOT be able to deal with the manifold objections to my view." So, basically, from Holding's point of view, he has a link to an article that does some usual Christian bullshit hand-waving, and pronounces, "case closed, nothing to see here, move along." What a jackass.
Holding says, "Jacobsen is also not informed concerning the pool of 'possible witnesses' which would include Jews from all over the Diaspora who came to visit Jerusalem at the same time the events recorded in the Gospels occurred - not just those killed in Jerusalem in 70. He also forgets that there were plenty of things Jesus did outside of Jerusalem."
Most notably however, we have NOTHING from any of those alleged witnesses. All the thousands of people Jesus supposedly healed, fed, etc. none left a single mark. Hmmm. Most curious indeed. Hey, Holding, I've got a billion witnesses that say I fucked your babe. I just won't tell you who they are or what any of them say. Believe me?
Holding says, "There is no 'bias' inherent in Evans idea that time was spent discussing beliefs. Indeed, far from being a 'like us' assumption, it is a case where the ancients were more inclined to something than we are. Socially, it would not only be natural, but expected in a collectivist setting, that the Christian social in-group would discuss their beliefs within a community setting and 'network' with one another."
Ah, sure, of course. That would explain why nobody ever joined a mystery religion, as they all had deep intellectual discussions on it and wisely decided that the mystery religions were myth. Oh, wait, that's false. The mystery religions were significant rivals to Christianity. Once again, Holding doesn't know shit from Shinola.
Holding: See the above link also on oral tradition and a corrective to Jacobsen's allegations about human memory's role.
See actual studies on human memory, such as the book I linked to above, as a corrective to Holding's spurious claims.
Holding: "Summation: Jacobsen has a long way to go with his studies before he is a credible critic of a scholar like Evans."
My summation: Holding has a long ways to go before his head will ever be removed from his ass, particularly since he continues to shove it further and further inward.
Challenge 2:
Holding: It seems that Jacobsen is simply looking for ways to insult a reputable scholar.
When I noted that Strobel didn't point out any expertise on the part of Wallace in Hebrew or Aramaic, that's not an insult, it’s a fact. I don't have any either. But, as per Evans, "Jesus didn’t speak Greek, except perhaps occasionally. Most of his teaching was in Aramaic, and his scriptures were in Hebrew or Aramaic. Yet most New Testament scholars lack adequate training in the very languages and literatures that reflect his world." Any idiot, other than Holding, could see that knowing those languages would be useful in attempting to deduce what was likely originally said. Sure, it might not be 100% necessary, but obviously helpful. It "seems" (quite clear actually) that Holding and Evans want to utilize language skills when they have it, and dismiss it when they don't.
Holding: "holy books" must be held to a different standard -- for no other reason than that his own manufactured uncertainties demand it.
Wrong again, nutjob. It’s the same reason ANY propaganda must be held to a different standard, as per what I quoted from Gottschalk:
One of the most elementary rules in the analysis of testimony is that which requires the exercise of caution against the interested witness. A witness's interest is obvious when he himself may benefit from the perversion of the truth or may thereby benefit someone or some cause dear to him. Certain kinds of propaganda are perhaps the worst examples of deliberate perversion of truth out of a desire to benefit a cause. (Gottschalk p. 156)
Holding: Jacobsen apparently has the idea that a "manuscript" is defined as any FULL copy of a work, which is incorrect.
Holding apparently doesn't know how to fucking read. That is not what I said at all. What I said was: "The fragmentary nature of the manuscripts helps inflate his numbers. For example, he may count a fragment of a few verses of John as a manuscript of the NT. No, it's not a manuscript of the NT; it’s a manuscript of those verses of John." That's what I said, and its 100% correct. Tough shit for you, Holding.
Holding: Getting an exorcism done is not a matter of salvation
It's not, eh? So how exactly does one have an opportunity to accept Christ WHILE POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL? C'mon, you're not this fucking stupid are you? Really? You are?
Holding: He also seems to think that all scribal changes were made with evil intent
Where does Holding get that from? I'm sure most scribal changes were done "trying to make it right". THAT is how legends grow, dumbfuck.
Holding defends Jesus' being angry at someone for wanting to be cured of Leprosy: Jesus had a perfect right to be perturbed. Jesus was preaching in sysnagogues and the man put him "on the spot" to get a healing. But this meant that Jesus would be seen as ritually impure; hence the admonition to say nothing, but the man gracelessly noised about the healing anyway, forcing Jesus to not be able to enter cities openly and continue his work (not because he was unclean in actuality, but because others would see him as so).
What a complete load of bullshit. In Mark 1:29-34, it tells of Jesus healing many, at the door of Simon and Andrew's house. Doesn't say that he didn't want to do healings there. Holding, didn't you bother to read just a few verses above, you complete fucking moron? Besides, so what? Wouldn't anybody want to be cured of leprosy? Ooohh, the man put Jesus on the spot, oooh, bad man oooh….
Holding: There is no evidence of evil intent by scribes here; the two words under consideration are so close in form that accidental transcription of the wrong word is the undoubted cause.
Nobody can prove whether it was a transcription error, or somebody intentionally wanted to "fix" what they though was an error. But what the fuck difference does it make? None. The bottom line is this was an error. And, by the way, an error that would be impossible to trace if the error was made while it was still an oral tradition. I conceded all along that many scholars, even skeptical ones, believe modern translations are very likely very accurate. There is debate and I'm not convinced, but I concede it isn't impossible to be true. But if it is true, only to the point of original writing. What errors made before then are completely impossible to trace.
Challenge 3:
Holding: The claim that Licona's comments on Bayes' Theorem, re: the resurrection and Islamic ideas about the crucifixion, as "in direct contradiction" is abject nonsense. The former has to do with claims made by contemporaries…
Wrong again, shit-for-brains. Licona is obviously referring to INITIAL PROBABILITIES when he says: "Bayes' Theorem requires that you plug in certain background knowledge into the equation, such as the probability that God would want to raise Jesus from the dead. I'm sure you'd agree that probabilities like that are inscrutable." When you add in the alleged claims of contemporaries, the alleged prophesies, etc., as a Christian, Licona would obviously say the probability that God would want to raise Jesus from the dead is high. His referral to Bayes Theorem is obviously a reference to initial probabilities.
Holding: appeals to "initial probability" was defeated in Hume's own day by the "ice analogy":
Its kinda cute how Holding wants you to think he read (doubtful) and understood (impossible) Hume. At any rate, if the concept of initial probability was defeated, you might tell that to Licona--he's the one that brought up Bayes Theorem, you heaping steam of shit-for-brains. Besides, if you were to want more evidence if I claimed that I flapped my arms and flew to the store than if I claimed I walked to the store, you affirm the concept of initial probability and Bayes Theorem.
Holding: Testimony by the likes of Tacitus is dismissed in that it is possible they didn't do any research on the subject (which does not fit the mode of Tacitus at all, but presumably Jacobsen would simply make the excuse that while Tacitus normally did research, he may not have done it that one time).
Holding is correct that Tacitus is generally regarded as doing good research. Why? Because HE TELLS US OF HIS SOURCES. In the one reference to Christians, the fact that he DOESN'T say anything about research, plus the fact that the context was in regards to explaining who Christians were--which doesn't require any research into Christ's life--implies that he did not do any great research on this particular fact. It's as if Holding thinks that if Caesar said he took a shit, Tacitus would look it up in Roman records.
Also of note, the only reason we have any of Tacitus' writings is that parts were preserved by two different Christian monasteries. And yet, neither of them retained Tacitus' writing about the years 29-31, years that presumably could have mentioned Jesus' ministry and execution. Imagine that…
Holding: Jacobsen's plea re the criterion of embarrassment, that "you can't know this without being able to read the author's mind," is simply further paranoia and excuse-making.
Bullshit. You CAN NOT KNOW another person's thoughts and motivations, particularly someone dead 2000 years. Excuse making? Holding, you're the king of excuses!
Holding: he openly declares that given a choice between the swoon theory and the resurrection, he would go to the former.
So? If you were given the choice between swoon theory and the resurrection was faked by an evil alien cloned twin of Jesus, you'd go with the swoon theory, right? Nothing wrong with picking more likely over less likely. In fact, we skeptics give way too much respect for such silly ideas as Christian theology. The idea that God would sacrifice himself to himself to change his own rules is asinine. Hell, I'd probably pick the evil alien clone twin theory over the Resurrection. (And, yes, my one-sentence summary of Christian theology is correct, despite lame protestations to the contrary.)
Holding: the resort to implying that Licona may be a liar in recounting his anecdote of a friend…
Oooh, bad me. I'm so evil for suggesting Licona might be exaggerating. Of course, I ALSO READILY CONCEDED I COULD BE WRONG. I even went so far as to say that if Licona's depiction of his friend is correct, then Licona's fried SHOULD be a Christian! Amazing that Holding doesn't happen to take note of this. Holding, on the other-fucking-hand, declares everything written by skeptics as "canards", implying intentional deception, without a hint that he just might be fucking mistaken. So, he gives himself carte-blanche to declare other people liars, but, oooh, I'm a bad man if I suggest the mere possibility that Licona might be exaggerating. Oooh, I feel SO FUCKING EVIL!!! Blow me Holding, I'm sure you must be really good at it after how many times you've blown Strobel.
Challenge 4:
Holding: Jacobsen seems to be unaware that elements such as the points against Alexander are directed to the likes of Acharya. Perhaps because of his own lack of familiarity with such literature, he does not know who is being addressed.
It is true that I've not read any of Acharya's works. But, I kinda thought Strobel and Yamauchi were addressing readers of Strobel's book.
Holding, in regards to my claims of parallels to the Christian story: That's only because Jacobsen collapses down terms ("impregnating," "worshipped," "a dream") while ignoring the vast differences in the stories.
And I already conceded very big differences in the stories. So? Star Wars had many unique elements, such as the sword fighting with laser weapons. But, it is clearly obvious that it uses many timeless elements, good vs. evil, "falling" vs. redemption, betrayal, spirituality (The Force), etc. The point being is that one doesn't need one story to be exactly like another story before you can point out parallels. But, Holding has nothing left in his tiny bag of tricks to rely upon, but to say, "oh, but MY theology (read: mythology) is DIFFERENT" Bullshit.
Holding: Jacobsen claims there is some "double standard" at work because one interviewee touts the "early" copies of the NT in the second century, and then another interviewee dismisses possible pagan influence because the copies of the pagan documents we have are too "late" because they are from the second century! He is forgetting that the former matter is one that is comparative (the NT versus other documents) whereas the latter is not.
And the point is…? Oh, wait, he has none. My point stands. His response is meaningless.
Holding: Jacobsen needs serious education if he thinks the doctrine of the trinity wasn't established until the Counsel of Nicaea in the year 325.
There were many schools of thought. People who disagreed with the trinity were killed off or otherwise labeled as heretics. Of course so were the people who AGREED with the trinity. Those that agreed with the trinity won out, and it became formally established at the Counsel of Nicaea
Challenge 5:
Holding complains about my prophesy qualifications. Well, of course, he has to. Otherwise, he'd have to admit he's got no case. My qualifications for accepting a prophesy stands.
In regards to the donkey and colt in Matthew: It apparently does not occur to Jacobsen that the plural refers to the cloaks (plural) placed on the animals and not the animals themselves.
I noted in my paper that section was quoted from Paul Tobin. I may send Holding's comments to him. Probably won't bother wasting his time though. At any rate, the scripture says Jesus "sat on them". Even if that meant the plural of the cloaks, the reason there were two cloaks is because there were two animals, so it still comes out to meaning he road on both animals! Of course, it could be said that maybe he meant not simultaneously. Okay, I could buy that. But, as Tobin notes, it is curious that Matthew deliberately changed Mark's singular to plural, which just so happens to be what Zechariah seems to prophesy if you don't read it right. Hmmm, strange how that worked out, isn't it?
Holding doesn't comment on any of my additional arguments, such as how Brown all but admits the virgin birth prophesy is no such thing, how nobody could have verified Mary's virginity even if it did happen; how Martin Luther's anti-Semitic teachings were popularized and utilized by the Nazis to justify the holocaust, etc. Chickenshit.
Challenge 6:
Holding points to an article about Midian, that he says I need to answer to. I haven't yet read it in detail, just skimmed it. But, in my article, I said, "Whenever I've made this observation to Christians, that the Bible itself violates these alleged 'objective moral values,' they instantaneously transform into relativists, claiming that there were different circumstances or cultures or some such that made these 'objective moral values' inapplicable at that time." Which, exactly per my prediction, the article does exactly that. Here is the last footnote in the article: "As in the case of the Amalekites, Israel was forced--by the Midianite atrocity--into the difficult situation of selecting the ‘most humane way’ of dealing with the boys, which, in most situations in the ancient world, was killing them very quickly." Thank you for proving my point, you moral-relativist, you!
Holding accuses me of being "childish" for getting a chuckle out of something stupid Copan says. Oooh, coming from Holding, oooh, boy, I must be bad… Go fuck yourself.
Conclusion:
Holding: Jacobsen's referral to Cialdini is interesting, but he'd have to show us that the book's findings apply in an agonistic social setting.
Oooh, Holding used a big word, "agonistic", he must know something really important! Actually, it's up to Holding to prove they don't. We're talking about basic human behavior, that has been shown through history over and over again. Why don't you and Dr. Cialdini talk it over and see who knows what they are talking about and who has their head up their ass? I think I have a suspicion who is who in that fight.
Sure, I used perhaps excessive "naughty language" herein. I may even edit it someday. But, well, I can't hardly help it, Holding is such a prick. Its clear that he hasn't a "prayer" so to speak, in refuting my articles. He's a one-trick pony and I've smashed his little trick to pieces.
