And another one bites the dust...

Sam apparently got tired of clipping his toenails recently, and decided to address a few of the critics of his heroes down at the Jesus Seminar, including yours truly. Not that what he says amounts to much. He addresses his ire towards one very short section in my very long, four-part project on Harmonization, a combination refutation of anti-harmonizers and certain principles of the Jesus Seminar. What he addresses, actually, are some summary principles in which I very generally address (and recast) the seven "pillars of scholarly wisdom" the Seminar adheres to. What Sam does not address is the real meat of the project, wherein I show just how ridiculous these principles would be if they were applied to our four Lincoln biographies. That's where the real arguments lie, but Sam's toenails apparently caught up to him before he had time to read the whole thing.

At any rate, what's Sam got to say this time? After offering the obligatory insults and such (None of them particularly original, but what to be expected from the charter member of the Beavis and Butthead Bible Study Society?), and expressing some of his personal confusion over my addressing of two topics (harmonization, the Seminar) in one essay set (hint: Sam would have figured out the continuity if he had kept reading), we get down to the actual material at hand. Let's begin with my account of:

General Assumption #1. If it is only mentioned in one Gospel, it is doubtful that it happened. This is nothing more than an argument from silence at its core. Of course, the corollary and logical next steps would be that if it is mentioned in 2 Gospels, it may have happened; 3, it probably did happen, and if it is in all four, it definitely happened; so that would mean that the Resurrection definitely happened! But of course, critics never take these next steps because it upsets the apple cart.

Sam replies, rather interestingly:

What we are dealing with here is attestation. Holding doesn't argue against this presupposition as much as he tries to apply this very reasonable rule to a situation that contains conflicting evidence. Let's read what the rule that Seminar uses when searching for historical information:

Sayings or parables that are attested in two or more independent sources are likely to be old. Note that the rule is neither categorical nor absolute. It is simply a guide on how to evaluate evidence. This same rule is used in courtrooms around the world. Corroborated evidence is more likely believed than evidence which rests on its own authority.

This is rather a short response, but rather long on naivete, and that's in part because Sam apparently didn't take the time to see how I worked out my objections to the Semimar's rule. In the main, I pointed out that several facts were found in only one of the four Lincoln bios; yet who would chuck them merely on that basis? In terms of the claim that the rule is not "categorical or absolute," perhaps this is so as far as application, but that is beside the point. It is a silly rule, completely arbitrary, and is never applied at all to secular works of history, not even with regard to multiple witnesses (like those for Socrates). At the same time, the rule is not used in courtrooms at all, in the same sense that it is used by critics like the Seminar. If a witness testifies to A and B, and another testifies to B and C, this is not taken to mean by itself that A and C do not have sufficient evidence behind them. This only happens if A and C are incompatible in their occurrence, or with B. Put it this way: Additional witnesses gives more reason to believe, but fewer witnesses does not equate with less reason, and this is where critics like the Seminar too often abuse this criteria.

General Assumption #2: If it reflects the needs, likely questions, or problems of the early church, it is doubtful that it was said or done by Jesus. Instead, the words and deeds were written back into the Gospel records. In the words of the Seminar: "Sayings and parables expressed in 'Christian' language are the creation of the evangelists or their Christian predecessors...The Christian community developed apologetics statements to defend its claims and sometimes attributed such statements to Jesus." (pp. 24-5) No matter how fancy you say it, the bottom line is : The Gospels writers were liars. They invented sayings of Jesus to address problems in the church.

Here, Sam accuses me of using the word "liar" because "it invokes the proper emotional response from his less than critical readers." And he's right. No matter how many ways they spin it, or cover it up by referring to "creative communities" and so on, the Seminar is accusing the Gospel writers of lying and fabrication, and no amount of further circomlocution by Sam is going to change that fact. He goes on to add: "The truth of the matter is that the gospels were written with an agenda and the Jesus Seminar realizes the need to see through this smokescreen to get to what is likely to be historical." In response we challenge Sam to read, address, and refute Glenn Miller's item on this subject. No more needs to be said, for a neophyte like Sam, who is unable to recognize that the Seminar has its own biases, deserves no further response from our quarter.

General Assumption #3: If it reflects something that was already being taught in Judaism or some other philosophy at the time, it it doubtful that it was said or done by Jesus. The Seminar puts it this way: "Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus." (p. 23) This is rather a stringent demand to place upon any literary work. To their credit, the Seminar does not ALWAYS say that such quotes are invented; they admit that at times Jesus may have used common lore and proverbs when speaking. (Actually, that Jesus did use common lore and such should be taken as authenticating the Gospel records; but in the wild world of the Seminar, this is not the case.) Skeptics often take this argument a bit further by asserting that elements of the Gospels (the virgin birth, for example) were borrowed from other religions or fables.

In reply here, Sam baldly asserts that "this is true is simply common sense" and repeats the standard line about Scripture-searching Christians who made up "gospel fictions" from the OT (see my response to Randel Helms on this). Also, speaking of Matthew, Sam makes the rather bigoted observation: "There is absolutely no reason to suspect that a Galilean peasant would be so familiar with Jewish scripture that he would be able to quote Zechariah or Jeremiah before there was a fixed Jewish canon." He's wrong on several counts: Matthew was no mere "Galilean peasant" but a tax collector, among the most educated and literate in Jewish society; but even without the identification, Matthew's gospel shows every evidence of having been written by one who was familiar with rabbinical teaching techniques, and is considered widely to be a work of literary craftsmanship. Finally, Sam should know that having a "fixed Jewish canon" had/has nada to do with being able to quote a prophet. Remember (as the Seminar tends to forget), this is an era of strong and accurate oral tradition, of memory and mnemonics. Even the lowest "Galilean peasant" would be likely to spout Scripture more accurately than Sam could even with three KJVs and a concordance at hand.

Finally Sam adds the backhand that "the question is not whether or not the gospel authors used other religions or fables in their stories. The question is how much did they use and from which other religions or fables." Actually the question has been asked and answered in the negative, only there are certain souls who haven't caught on to the joke yet. For the premier refutation of this idea, see Glenn Miller's item here. (Started working on it yet, Sam?)

General Assumption #4: If it has a miraculous element, it didn't happen.

Sam says, "Holding does not attempt to refute this and so we will pass over it." He's right -- such obvious historiographical bigotry/presumption requires no refutation.

General Assumption #5: The Gospel writers added to or expanded upon Jesus' sayings with their own interpretations or comments, or attributed their own statements and/or stories to the Gospels. This is easy to assume, but difficult to prove. The Jesus Seminar creates a variety of scenarios to explain how certain parts of the Gospels have been thusly altered, generally using elements of Assumptions 2 and 3.

Sam asserts to the contrary that "this is quite easy to prove" but he provides no specific examples, only a generalized mishmash reply. He's going to have to do a lot better than that (as well as refute my samples exposing such theorizing in this article before I give him any credit.

General Assumption #6: Many saying of Jesus are invented for the occasion. (p. 30) The Seminar applies this mainly to non-teaching words of Jesus. For example, where Jesus exorcises a demon and says, "Come out of him!" this is regarded as just being storytellers' license to fit the situation. (This is really rather petty - and may we ask what one does say to a demon one is trying to expel? "Upsy-daisy, demon!" perhaps?) It is also said that such sayings could not have been transmitted orally, in the context of a larger story, so they cannot be relied upon - ignoring the possibility that the story itself may have been transmitted in writing, or that oral tradition can indeed be reliable to the required extent!

Sam only replies, "The reason for this should be obvious and the response to it is quite simple. Oral traditions do not preserve little sayings like the one mentioned above but remember the general idea of a story." Actually, oral traditions may indeed preserve such little sayings, but that isn't my main point; my main point is the Seminar's authoritative pettiness is ranking such sayings at all. It's perfectly fine to pass them over, but the egos at the Seminar just can't seem to resist showing off! At any rate, their criteria here, like many of the others, is bare assumption/presumption.

General Assumption #7: Only sayings and actions that fit a specified portrait of Jesus are authentic. The Seminar has a host of criteria in this regard which we will not recount here. However, it is noteworthy that one admonition to their members is to beware of finding a Jesus that is congenial to them - is this not what they are doing when they set arbitrary criteria beforehand? (Obviously, for them, this wipes out all of Jesus' claims to divinity.)

Sam complains that this "is about as vague as it could possibly be" but once again, had he read the remainder of the Lincoln project, he would have seen exactly how my response is put into application. It is quite easy for my fictional Dr. Futz to sound authoritative saying that the Lincoln bios were written by the 20th century civil rights movement to canonize their hero; so likewise the Seminar can easily dismiss whatever does not suit them. Sam then says that my point "assumes knowledge of the scholars' motives and intentions. Since we know that Holding is not omniscient, we can completely disregard this statement as the ranting of someone with a preconceived idea of who and what the members of the Seminar are." Preconceived, is it? It's not necessary: With Robert Funk, the Seminar founder, offering his own raves about the need to come up with a new Jesus unlike the one "fundamentalists" prefer, it doesn't require any "preconceptions" to make this assessment -- the Seminar offers enough grist for the public mill!

I'll close this by noting something Sam is probably unaware of: Opposition to the Seminar is not just the province of raving fundies, but comes from many quarters: From the likes of Luke T. Johnson, Richard Hays, John P. Meier, Jacon Neusner, and now also Philip Jenkins, and others of middle-road persuasion who recognize that the Seminar's methodology is a tragic farce. If Sam wants to defend his heroes, let's see him do so against these guys -- and not against those who he thinks are easy targets. But then, to do that, Sam is going to have to move out of a higher rank of scholarship than reading Where's Waldo? books...and as we all know by now, we may as well expect Martha Stewart to invite Pigpen of the Peanuts gang over for tea and cookies.