Avalos responded with six canards which I replied to on TWeb here. The purpose of this supplement is to both report my response and add some depth to it.

Canard 1: Avalos is not a textual scholar.

In trying to refute my claims about our inability to reconstruct the originals of biblical texts, Holding draws on the "credentials card" to refute my arguments. However, this is a bad argument on at least two counts:

1) He is wrong about me not being a textual scholar.

I am not wrong about him not being a textual scholar, unless you define "textual scholar" so broadly as to include Chuckles the Clown. This is precisely what Avalos will do – define it so broadly as to make it meaningless.

2) If I am unable to render judgments on textual criticism because I am not a "textual scholar," then his own ability to render text critical judgments would be vulnerable to the same objection since he is also not a textual scholar.

Not if I use the works of REAL textual scholars to arrive at my conclusions, which I do.

This is so because he has given me the following criteria for being a "textual scholar" (e-mail 1-9-08):

A textual scholar is someone whose specialization is textual criticism, who is recognized as such by his peers and who publishes material on this subject. By this account, Dan Wallace, Bart Ehrman, Bruce Metzger, the Alands, are all textual scholars.

If we analyze this further, Holding provides 2 specific criteria:

1. Specialization in textual criticism

2. Recognized by peers who publish material on the subject

That’s right, and that’s how it works in ALL fields, ranging from your plumber to your chef. So how does Avalos get himself into this category? He doesn't -- what he does is hold up a rose and assure us it is equal to a whole garden. Keep in mind the names I used: Wallace, Ehrman, Metzger. Avalos will deftly avoid any comparison of himself to those worthies. I have not said, note as well, that he knows nothing of textual criticism -- no one can take courses in Biblical studies and not at least get some teaching on that. The issue here is that Avalos considers his counsel on the subject wiser and more worthwhile than that of his more eminent betters on the subject, both Biblical and secular textual critics. To do that, we should expect much better arguments from him and an explanation of why the experience and expertise of these others is to be found wanting.

I may not be the most prominent textual scholar in biblical studies, but that does not mean that I have not been certified by my peers in textual criticism. In fact, some of my earliest specialization in my publishing career was in textual criticism. My credentials are as follows:

Before we get to those, note how Avalos weasels around the problem. "Certified" is a broad, sweeping word that can mean recognition to any level. It does not mean that he has been recognized with a competence equal to a Wallace or a Metzger. Note also that I deliberately dealt with and named New Testament textual criticism as the field and named people in that area. Not OT. If I meant OT, I would have used someone like Emmanuel Tov in my list. And Avalos had to know this is all I was dealing in, since he knows I skipped his sections on the OT. That said, Avalos is also not on the level of Tov either, as will be clear.

Second, none of what Avalos will name amounts to either a "specialization" or recognition by peers in the subject area as a specialist in that subject:

1. Formal training in textual criticism at Harvard under F. M. Cross and John Strugnell regarded as perhaps two of the foremost textual critics of the Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in the last century.

What this amounts to isn't specified. If Avalos took the class under Cross and Strugnell, so did other people at Harvard. And needless to say, this will not make you a Wallace or an Ehrman by any stretch of the imagination.

2. Peer reviewed contributions in textual criticism involving Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ladino, Spanish, and Latin texts. These contributions are as follows:

"The Biblical Sources of Columbus's Libro de las profecías," Traditio 49 (1994) 331-335.

A Ladino Version of the Targum of Ruth," Estudios Bíblicos 54 (2, 1996)165-182.

Deuro/deute and the Imperatives of HLK New Criteria for the kaige Recension of Reigns," Estudios Bíblicos 47 (1989) 165-176.

The last article reported my discovery of new criteria for the recension of the Greek Bible known as Kaige. I found that the Old Greek recension of the LXX used forms of the Greek word poreuomai to translate the unlengthened imperatives of the Hebrew word transcribed here as HLK (means "to go"), while the so-called Kaige recensions uses the Greek words deuro and deute.

Isn’t that all so very special. How this adds up to a "specialization" isn’t explained. At best, compared to the real specialists like Wallace, Ehrman, and Metzger, this is minor dabbling, which is what we’d expect any Biblical scholar to have done at the very least. And two of the articles aren’t even about the Bible! This is like claiming to be a specialist in NT Greek after taking a few courses under Daniel Wallace and writing an article in which you analyze a few Greek words or point of grammar. Avalos isn’t a textual scholar; he is a scholar who has learned the basics about textual criticism. I also want it noted how he responded to my point that two of these were not about the Bible:

Last time I checked the book of Ruth was in the Bible, and my work on Columbus has to do with what Bible he used. So to say that these are "not about the Bible" simply redefines what "Bible" means for him.

Oh yes....a targum of Ruth, and a Bible used by Columbus 1400 years after the fact. That's "about the Bible," all right. Guess who's the real "redefiner" here? This is typical eyewash from Avalos when he is cornerned: He redefines terms, then accuses the opponent of doing so first when he is corrected. A Targum is not about the Bible as it is subjected to textual criticism of itself, which is our subject at hand. Nor is the Columbus Version (whatever it was) of that nature. Indeed, it is far from clear that any of these articles qualifies as "textual criticism" in the sense of getting back to what an original text -- and in particular, in this context, the Bible itself -- actually said. Avalos is once again redefining terms as his needs dictate, and this is yet another example:

Further evidence of being regarded by other scholars as competent in textual criticism was the assignment to review the following book by a major archaeological journal: Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (Oxford, 1981) in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260 (1985) 85-87.

Here’s a description of that book:

In Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Professor Metzger provides an authoritative and absorbing account of the palaeography of Greek manuscripts of both the Old and New Testaments. Part One surveys the fundamentals of Greek palaeography. Part Two, the heart of the book, is a collection of forty-five facsimile pages from thirteen manuscripts of the Old Testament and thirty-two manuscripts of the New Testament.

This isn’t a book about textual criticism – it’s a book about paleography! The two fields are closely related, of course, but despite the semantic trick Avalos is pulling, they aren’t the same thing. Paleography is only part of textual criticism; it is not the whole field. Second, writing a review about a book on a specific topic isn’t the same as being a specialist in it; if this is the case, then we should be able to find that all reviews are written by specialists in the field the book covers, and that is not at all the case. Third, Avalos is trying to confuse the issue by avoiding the delineation of levels of specialty – in short, he is once again falling prey to his black and white fundamentalist mindset. Note how Avalos is very careful to say he is "competent" but avoids what I specifically said – "specialist." There’s a world of difference between "competent" and someone who is a specialist like Ehrman or Wallace.

In contrast, Mr. Holding offers us no peer reviewed publications in textual criticism in recognized journals (his own convoluted musings on his websites don’t count). Nor does any recognized textual scholar I know cite any of his contributions in textual criticism.

Of course, Avalos evades the real issue here, which is that all of my sources from which my arguments are derived – Wallace, Metzger – ARE all serious textual scholars, and their credentials are/were such that they make Avalos look like a piker by comparison.

As an aside, Holding’s use of the credentials card is done on a pick-and-choose basis. For example, he has no problem using "Dr." Jim West as an authority despite the fact that West’s own association with a school (Quartz Hill School of Theology) of questionable accreditation has been the subject of much discussion.

Of course, I didn’t cite West for any academic point, so this is irrelevant nonsense. I cited him for his pointed critique of Avalos' hypocrisy, and you don’t need to be a scholar to see that. That said, the link Avalos provides to here is far from earth-shaking. Quartz is clearly not trying to offer any sort of hard academic degree; much less is there any evidence that it is claiming to be more than it is. It appears to be little more than a sophisticated church training apparatus. I might add that one blog entry (that ends up seriously qualified) hardly amounts to "much discussion," and the issue was brought up only because the blogger thought West was being inconsistent with his position on homeschooling. Quartz Hill itself is not denigrated, other than where an anonymous commenter indicates what it offers would not be acceptable to an institution of higher learning, but it is far from clear that Quartz Hill is reaching for such a goal in the first place.

Yet, he may ignore the comments of a Dr. Zeba Crook, a bone fide biblical scholar. While he does not agree with me on many issues, Dr. Crook does say the following concerning by book, The End of Biblical Studies: "His chapter on Translation (ch 1) is unassailable."

In short, the whole point of this has been that Avalos is NOT on the level of someone like Wallace, Ehrman, Metzger, the Alands, etc. and I notice he doesn’t seem very anxious to equate himself with one of those people. Of course he knows that if he does, he’ll get called down on it and have to admit I was right all along.

Canard #2: On Kings and Ages. Pedantically, it begins with my comment that the inclusion of this next section in a chapter on translation is an oddity.

Actually, here Holding agrees with me, but he seems too obtuse to realize it. I have argued that some translations (New World Translation, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) of 2 Chronicles 36:9do not translate the Hebrew text actually present (at least in the Masoretic Text). Some translations change the number 8 in Hebrew to the number 18 in English to harmonize it with the age of king Jehoiachin reported in 2 Kings 24:8.

So does Holding dispute this? NO. What he does is try to explain WHY translators harmonize their translations. He pretends that he provides an answer that I did not, as follows: "The issue here is therefore not one of "translation" but of a textual-critical decision..."

Yet, my own discussion (EOBS p. 48) already alludes to this when I state: "translators have made the judgment that the number 'eighteen' is correct, and should be inserted even if the text of 2 Chronicles 36:9 does not actually say that. A typical reader would not know of the contradiction without consulting the original language."

This is yet another case of Avalos trying to evade a mistake by playing semantic tricks. He didn’t "allude" to textual critical decision at all in that statement; indeed, his verbiage implies that what was done was a willful mistranslation. He is being dishonest yet again because he knows he has been caught telling only part of the truth. The decision to render 8 as 18 in that verse is not a translational decision. A translational decision would be one in which there was discussion over whether a word in the text meant 8 or 18. It is not the case that some translators think that what Avalos thinks is clearly "8" actually means "18". Rather, they have made a text-critical decision that the original author wrote 18, and that copies which say 8 reflect a corruption.

Now I wish for readers to watch this closely, as Avalos will make a tremendous error, and will not admit that he did so, and then childishly try to reverse the error on to me:

At this point, Holding appeals to Gleason Archer’s explanations for why the numerical mistake might have been made by a copyist. Here is Holding’s quote and interpretation of Archer: A numerical system generally in use during the fifth century BC (when Chronicles was probably composed -- very likely under Ezra's supervision) features a horizontal stroke ending in a hook at its right end as the sign for "ten"; two of them would make the number "20". The digits under ten would be indicated by rows of little vertical strokes, generally in groups of three. Thus, what was originally written over one or more of these groups of short vertical strokes (in this case, eight strokes) would appear as a mere `eight' instead of `eighteen.'" See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background.

However, note the full quote from the article -- what is bolded is not included in what Avalos quotes:

Was Jehoiachin 18 years old, or 8 (per 2 Chron. 36:9) when he ascended the throne? 18 is more likely, and is supported by one Hebrew mss., some LXX mss., and Syriac mss. Gleason Archer ( Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties , 214-5) states: "A numerical system generally in use during the fifth century BC (when Chronicles was probably composed -- very likely under Ezra's supervision) features a horizontal stroke ending in a hook at its right end as the sign for "ten"; two of them would make the number "20". The digits under ten would be indicated by rows of little vertical strokes, generally in groups of three. Thus, what was originally written over one or more of these groups of short vertical strokes (in this case, eight strokes) would appear as a mere `eight' instead of `eighteen.'" See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background.

Clearly, this is not a "quote and interpretation" -- it is ALL quote regarding Archer. But look at what Avalos next does:

First, Holding botches even the explanation given by Archer with this statement: "Thus, what was originally written over one or more of these groups of short vertical strokes (in this case, eight strokes) would appear as a mere `eight' instead of `eighteen.'" NO, what Archer is suggesting is that, if the horizontal hooks are overlooked or removed, then what remains visible UNDERNEATH those original horizontal hooks would appear as a mere eight (see Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 207, where not all notations for "tens" are written above, either).

In other words, Avalos erroneously reads the words quoted from Archer as my own words explaining Archer! How can I botch Archer’s own explanation? I think Avalos needs some lessons in reading comprehension anyway, because the context would that indicate that "written over" does imply something UNDERNEATH. Avalos was apparently in such a hurry that he confused two meanings of "over". But more importantly is how Avalos responds to this error he made when it was pointed out. He does not admit he made a mistake. Rather, he childishly tries to change the subject and blame me for something else:

Mr. Holding is now blaming Archer. Mr. Holding has botched this reading of Archer because he did not compare what Archer said on p. 215 of Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (quoted by Holding) to what Archer said on p. 207. If he had actually read both passages, Holding would have seen the problem I do. It is a botched and poor reading of Archer’s explanation in that sense.

This, frankly, is pitiful. Avalos is like a little child who has been caught throwing his F-filled report card in the trash and claims "the wind blew it" or like the guy on America's Dumbest Criminals who was caught breaking into a hotel room and says he did it "because it looked dirty inside and I wanted to do them a favor and clean it up." This is classic excuse making and evasion of the sort prison inmates never did better. Originally, notice, the "botch" was my alleged interpretation of Archer by using the words quoted, which were actually Archer's words. Now the alleged "botch" is that I failed to compare two separate quotes which Avalos thinks are in contradiction within Archer! As he further says:

Mr. Holding quoted this passage on p. 215 of Archer's work with a presumed endorsement. Thus, he interpreted it to be correct despite the problems posed by p. 207.

We ought not excuse Mr. Holding from at least critically reading the authorities he regurgitates.

Can any Skeptic look at these words and say with a straight face that Avalos can be trusted to tell the truth? They cannot. He is in fact one of the most deceitful Skeptics I have ever opposed.

That said, does Archer indeed contradict himself as claimed? I had no recourse to recheck the original book at the time, but later found it in my collection. I can only surmise that Avalos' conclusion is drawn from what appear to be graphic symbols inserted in the text to illustrate the numerical notation system (207). Based on these, it would likely be understood by a lay reader that Archer meant by "over" that the symbols were above, not written over, each other. Whether this is Archer's fault, or whether the printer was incapable of reprinting the symbols properly, is not clear. However, it remains that Avalos erred grossly in what he said of this matter regarding my use of Archer, and has refused to admit it.

Avalos further claims:

And those of us who have actually studied the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine, Egypt know how misleading Holding’s interpretation of Archer’s explanation is. Papyri from Elephantine from the fifth century BCE form the main data base for Archer’s claims (Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 207). Some manuscripts may have the numerical system Holding parrots from Archer but that is clearly not the case in many or most papyri. Indeed, Archer never gives a specific papyrus from Elephantine to support his claim.

I can’t speak for Archer of course, but it seems to me that the proper answer here would not be to whine that he "never gives a specific papyrus" but to show that he is wrong. Avalos goes on to whine some more about how I "represent" the system (apparently accomplished, as noted, by his own poor reading):

Consider, for example, Papyrus 5 of the Brooklyn Papyri (which are from Elephantine and published in Emil G.Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953). The number 38, appears on the first line. It does not have the horizontal hooks indicating "tens" over digits less than 10, as Holding represents this system. Instead, the hooked signs indicating tens, are on the SAME LINE and BEFORE the signs for digits less than ten.

As noted, I think this is Avalos' own reading comprehension problem. At worst he can blame Archer for not filling in the blanks for him. But the reality is that Avalos has apparently misread Archer's use of the term "over" (assuming he is even right in his professed "correction" of him, which we certainly cannot be assured of at this point!) and has botched his own reading of MY work -- and has shown himself by this single example to be unworthy of the respect normally shown to an academic. Do lies like this pass in peer-reviewed journals like the ones Avalos has published in? One is suspicious that his own past work may not be as competent or as honest as his tenure at Iowa State would indicate.

But Archer’s explanation is irrelevant, as his main goal is to show that a copyist, and not the original author, made the mistake. Nothing he says proves that to be the case. There is no verifiable evidence that Archer can adduce to show that it was the copyist, rather than the original author, who made the numerical mistake in the first place.

Thus, to say that it is A COPYIST’S mistake is already to make a prejudiced and unsupported statement, without seeing the originals.

In this, all Avalos does is repeat his canard that all textual critics are a bunch of doofs for doing conjectural emendations. As I said, this of course is not a worthy answer (especially since Avalos freely appealed to such activity to the benefit of his own case earlier). Conjectural emendation has always been a standard practice in textual criticism, regardless of the availabily of original manuscripts. The real question, which Avalos will not answer, is whether the conjecture made is reasonable.

One of his weaker justifications is that 18 is attested in some "Syriac mss," among others. That is great, except that these translations don’t represent themselves as translating the Syriac manuscripts. They represent themselves as translations of the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. If you are translating the Syriac version of 2 Chronicles 36:9,then using "18" may be fine. But don’t pretend it is the same as the Masoretic version.

Of course, such evidence is used in textual critical decisions, and Avalos is once again trying to pawn it off as a translation issue. It isn’t. Now in this next section, remember that Avalos botches by using my former name to first address me. I will edit it out here and replace it with another name, as is my choice.

And let’s see how consistent Holding is in holding to the inerrancy of the original given the incompetence of the copies and translations. Suppose that Holding believes in the inerrancy of anything original that I write. However, the only witnesses to my writing are flawed copies that use "Jazz Jackrabbit" when translating his blog posts into Spanish, even though the English text says "J. P. Holding."

Those Spanish translations do so because there are other English "witnesses" that attest to "Jackrabbit." Sometimes, there may even be an English textual witness that misspells "Jackrabbit"....and my Spanish translation will yield the most unfortunate name of Roberto Guajolote.

But given that Holding believes in the inerrancy of the original, then I am sure those Spanish translations will be defended with gusto by Holding. He will hold no grudges, and he will pronounce those translations as pretty close to the original, even if not 100% so.

Frankly, I’m not sure what the point here is supposed to be or what kind of parallel is supposed to exist. The flaw with the name comes of Avalos' own stupidity. His source was likely correct at the time it was written concerning my name, but it is outdated now. So it was inerrant when written in that regard, but it is now an anachronism. A Biblical parallel here would be the location of Ezion-Geber, said to be by the Red Sea; Dennis McKinsey regards this as an error because he says the Red Sea has receded and Ezion-Geber is no longer on the shore of it. So the error is with Avalos only. And we’d also call in other factors like my article on my name change, and my historic use of JPH online, and what others (Skeptics and Christians alike) say about the issue, to arrive at a textual-critical decision. All of this is just proving further that Avalos is a near incompetent in the field of textual criticism. (Indeed, in the situation described above, it is not clear who the original author is: myself or Avalos. Is it MY blog posts, or things HE writes, that are being examined?)

And I also don't have a blog I post on with the Holding name.

In the end, Holding can only manage a feeble "everybody does it" riposte when explaining why translators erase contradictions (try that with bank robbery, and see if you don’t end up in a correctional facility Holding may know too well).

"Everybody" here means "all specialists in textual criticism," in this case, people who know their business. The parallel to bank robbery is nonsensical: Avalos is declaring himself more an expert than the real experts here. He has declared that conjectural emendation is wrong as a practice, but has given no reason why it is or why he is to be trusted. Paranoia is not an answer. Now watch as Avalos makes yet another error of the same sort as above, that he likewise will refuse to admit:

To illustrate his "everybody-does-it" strategy, Holding tries to impress us with his flawed knowledge of Piers the Plowman, a Medieval English poem (written in West Midland dialect), and Beowulf, an Anglo-Saxon poem.

"His" flawed knowledge? No, not mine. The material comes from Rich Elliott of Simon Greenleaf University, whose site is the one I linked to. Perhaps Avalos could whine that he had a copy made without the link, but I introduce Elliott's words very clearly as not my own: For example, here an author compares NT emendation practice to that of classical works.

I should also note that Avalos once again changes the subject. The issue here is whether conjectural emendation is a permissible practice in textual criticism. Avalos has distracted from this issue by changing to the subject of teh viability of Elliott's explanation regarding a reading in Piers Plowman. Since this is so, I will not repeat my answer here as I have it on TWeb, though readers may find of interest the correction Avalos receives from a reader of the discussion regarding the term editio princeps.

Canard #3 -- It is TOO anti-Semitism!

To my point that "Jews" NT actually means "Judaeans" it was written:

Holding attempts to whitewash this anti-Judaic tendency in some NT authors by arguing that "Jews" is ONLY a description of territorial/political origins (Judea) and not any sort of religious designation.

Inadequate description. The point is that its basis is territorial; religion is secondary. Of course, according to the ancient mindset, if you came from X place, you were expected to be a certain religion ("Because I am Japanese, I am Shinto"). But it is simply not the same thing as the modern anti-Semitism, in which "Jews" is used as a term of abuse. It is a designation no different than "Americans" or "Germans".

First, Holding confuses etymological origins of the word "Jew" with how it was used and redefined in later times.

No, it is Avalos who does that. But:

In fact, the first use of the word is may not be territorial, but tribal. It describes the descendants of Judah, regardless of where they are born.

Avalos is once again trying to change the subject to score cheap points. We ARE discussing the NT here, and how the word was used there, not the "first use" of the word.

One can be born in the territory called Judea and still not be a Jew. Many gentiles were born in Judea, and were not designated as Jews

Red herring -- I never said merely being born there made one a "Jew". I said: people whose origins were in the political entity known as Judaea. A man born in Judaea whose family came from Rome doesn’t have his "origins" in Judaea.

And "Jews" can definitely include a religious feature, as is clear in Revelation 3:8-9: [8] "`I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door,which no one is able to shut; I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name[9] Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie -- behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.

Notice how Avalos weasels here. He qualifies carefully by reference to a "religious feature" in the word. But that is not the issue. The issue is the meaning of the term and whether it is used in a way that is anti-Semitic in the sense Avalos wants it to be used. It isn’t. As noted above, religion is secondary and accessory. In this passage it merely works under the assumption that all original Judeans will be YHWH worshippers, which was almost always true and part of the collectivist mentality of the age. As for being in Turkey, Diaspoara Jews would regard themselves ethnically as Judeans – not as ethnically what nation they were in. Avalos is obviously unaware of the social factors involved here in which Jews tended to cloister themselves from other ethnic groups and preserve their identity. Avalos abuses Gal. 2:14 and Acts 2:5 to the same purpose.

More importantly, Holding also seems to ignore that collective retribution was a recognized part of biblical thinking.

No, it is I and my sources (like Pilch and Malina) who know this very well. The problem is that Avalos is ignorant of the mechanics of the collectivist mentality in this situation. Avalos goes on to quote rap to me abour collective punishment and guilt, which is all old news to me. Avalos needs to prove collective punishment and guilt in a particular passage, not read it into the text, as he does here:

Thus, the collective guilt imputed to "the Jews" by some NT authors (e.g., Matthew 27:25) is very much consistent with this view of collective guilt and punishment we find repeatedly in the Bible.

I wrote on that too: This verse has been manipulated by anti-Semites to indicate that the Jewish people accepted blood-guilt for the execution of Jesus, knowing that He was innocent But evidence indicates that this is NOT that kind of statement at all! As Sloyan [Sloy.JT, 85] observes:

The expression, far from being a self-inflicted curse, is a strong statement of innocence. It appears in later, mishnaic form in the Tractate Sanhedrin 37a, where in capital cases the witness uses the invocation as a proof of his innocence. If he is lying,he is willing to have the blood of the accused fall on himself and his offspring until the end of the world. Of course, this does come from a late source, but it would be unusual if this phrase meant something exactly the OPPOSITE of what it did previously! Continuing:

Furthermore, Holding’s complaint that I have succumbed to political correctness and paranoia because I point out the anti-Gentilism in the NT overlooks that rather conservative academic scholars have also commented on anti-gentilism in the NT. One example is Luke T. Johnson, who says: "The NT’s harshest polemic by far is reserved for Gentiles, in which it appropriates the themes of contemporary Jewish polemic" (Luke T. Johnson, ,"The New Testament Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic, Journal of Biblical Literature 108, no. 3 [Fall, 1989]:441, n. 66).

Huh. So saying Gentiles did something bad is "anti-Gentilism". Oh...kay. Johnson doesn’t seem to use such a term, though, does he? He doesn't.

Canard #4 -- Barking Seal.

Holding here blatantly misrepresents my argument completely. My argument has to do with whether we can ever reconstruct "the original" out of an existing set of copies. I used an example where one set of copies had the word "lamb of God" and another set of copies used "seal of God." I never denied that it was possible to choose one of those readings as better for THE ANTIGRAPH OF THESE TWO VARIANT SETS OF COPIES.

Oh, sure. He just says things like, "we usually cannot reconstruct an ancient autograph," "it would be difficult to decide whether copy 1 or copy 2 is 'the original'," "How would we know?" and "the 'original text' proves to be a mirage unless we have access to the entire transmission process from inception to current copy" (try that reasoning on an evolutionist). Plenty of misrepresentation there.

Holding confuses determining the best reading for an ANTIGRAPH with proof that this is also the best reading for THE AUTOGRAPH. In more technical terms, he equates the antigraph with the autograph. A common rookie mistake here.

No, what Avalos does all through is deny that this is proof, and it is, whether he likes it or not, and no matter how much paranoia he tries to inject based on his prior fundamentalist mentality. The rest repeats what has already been said, so requires no new answer, though we close with this:

How do you know that the reading reconstructed in any antigraph of a biblical set of texts is THE ORIGINAL reading?

Huh, let's see...how about, the evidence shows that it is? If we want to play "how do you know" games, how do you know your little squirrels aren’t spies from the planet Glorg? What a paranoid and frightful life Avalos must lead. This is the mentality of someone who once believed God watched him in the bathroom.

Canard #5 -- Res Gestae Fib.

Here, Holding attempts to refute my argument that biblical apologists often engage in unfair comparisons that make the NT text appear to preserve something closer to "the original" content intended by an original author better than any non-Christian text in antiquity. I point out that such claims often rely on:

1. Comparisons that can differ by time (e.g. The Quran had probably more copies closer to its date of production than the Hebrew Bible).

Avalos does not accuse any specific person here, but all such comparisons I have seen -- whether from McDowell's ETDAV or the more recent Reinventing Jesus -- include dates of the manuscripts and original production dates when they compare. Perhaps the only exceptions I have seen are exceptionally short summary statements not intended to be full-fledged "comparisons." Not that it matters. The NT is still superior, even if you just use closely contemporary texts.

2. Comparing the best preserved Christian texts against the worst preserved non-Christian texts instead of comparing the best preserved Christian texts against the best preserved non-Christian texts.

Which he does dishonestly, as I note, by switching categories:

I cited the Res Gestae, a text attributed to Augustus Caesar, the Roman emperor (27 BCE-14 CE), as an example of a text that has more of a claim to preserving “the original” words of its author. The Res Gestae offers a contrast to the earliest NT manuscripts, which, at best, preserve, a translation of the words of Jesus some 100-300 years AFTER Jesus lived.

To avoid the obvious superiority of the Res Gestae in this regard, Holding blames the messenger, and accuses me of lying as follows:

And he did lie, as I showed, by obscuring information. Avalos intentionally failed to report is that the Res Gestae is published in the form of bronze tablets affixed to the sides of Augustus' tomb. It is also preserved in inscriptions carved on temples. It is not a text preserved on perishable materials that were intended to be distributed on that material. And all he can do is play games in reply:

Of course, my statements are not a lie because I did not make any false claims about the medium in which the Res Gestae was written. There is no need to mention the bronze medium because I just don’t think that the medium is relevant to my point about the relationship of the content to its author.

Put another way: Avalos got caught with his pants down. That he may happen to be ignorant and think the transmission of the Res Gestae is done no differently than the works of Tacitus may well remove the matter from one of dishonesty to one of incompetence, but in any event, he has switched categories and failed to admit it. Indeed, his further reply bears the hallmarks of childish blame shifting:

Indeed, the sleight-of-hand belongs to Holding, who switches the issue by saying that the proper category for comparison between Christian and non-Christian texts should be 1) texts inscribed on paper; 2) texts intended for distribution. Since the Res Gestae was inscribed on bronze and was not "intended for distribution," then it does not count, for Holding.

So once again, I make the proper correction to one of Avalos' switcheroos, and instead it is me who is "switching"! Amazingly, Avalos is so insensate that he can quote those two significant factors and STILL act as though his blending of categories is proper!

Ironically, in terms of preservation, bronze would support my point, as the biblical God could have chosen bronze just as well. Thus, if we apply Holding’s logic, the biblical god simply does not seem to have the foresight of Augustus in attempts to preserve his words. Holding must think the biblical god is so stupid that he cannot figure out that bronze is better than papyrus for preserving a good record, especially when the salvation of humankind is at stake.

That would only be a problem if we didn’t have a way to reasonably recover the text. We do. It is only Avalos with his manufactured grievances that has a problem.

Second, he does not explain why the medium makes a difference to evaluating whether a text has a claim to being more original or not. Again, the issue is: Does the Res Gestae have a better claim in preserving Caesar’s words or does the NT have a better claim in preserving Jesus’ words?

No, the real issue is comparison to analogous documents. If Tacitus rates a 10 in terms of confidence of recovery, then NT rates a 100. That the Res Gestae rates a 500 doesn’t degrade the NT’s rating at all.

Holding switches the issue by giving the illusion that THE MEDIUM changes our ability to judge the reliability of THE CONTENT of Caesar’s words. It does not.

Indeed, the CONTENT of Caesar’s words is preserved in a text in his OWN LANGUAGE, FROM HIS OWN CLAIMED AUTHORSHIP, AND from HIS OWN LIFETIME. In contrast, the words of Jesus are preserved in manuscripts NOT IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE, NOT BY HIS OWN AUTHORSHIP, AND NOT IN HIS OWN LIFETIME. It is those features that support the claim for a better preservation of Caesar’s words over the preservation of Jesus’ words.

Note as well that Avalos has again switched categories. Things like language and authorship are accessory issues to the one at hand, the preservation of the NT text. They can be argued on their own merits. Avalos throws them into the mix merely to cloud the issue of textual preservation.

Those features would not change if the Res Gestae were written on papyrus rather than on bronze. Besides, there is nothing to prevent scribes from transfering the message on those bronze tablets to perishable materials. So, contra Holding, THE MEDIUM DOES NOT CHANGE THE MESSAGE here.

Oh really? So he doesn’t think someone could take down the old bronze and put something new up 10-20 years later? Either way, none of this scores against the transmission of the NT; it just makes the Res Gestae an A plus plus where the NT is an A plus.

Of course, Holding also conveniently ignores my discussion of the Quran completely, which was written on perishable materials and was meant for distribution no less than any biblical text.

I ignored it because I don’t have any dispute with it in that respect. That said, Answering Islam has plenty of issues with the control of the Quranic text; Avalos can go talk to them if he wants to. I’m sure Jochen Katz will find his temper tantrums amusing.

If we examine further biblical attitudes toward the transmission of texts, then we can see that at least some of the biblical texts also would not fit Holding’s own criteria.

Consider Holding’s criteria that we cannot use texts for comparison that are written on non-perishable materials. This would also exclude some biblical texts that are said to have been written originally in stone. For example, The Ten Commandments in Exodus 34

"The LORD said to Moses, "Cut two tables of stone like the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which you broke."

The book of the Law was not necessarily intended for wide distribution because most people could not read anyway. Rather, the keepers of the law READ IT ALOUD to the mostly illiterate people. Usually, copies were made for a very small set of people like the King (see Deut. 17:18). Otherwise, it was stored in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:24-28).

The fact that the book of the Law was not distributed during the period of many kings is supported by the story of how Josiah did not know of any other copy of the book of the Law until one was "found" by his priests (see 2 Kings 22:8, 13, 16).

Avalos apparently imagines this would pose a problem for me. It doesn't. Once Ex. 34:1 was transferred to text it became comparable to the NT in terms of medium. If it stayed on stone it would not be. And if we had Ex. 34:1 on the original stone tablets I still would not consider it a viable analogy against the NT.

So, by Holding’s logic, we should exclude the law of Moses (or the book of the Law, if it is the same) from any textual comparisons with even better preserved non-biblical texts (e.g. the Quran) because that Law was not written on perishable materials, and its "distribution" was more restricted than even the Res Gestae, which was meant for public view and was not stored in an Ark.

I agree – we should exclude it in its "stone only" and "private view" stages. Once it became committed to papyrus it was a different animal. And by the way, he’s switched again: The issue is NT, not OT. That said, it is clear that Avalos is projecting his own former worries as a fundy. He needs to grow up and learn how silly his objections sound.

Holding also seems ignorant of how unreliable ANY sort of written text was regarded by at least some early Christians. Consider Eusebius’ report about the attitude of Papias, a bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (second century), in determining the teachings of Jesus: "For I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word of a living and surviving voice.: Source: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. J. E. L. Oulton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 3.39.4. Indeed, this harks back to a Platonic tradition (See Plato, Phaedrus, 275) that any written text was inferior to memory and oral transmission.

I’m fully aware of this and even wrote a huge article on it. In fact I used this point in my debate with a TWeb Skeptic recently. But he’s wrenching too much meaning out of Papias anyway (and does he agree with him??). Papias preferred a living voice because he could ask it questions. This has nothing to do with the reliability of textual transmission but the natural lack of interactivity offered by a text.

Canard #6 -- Metzger Mash. Much of this is a repeat of canards past, but other than that:

Moreover, it is Metzger who needs to be defended from Holding, who puts an argument on Metzger’s lips that Metzger himself did not make. Note, for example, that Holding’s only defense for Metzger’s decision in Acts 4:24is that Metzger "was in a position to know why readings of certain types were to be preferred."

That’s putting an argument on his lips how? The point is that Metzger was capable of deciding when or how reverence was a viable criteria, far more so than Avalos. Metzger would have been aware of broader trends in Acts (such as wider scrubbing of divine names) that pointed to a motive of piety. If Avalos disagrees, he needs to show why Metzger is wrong, not just whine about it and yell "how do you know" at the top of his lungs.

My complaint was that Metzger presumes to psychoanalyze the scribe, and Metzger has no credentials in psychoanalysis. But Holding does not mind the lack of credentials in psychoanalysis because he repeatedly engages in it.

Credentials in psychoanalysis are not rquired to to understand reverence and what it entails. Avalos would have us look at someone praying the rosary and claim it was "psychoanalysis" to say they were being reverent; for all we know they could be doing a finger massage on themselves! This is a poor substitute for the fact that he can’t provide a credible alternative hypothesis.