Objected - again with no source cite - that "Jews knew that prophesying was not a privilege or part of the high priest's office...It would have been foreign to the Jewish mind and for even one person to have been put to death to save all of Israel would have been murder." We may reply: 1) The above did not serve to prevent the high priest from issuing a prophecy at all; 2) the latter part fails to consider the political issue at stake. What Caiaphas said would have been said of any perceived rebel that would have endangered Jewish freedom; however, John viewed this statement ironically and in hindsight.

It is written: "Scholar English says cocks were not allowed in Jerusalem at that time." Who this "English" is, and what his source for this data is, is unknown: He is not listed in the bibliography. However, even if true - and I know of no evidence that it is - this would not stop someone OUTSIDE the walls of Jerusalem from owning such a bird - where it could have been clearly heard on a still night INSIDE. (For more, see Glenn Miller's item here.)

Update 3/20/07: Tekton Research Assistant Punkish has found this one; here's his report:

This is one George Bethune English, 1787-1828. He was qualified in theology, was a critic of Christianity and was also a poet and an adventurer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_bethune_english

In 1813 he wrote a book called The Ground of Christianity Examined, and it is in this (chapter 16) I find the cock-crowing argument as follows:

That the author of that Gospel was ignorant of Jewish customs will be evident from the following circumstances. He says Jesus told Peter, that before the cock crew he would deny him thrice; and that afterwards, when Peter was cursing and swearing, saying "I know not the man! immediately the cock crew." Now it is unfortunate for the credit of this story, that it is well known, that in conformity with Jewish customs, at that time subsisting, no cocks were allowed to be in Jerusalem, where Jesus was apprehended. This is known, and acknowledged by learned Christians, who have extricated themselves from this difficulty, by proving that the crowing of the cock, here mentioned, does not mean, as it appears to mean, absolutely the crowing of a cock, but that it means--what dost thou think reader? why it means---the sound of a trumpet!!

I kid you not. The text of this book is online, part of Project Gutenberg: http://ftp.it.net.au/gutenberg/1/5/9/6/15968/15968-8.txt

Minor point: English is talking about the gospel of Matthew, not John. (which makes it all the more hilarious, of course & we still don't know the Jewish customs asserted. I'm probably going to look up Lardner & Warburton regarding the 'learned Christians' bit.)

21. Repeat of previous objection about thieves being crucified plus an incredibly ignorant assertion that the breaking of the legs was "a distinct mode of execution and was never combined with crucifixion." Tell that to the poor fellow named Yohanan, whose bones we have and which indicate that the two were indeed combined. See further Martin Hengel's monograph on crucifixion. McKinsey gets these sound bites from outdated sources like Remsburg without checking to see if they are still valid.

It is asked "what Scripture" this refers to, for the NT had not been written. It refers to the OT, not the NT, and while our subject would indeed argue with the interpretations, that is what John is referring to.

Another objection to this verse made in the newsletter protests from the KJV and other versions, which say that Jesus must "rise again", that this implies that Jesus was raised twice. In the 163rd newsletter, a letter-writer noted:

I've consulted other translations, and a Greek interlinear, and the word "again" is not present. If it's only an error in the translation within the KJV, then there's not really an error in the Bible, is there? If this is the case, why didn't you mention this in your book?

McKinsey replied:

One of the most common errors made by apologetic critics of the King James is their failure to compare it with other versions of Scripture. Rarely is this version out on a limb all by its lonesome as is so commonly alledged by many biblicists. You say you consulted a Greek interlinear and other translations, but did you read the American Standard Version of 1901 or the Bible in Basic English or the Living Bible of 1971 or the New American Standard Version of 1977. As the teen-agers of today would say, I think not. All have the word "again." The ASV and the NASB are especially powerful support for the King James. So now it becomes a question of whose source is more authoritative. Remember what I said long ago? You could be the world's greatest Greek/Hebrew scholar and still find experts disagreeing with your interpretation.

Further blather follows warning of impending chaos is such explanations are allowed, but such chaos only emerges from ignorance on our subject's level, and it seems that he is unaware that a Greek interlinear Bible is the authority that slams the door. The "again" here is not in the text; what is actually here is the word "rise" twice -- a standard method of emphasis upon the point being made in the Hebrew language. (See for other examples of this in Greek where our versions use "again" -- Matt. 2:8 and 7:6. The Greek word for "again", palin, is NOT used.)

Another writer added this in the 166th issue:

The Greek prefix an is similar to the Latin prefix re, which Jerome uses in his Vulgate: a mortuis resurgere. We have many English words derived from Latin which begin with the prefix re, like resurgent, resurrect, replace, restore, etc. The prefix re doesn't necessarily mean that the action had taken place before, any more than the word again. For example we can say, "The Book fell off the shelf, but I put it back again" or "Jesus died, but he rose again...."

And here, the hayseed in McKinsey responded:

You began by saying "The argument over the word again in John 20:9 in some translations seems to me to be a matter of usage rather than literal meaning." Apparently you are saying the word "again" does not mean the event is being repeated. But then you say, "The Greek prefix an is similar to the Latin prefix re, which Jerome uses in his Vulgate: a mortuis resurgere." The prefix "re" means again and all you are doing is providing evidence that those who used the English word "again" when they translated from the Greek were correct. You further verify the accuracy of their translation by saying, "We have many English words derived from Latin which begin with the prefix re, like resurgent, resurrect, replace, restore, etc." All of these words mean the event is happening more than once which provides additional support for use of the word "again" in the original translation. But then you say, "The prefix re doesn't necessarily mean that the action had taken place before, any more than the word again." It doesn't? I think it does. Your own examples which you subsequently submitted prove it does. You say, "For example we can say, 'The Book fell off the shelf, but I put it back again' or 'Jesus died, but he rose again'." These examples are clearly saying the act is being repeated. If no repetition were involved, then the word "again" could be omitted in each.

Aside from mixing a Latin prefix with an English one without being sure of their precisely correlating meaning, note our subject's weasel-shuffle in that last sentence: "could be omitted." He has as much admitted that there may be no error; in such cases context determines the issue, and it is clear here that the context demands an understanding of "again" in the sense the letter-writer has noted. This is yet another case of our McKinsey's ego being unable to withstand being found in error and grasping at any desperate straw to preserve his integrity.

Playing with the KJV again, which renders the above "since the world began," our subject asks what prophet was living when the world began. The above from the NIV captures the literal sense more precisely.

24. Reference to the old Theudas problem

25. Reference to the problems of Stephen's speech compared to the OT; see here

26. Luke 3:1-2 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene--