Tekton Apologetics

In my recent post on J. P. Holding's disregard for what the Bible actually says, I noted that, Holding's thesis is heavily dependent on a projection of modern rationalism back into the 1st century." I attacked his position from the Biblical record, but it's also worth noting that his assumptions are problematic in light of the history of Christian apologetics. Specifically, everything I've read on Christian apologetics as we know it did not exist before the Enlightenment. Of course, humans have always tried to defend their claims by argument after a fashion, and historians of early Christianity think of "apologists" mainly as writers like Justin Martyr, who first appeared in the second century. However, the goal of these second-century apologists was the reconciliation of Greek philosophy with Christianity. Modern apologetics, with its strong emphasis on historical scholarship, is almost entirely a product of the last few centuries.

What escapes Hallquist is that apologetics is driven by what opponents argue (it is, after all, a defense, so that this point is simply meaningless. As further noted by my patristics consult, Matt Paulson -- who is attending Harvard Divinity School at this time -- Hallquist is "utterly wrong in spirit":

The 2nd century apologists didn't simply try to "harmonize/reconcile" the gospel with Greek philosophy; rather, they tried to show the relevance of the gospel vis-a-vis THAT CULTURAL FACTOR WHICH NEEDED TO BE PREACHED TO. More importantly, though, the apologists never acted as though the gospel "had to" prove itself in harmony with the Greeks; rather, they tried to emphasize points of concord, and to show WHY CHRISTIANITY WAS RIGHT at those points wherein Hellenism and the gospel obviously differed.

A few telling examples to disprove the sole factual claim of your opponent [that the 2nd c. apologists were concerned only to reconcile Christianity w/Greek philosophy]: in addition to the two apologies (an attempt to convince Greco-Roman intellectual culture), Justin Martyr also wrote his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; in addition to his Against the Academics (skeptical philosophers), Augustine also wrote his Cty of God, which--at least formally--is to be placed alongside the greatest works of Christian historical theology.

Western intellectual culture was largely subject to Christian influence during the early to late middle ages; whence the surprise that it wouldn't have to emphasize certain aspects of apologetics till later, when Christianity itself was challenged? Suppose that, by the 22nd century, people took very seriously the claim--registered in full philosophical seriousness--that they didn't exist five seconds ago (after all, 'tis logically possible that they came into existence right now with a fraudulent, inbuilt memory); ought we then to blame the whole prior history of Christian apologetics for not having answered this question before it had been raised?

Rather than attempting to posit an unbridgeable chasm twixt early and contemporary Christian apologetics, would it not be much more sensible simply to ATTEMPT TO detect the consistent spirit of the apologetic aspect of the Christian proclomation which has been there from the start, viz., to be all things to all people, and "to run to the point of the battle-line which most needs defending"?

Regading hois book, there's not much to this title. My past dealings with Hallquist showed him to be a shallow thinker and researcher who relies in the main on collections of slogans and canards that he picks as seeds from somewhere else. Here, you could sum up the contents fairly quickly as a mixture of attempts at Hume resuscitated (despite the corpse having been rotted away, and never mind the criticisms of him that are out there); the easiest-to-refute or most outlandish Christian apologetics arguments, refuted and/or exposed (e.g., Vardaman's micro-letters); standard, sloganeered summary positions of arguments that could easily be refuted (e.g., the anonymity of the Gospels); and a collection of UFO stories presented as psychological counterpoints to suggest that Gospel stories are the same sort of thing. It's nothing new, and it's all thrown together haphazardly, as though someone chewed up the Secular Web, and then, after digesting most of it, threw up on a word processor.

There's nothing for me to refute specifically; it's all either stuff I have already refuted, or stuff I wouldn't have argued in the first place. The sum of it is that Hallquist, as before, represents the best in self-assured (yet badly informed) Skepticism on the market today.

Since Hallquist has made such clear errors, and since he has tried to "rebut" my use of the Context Group by re-repeating material by Richard Carrier that I have already refuted, I deem him unworthy of further reply.

By way of demonstration as well, a deunking of his 8 steps to debunk the Resurrection.

• Articles
  • Harmonization: The Issue of Complimentary Accounts -- one of my earliest projects, and still unaddressed by skeptics: a comparison of four lives of Lincoln, and a dare to criticize them the same way the Gospels are. In four very long parts, so grab some popcorn!
  • Do the resurrection accounts hopelessly contradict each other? [Off Site]

• Response to Letter to a Christian Nation
• Response to The Moral Landscape

• Commentary on the torments of hell [Off Site] -- part of a larger series.
• Why does the doctrine of hell appear so late in the Bible?
• Honor and Pain -- how the honor-shame dialectic affects our understanding of Hell.
• Review of Rethinking Hell by Nick Peters
• The alleged slippery slope of hell and metaphor

• Articles
  • Review -- of Gospel Fictions
  • Review of Who Wrote the New Testament?
  • Review of The Bible Against Itself

• Articles
  • Foundational material on oral tradition
  • Profile

• Articles
  • Does Mark contradict Josephus on the death of John the Baptist?
  • Does Mark 6:17-29//Matthew 14:1-12 indicate Markan priority? [Series Hub]
  • Is Luke's episode of Jesus before Herod realistic?

• Articles
  • The Quiet Third -- a foundational article on the Holy Spirit's place in the Trinity
  • on the gender of the Holy Spirit -- looking at one oddball church's view

• Articles
  • Homosexuality and Genesis
  • Does Leviticus condemn homosexuality?
  • "Pais" and homosexuality
  • Paul and homosexuality
  • Does John 21:20 show Jesus was gay? Also useful on the allegation of David and Jonathan being gay lovers, which we cover separately here
• Book Reviews
  • God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines, reviewed by Nick Peters
  • Homosexuality and the Bible -- Two Views, reviewed by Nick Peters
  • The New Testament and Homosexuality by Robin Scroggs, reviewed by Nick Peters
  • Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality by Jack Rogers, reviewed by Nick Peters

• Articles
  • General Critique