|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologetics Ministries | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
A Select Review of C. Dennis McKinsey's "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" [Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy: General Comments] [Christ-Myth Endorsement] [Miscellaneous Objections] [Evasive Maneuvers: Tactical Sample] [Other Tactics] We were warned about this one: Glenn Miller reported that the level of scholarship in this book [McKin.EBE] was pretty low, and I was sure he was right. Still, I had enough curiosity, not to buy it (least of all at the exorbitant price of 50 dollars!), but to ask the big guy to send me his copy for a look-see. And well did I do to avoid paying that hefty sum! As for you skeptical folks out there, I sure hope you haven't spent all of your milk money on this monstrosity. McKinsey, it turns out, is yet another in a long line of hostile skeptics who has no qualifications whatsoever in any Biblical field, knows no Biblical languages, and has no relevant training, yet has the temerity to presume that his "plain reading" of the texts is enough, and that his personal understanding is all that he needs, to offer a critique of the Word of God (never mind any ancient document!). In a few places he clearly disdains the use of extra-biblical sources to aid in understanding the Biblical text -- so much for the use of critical history! -- and often plays the "quote the English versions to prove your point" game used also by my old pal Kornform; but more so than he, McKinsey is highly skilled at manipulation and obfuscation games, and at using polemic to make himself sound authoritative. Like the snake oil salesman of the Old West, McKinsey sells his skeptical readers a bill of goods. (In terms of qualifications, McKinsey says in issue #4 of his newsletter that he has "a bachelors's degree in philosophy and a master's in the social sciences" -- which are about as relevant to serious study of the Bible as, let us say, a degree in engineering.) But enough descriptive polemic: The proof is in the offing. Let's hit the hard data of the matter. First the groundwork and some general considerations:
 Christ Myth, Done Criminally McKinsey exemplifies all the worst that is in skepticism, and it comes as no surprise that he endorses the notion of the Christ-myth. Appropriately, his chapter on the secular references to Jesus also exemplifies the worst sort of errors found in alleged skeptical scholarship on the subject. Since this happens to be a subject which I have gone in-depth on myself, I will use this as a benchmark in considering, overall, how thorough, competent, knowledgeable, and fair-minded McKinsey is. McKinsey begins with the testimony of Josephus. No need to guess: He opts for the old "interpolation" theory for both passages, adopting the naive "all or nothing "approach derided by Charlesworth. Naturally, there is no hint that McKinsey has even glanced at the works of Thackery, Feldman, or any other Josephan scholar. 19 objections are called out against the Testimonium Flavium. 4 of the 19 object to phrases in the Testimonium that are recognized as interpolated. Several items (4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-18) repeat what we have already dealt with elsewhere (here); item 7 particularly is the old "interrupts the flow" objection. Here McKinsey incorrectly asserts that Josephus "was always careful to have a logical connection between his statements." This assertion is directly at odds with the findings of certified Josephan scholars who recognize that Josephus was a "patchwork" writer, not a careful one. Other than that which we have covered there is little new. Item 8 simply quotes Joseph McCabe's opinion that "it is astonishing to find a single theologian left in our time who accepts (the passage as genuine)." This amounts to McKinsey quoting himself as an authority: McCabe is no more informed that McKinsey is. Item 10 notes the Arabic version of the Testimonium and says that it "bring(s) the validity of the entire passage into doubt," which is exactly the opposite conclusion asserted by Josephan scholars, who take the Arabic version as a confirmation of authenticity. Item 12 objects that the Testimonium is "not found in early copies of Josephus," which is abject nonsense as stated: It is found in EVERY extant copy of Josephus that we have. Item 14 is a bit odd: It claims that "in the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius." Interesting if true, but all we are given here is a phantom fact, with no source cited whatsoever. Item 19 is a hoot: Mckinsey reports that Edward Gibbon and "many theologians" think the Testimonium is a forgery. Aside from being merely an argument from authority, we can ask: Is Gibbon, an 18th-century writer, and unnamed, unnumbered "theologians" any basis for authority here? On the small passage, regarding James the brother of Jesus, McKinsey registers 4 objections. Two of these we have covered in our major essay linked above. Item 3 claims that "it is extremely doubtful that James is understood by Josephus to be the physical brother of Jesus, since brotherhood might very well mean only that he belonged to the Jesus sect or was one of the brethren." This objection has no basis in fact at all: McKinsey has simply thrown it into the air with no support (such as parallel usage of "brother" by Josephus in other citations) and cannot be given the slightest credence. (This is a trick I have now found also used by Earl Doherty.) Item 4 simply lists four "Christian scholars" who think that the passage is a late interpolation; I daresay we could name 20 times as many who are of the opposite mind, if McKinsey wishes to play the authority game. If McKinsey's treatment of Josephus is shabby, then his regard for Tacitus is abominable. (Need I say that not even ONE Tacitean scholar is cited or consulted?) 16 objections are offered in EBE (a few more, from the newsletter, we will look at, though they did not make the cut -- for reasons that will be obvious!); some of these we have already dealt with, including item 13, which quotes the 18th-century writer Dupuis - a sure sign of where the arguments will be going - and Item 5, which suggests that Tacitus may have been referring to "any one of the many other so-called Christs" in Judea - which is nonsense, since as we have noted, none of these pretenders went by such a title. The leftovers: Item 1 says that "the worshippers of the sun god Serapis were also called Christians and could be referred to." Earlier I said that, "I haven't the slightest idea where McKinsey gets this idea; I have yet to find a single source that says such a thing, and naturally (again!) he does not give us his source for this information. Even so, Tacitus connects the Christians with a specific person in Judea, and wrote about the worshippers of Serapis elsewhere; his care for accuracy mitigates against such confusion as suggested." An alert reader has informed me that the ultimate source for this argument is a work by Robert Taylor called the Diegesis, which quotes an alleged letter of Emperor Hadrian to his brother-in-law Servianus, which states: Egypt...I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about every breath of fame. The worshippers of Serapis are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis, call themselves bishops of Christ. I have found this cite thrown around uncritically a lot on the Internet, but you won't hear about the problems with it. First, it is generally dated around 134 AD -- much too late to prove what people like McKinsey want it to prove. Second, there is more to the quote: It goes on to speak of rulers of Jewish synagogues, Samaritans, and presbyters of the church, and Hadrian says that there are none of these "who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures," and though they proclaim allegiance to either Serapis or Christ, their only real god is money. Hardian's complaint is about a syncretistic, huckster environment and offers no evidence of a bona fide use of the term "Christian" by Serapis-worshippers. Finally, there are many problems with the authenticity of this letter: An authority as liberal as Walter Bauer (who would have loved to have made hash of this letter for his case for a diverse Christianity) notes that this letter is actually quoted by Flavius Vopiscus (a historian writing in 300 AD!), who in turn is said to be quoting Phlegon, a freedman of Hadrian (and what do skeptics always tell us about using sources this far from the root?!?); Bauer himself says the letter is of "uncertain value" and regards it as "spurious." (See Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity.) McKinsey is only hurting his own credibility by deriving arguments from such worthless sources. Item 2 complains that Tacitus nowhere else refers to Christians. In reply I say, "So what?" Tacitus was not writing a history of Christianity; he was concerned with Roman political history and the deeds of the Emperors. Why should Tacitus have made further mention of Christians? (Although a fragment preserved in Sulpicius Severus indicates that Tacitus did mention Christians in a part of his Histories now lost to us.) Item 4 objects that there is no record of the Crucifixion in Roman records. McKinsey fails to mention that we have no Roman records from the time of Jesus. Item 5 then objects (oddly!) that there would have been no need to mention an insignificant event like the Crucifixion in Roman records. This may or may not be true, but it is beside the point, and no barrier at all to Tacitus' proficient research capabilities. Item 6 is a typical McKinsey hot air balloon: It says that "most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity." That's all it says! Who are these "scholars"? Not the Taciteans, who have said no such thing. Item 7 objects that the confessions the Christians made was to setting the fire, not being Christians, so that the issue "is probably not one of persecuting Christians for what they believed but it was a mere police procedure." Not quite: Tacitus makes it clear that the Christians were singled out precisely because they were hated for what they did as members of a new system of belief. Item 9, referring to the punishments delivered unto the Christians, says that "death by fire was not a form of punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero," so McKinsey asserts that the descriptions of Christians being used as living torches has "little title to credence, and suggest(s) an imagination exalted by reading stories of later Christian martyrs." What colossal incompetence we have displayed here! McKinsey is clearly uninformed of the fact that, according to the Roman law for arson, being burned was the proper punishment, in line with what was prescribed in the Ten Tables. It seems that the Bible is not the only document that McKinsey cannot read properly! (The newsletter adds the objections that 1) "The victims could not have been given to the flames in the gardens of Nero, as Tacitus allegedly said. According to another account by Tacitus these gardens were the refuge of those whose homes had been burned and were full of tents and wooden sheds. It is hardly probable that Nero would have incurred the risk of a second fire by his living torches." ! - As if ancient people were too stupid to keep fires contained! Even assuming this cite to be correct, fire was always needed for light at night and for cooking - no gas BBQs, you know! 2) "Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, 'not even those of condemned criminals.'" Well, this was no "public entertainment," and McKinsey provides no cite (Talk about hypocrisy! McKinsey regularly rails against Christian commentaries for not providing exact data; where is his effort?); but an alert reader pointed me to a passage in Suey's De Vita Caesarum section XII, which is probably the source: "These plays he viewed from the top of the proscenium. At the gladiatorial show, which he gave in a wooden amphitheatre, erected in the district of the Campus Martius within the space of a single year [58 C.E. -- added by editor], he had no one put to death, not even criminals." This refers, yes, only to public entertainment, and to only one particular year and place, which was before Nero went totally cuckoo! McKinsey looks worse as we look further each time! Item 10 objects that "the Roman authorities had no reason to inflict special punishment on the new faith." This particular absurdity is best answered by reading Wilken's The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. Item 12 is an example of skeptical desperation at its highest: It responds to the idea that the passage in Tacitus cannot be an interpolation because it is in perfect Tacitean style and language. McKinsey asserts that "there is no 'inimitable' style for the clever forger, and the more unusual, distinctive, and peculiar a style is, like that of Tacitius, the easier it is to imitate." Thank you, C. Dennis McKinsey, literary critic and conspiracy theorist, for that expert opinion! And now for my opinion, as one versed in literature: McKinsey is wrong on every point. Not even the cleverest forger could achieve such a likeness to Tacitean style as would be required for this passage. (The newsletter has the nerve to add, against Tacitean scholarship and with no support at all, that the passage "has nothing distinctively Tacitean about it"! Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" has found out that this is actually from Arthur Drews' work Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus. McKinsey doesn't even credit his source!) Finally, we will look at McKinsey's treatment of the letter of Pliny. In this section we find an example of either the most patently dishonest, or else the most absurdly careless, sample in the entirety of McKinsey's chapter on the subject. Out of 7 objections, here are the whoppers we have not handled in here, starting with Item 4, which objects that "the passage implies Trajan was not acquainted with Christian beliefs and customs" even though there were Christians in Rome. Well, it implies no such thing; perhaps McKinsey thinks that Pliny's detailed descriptions indicate that he is trying to inform Trajan's ignorance; but if so - a) What of it? Why should the fact that there were Christians in Rome mean that Trajan had to know what they believed? b) Even if Trajan was informed enough, Pliny here, recall, is recounting in detail what he did because he is not sure if he has done the right thing - so you can bet he was going to get VERY detailed in order to keep his behind covered! Item 6 objects that this letter "is found in only one ancient copy of Pliny the Younger." What is the point here? That it is not in OTHER copies? That we have only one ancient copy of Pliny's letters period? Well, what of it? If we're trying to say that this passage is a forgery, then McKinsey will have to do a lot better than citing alleged "experts" from the 16th century (as he does in Item 7) who said that the letter was forged. (McKinsey adds that the age before Tertullian was "notorious for Christian forgeries" - let me add to that, that the 16th through 18th century was notorious for "experts" declaring this or that ancient document to have been forged! Recall what was said about the works of Tacitus in this regard!) And now moving backwards, for the biggest whopper of all of them, number 2: McKinsey says, "if this passage is referring to Christians, then it is also saying that Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims." What hey? Where does McKinsey get this from? He gets it by quoting the letter of Pliny exactly as follows: ...I therefore deemed it the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave women whom they call deaconesses. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition...the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse [by them] are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere, though til recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it. Whoa nelly! Them ellipses in the middle cover a multitude of sins! Here's what McKinsey left out of the quote. After a further word about the proceedings, Pliny writes: For this contagious superstition is not confined to the city only, but has spread through the villages and rural districts. It seems possible, however, to check and cure it. It is certain at least that the temples, which had almost been deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred festivals, after a long intermission, are again revived, while there is a general demand for sacrificial meat, which for some time past had met with few purchases. This is truly incredible! The indication here is that pagans are the ones doing the sacrifices - not the Christians!!!! McKinsey has so badly mangled the sense of this letter that he must either be making a deliberate fabrication or else he did not consult his primary source. How can anyone take McKinsey seriously after seeing this? In conclusion: This is positively the most corrupt, most incompetent, and most absurd handling of the secular evidence for the historical Jesus that I have ever seen. McKinsey does not even deserve a whiff of credit here - and let what we have seen above serve as warning to those who use his material as a source: Use it at your own risk of profound embarrassment! |Miscellaneous Monstrosities Well, that's our main and exemplary topic done. Now let's run over a few of the more interesting bits by McKinsey that are pertinent to my subject field. These samples should be enough to convince any Christian reading (and any objective skeptics out there) that anyone who hauls out McKinsey's book to make a point is better greeted with gales of laughter than given serious consideration.
Evasive Maneuvers The following is an entirely new section of this essay based upon a letter that appeared in the 56th issue of the Biblical Errancy newsletter, written by a staff member of the Christian Research Institute. McKinsey replied at some length to this letter, which reads as follows: Your criticism of the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation is based, I would venture to say, on a complete lack of familiarity with the literary forms of the ancient Near East, and in particular with that form which has been dubbed "apocalytic." If you were familiar with these literary forms, you would not have made the mistake that Ingersoll, Jefferson and Paine made in thinking the author of the Book of Revelation to be insane. No one in first or second century Judaism would have questioned the sanity of that author. Modern literary and other media art forms (music, films, etc.) employ equally weird symbolism to communicate ideas. While we may not find such art to our taste, it is narrow-minded and simplistic to dismiss all such works of art as the products of insane men. By the way, some have hailed the book of Revelation as "the only masterpiece of pure art in the NT" {See: William Barclay, The Revelation of John, Vol. I (Westminster, 1976), page 2}. What concerns us here is indeed hard data, as always, but I also have a special purpose in mind. The reply by McKinsey that follows, in my estimation, offers a perfect microcosm of the underhanded tactics, word games, and manipulations used by McKinsey to sway his readers. For we have shown repeatedly that it is not scholarship that enables McKinsey to do his work; rather, it is his skill as a debater that wins the day. As one trained in recognizing such tactics when used by others, I shall here be exposing a series of his mental manipulations in order to allow the reader to further understand that McKinsey is no threat to the Christian faith, and in fact, is little more than hot air. Here is McKinsey's reply in entirety: Most of your comments are without merit and deserving of correction, Robert. First, your statement that I erred "in thinking the author of the Book of Revelation to be insane" like Ingersoll, Jefferson, and Paine is inaccurate. I said "the writing, itself, may bring the author's sanity into question. The books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and especially Revelation, are sufficient within themselves to bring the author's mental stability under scrutiny" and I reaffirm that observation. "I'm reminded of the comments by Ingersoll, Jefferson and Paine" was an addendum. I never flatly said the author was insane. For me to have directly stated as much would have been inappropriate as I have no more awareness of the mental state or motives of ancient authors than do you. In fact, why would you even make such a comment when your own letter on page 3 in the Feb. 1987 issue has the same question and my response. Your letter stated: "My first question had to do with the motivation and sanity of the biblical writers. You answered that because the identity of the writers is in many cases uncertain, their motives and sanity cannot be ascertained with any certainty....Your answer amounts to 'I don't know and that's fair." How often must I address the same query? Second, your statement that "no one in first or second century Judaism would have questioned the sanity of that author" is rather presumptuous, wouldn't you agree. After all, how could you possibly know what was in the mind of, or speak for, every Jew living nearly 2,000 years ago? Third, your comment that my "criticism of the books of Daniel...is based, I would venture to say, on a complete lack of familiarity with the literary forms..." is nearly as tenuous, since you know little about my knowledge of ancient Near East literary forms. Of course, you covered yourself to some extent by saying: "I would venture to say" which concedes an element of guesswork. Fourth, you even admit these writings employ "weird symbolism" to communicate ideas, so don't be so eager to indict those who have doubts about the mental stability of the authors involved. Fifth, although "some may have hailed the book of Revelation as the only masterpiece of pure art in the NT" others clearly disagree. Martin Luther, who holds a position in Christendom immeasurably higher than that of William Barclay, stated in this regard: "About this book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion.... I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic....there is no prophet in the OT, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it....they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep...My spirit cannot accomodate itself to this book...Christ is neither taught nor known in it....Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely. {Luther's Works, Vol. 35, American Edition, Philadelphia, 1960, pages 398-99}. Luther subsequently stated: "This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it, but until this very day they have attained no certainty. Some have even brewed into it many stupid things out of their own heads. Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John the Apostle.... For our part, we share this doubt." {Ibid. page 400} I will readily admit here McKinsey's obvious skill at piling on and plotting his responses for the greatest effectiveness -- it is little wonder that he excels at direct debate on radio and has a preference for that medium. But taken to bits, we shall see that the manipulations and evasions become quite clear. Once analyzed piecemeal, the fearsome squall becomes rather a summer shower. Most of your comments are without merit and deserving of correction, Robert. McKinsey typically begins larger his responses this way -- with a short, descriptive comment denigrating the quality of his opponent's argument. I don't begrudge him this; it is a literary and polemical tactic used very commonly and quite honestly by many, including myself. However, be aware of it, and know that he is expert at "piling on" such body blows for the purpose of effect. It is not in itself an argument, and proves nothing. It merely sets the stage for the point of view that follows. First, your statement that I erred "in thinking the author of the Book of Revelation to be insane" like Ingersoll, Jefferson, and Paine is inaccurate. I said "the writing, itself, may bring the author's sanity into question. The books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and especially Revelation, are sufficient within themselves to bring the author's mental stability under scrutiny" and I reaffirm that observation. "I'm reminded of the comments by Ingersoll, Jefferson and Paine" was an addendum. I never flatly said the author was insane. For me to have directly stated as much would have been inappropriate as I have no more awareness of the mental state or motives of ancient authors than do you... Here, however, is where McKinsey's manipulations and obfuscations begin. True, he never "flatly" states that the authors of these books are insane; he roundaboutly says it, thereby gaining the polemical advantage of associating in the reader's mind these Biblical writers with insanity. He gains the point without stepping into commitment -- an excellent tactical move, but once exposed, completely useless. The same polemical advantage is gained by quoting the likes of Paine, Ingersoll, etc. as saying that the writers were insane. Let us put it this way. Whether said "flatly" or not, McKinsey is indeed arguing that the Biblical authors are not sane. Consider the argument this way: "I never said flatly that the ball was not red. I merely stated that the appearance of the ball was sufficient within itself to bring its redness under scrutiny." What is the point in saying the latter, unless it is your point to show that the ball is not red? What, otherwise, is being argued? That the ball might not be red? Granting that the determination of sanity is a far more complex issue, it still behooves one, if insanity is implied as a possibility, to thereafter offer some reason why insanity is suspected. Perhaps McKinsey could have offered samples of actual works written by the insane in order to make a comparison. But without some kind of backup data of this sort, all that is left is the questioning of sanity based on the critic's own preconceived notion of what "sanity" comprises. There is no objective basis. How does McKinsey know that it is not he who is insane, while the Biblical writers are in their right mind? Bottom line: While seeming somewhat solid to the beginning reader, it should be realized that this is no more than a manipulative obfuscation on McKinsey's part, a way of arguing something while claiming not to be arguing it, without dealing with the hard data -- and that leads to our next entry. Second, your statement that "no one in first or second century Judaism would have questioned the sanity of that author" is rather presumptuous, wouldn't you agree. After all, how could you possibly know what was in the mind of, or speak for, every Jew living nearly 2,000 years ago? Presumptuous? McKinsey, in raising questions of the sanity of the Biblical authors, has already "presumed" a certain value judgment in that regard. Do not let the fact that he has been lucky enough to raise the issue first sway you: Only hard data wins the day, and in that arena, the CRI rep has McKinsey over a barrel. What evidence is there that any Jew thought that the writers of Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. were insane? Commentaries by rabbis of the period give no such indication. Nor do the works of Josephus, or the New Testament, or of any other writers of the period. Of course it is possible that only the works of those who do not question their sanity have survived, and if we had a chance to ask, every other Jew in existence in that period down to the humblest fishmonger would have agreed with McKinsey. But I rather doubt it. Every indication we have is that these writings were regarded with reverence and respect. And I think the reader will recognize by now that this is only McKinsey's very poor attempt to dig himself out of a very deep hole and distract the issue from that of the facts to that of the person of the CRI representative. Third, your comment that my "criticism of the books of Daniel...is based, I would venture to say, on a complete lack of familiarity with the literary forms..." is nearly as tenuous, since you know little about my knowledge of ancient Near East literary forms. Of course, you covered yourself to some extent by saying: "I would venture to say" which concedes an element of guesswork. This is likewise an obfuscation, a hypocrisy, and a distraction from the issue. Note here that McKinsey never addresses the issue of whether or not he does have any knowledge of Ancient Near Eastern literary forms; he merely castigates the CRI rep for suggesting his ignorance of such things, pointing out that he knows nothing at all about McKinsey's qualifications, and leaves it at that. Once again, this gives McKinsey every tactical advantage, as it leaves it open for readers to believe that McKinsey is indeed familiar with the literature; now, then, McKinsey, if confronted, can say: " I never flatly stated I was familiar with ANE literary forms. I merely stated that the CRI rep's knowledge of my familiarity of such forms was tenuous." Thus can McKinsey fool the less-enlightened into deducing that he does know about such things, yet never state that he does. He could be 100% ignorant of such things and yet still gain the advantage in the eyes of his readers of being 100% knowledgeable. Let me make this clear: Do not fall for this kind of manipulative obfuscation. Examined critically, and stripped of polemic, McKinsey's diatribes are nothing but heat and wind. Fourth, you even admit these writings employ "weird symbolism" to communicate ideas, so don't be so eager to indict those who have doubts about the mental stability of the authors involved. Here was an admittedly a slip by CRI's rep. He should have said, "...what we in this time and context would regard as weird symbolism...". As it stands, he also appears to be making a value judgment, one that validates McKinsey's own, and McKinsey took full advantage of this. Fifth, although "some may have hailed the book of Revelation as the only masterpiece of pure art in the NT" others clearly disagree. Martin Luther, who holds a position in Christendom immeasurably higher than that of William Barclay, stated in this regard: "About this book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion.... I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic....there is no prophet in the OT, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it....(etc) This is another slip by CRI's rep. He engaged the argument by authority, and McKinsey engaged it back. Of course Luther was hardly as informed as Barclay, a writer of our century, about the variety of literary forms in the Ancient Near East; archaeology had not been fully discovered in Luther's time; there was yet more literature to be found and analyzed; and Luther, with due respect, was quite well known for allowing his personal prejudices to color his thinking (i.e., about James). All that McKinsey has done here is masterfully played the "authority" game -- once again enabling him to avoid the hard data and engage in polemics and primitive point-scoring. The reader is well-advised to be cautious of such tactics -- from any skeptic. |Oily Snake Tactics In is closing chapter McKinsey offers some amusing advice for budding skeptics hoping to follow in his footsteps. For example, McKinsey advises his readers to put certain subjects on the "back burner" such as "Babylonian influence on the formation of the canon" (???), "pagan influence on Christianity," dating and authorship of Biblical books, "historical disproofs of biblical history," the history of the formation of the canon, the beliefs of America's Founders, and so on. Why make these topics second-rate? He says, because:
Indeed, McKinsey's disdain for true scholarship is poignantly exemplified in the following exchange from the 102nd BE newsletter, beginning with this note from that same CRI rep referred to earlier: In issue #56, your reply to my points about the authorship of the NT writings was condescending and largely irrelevant. I asked you for a list of "authorities" who question the Pauline authorship of the seven undisputed Pauline letters (Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Phil., 1 Thess., Philem.). You gave me one scholar who questioned "the full authenticity" of four of these--Alfred Loisy. It should be noted that Loisy (who died in 1940) was writing mostly in the 1910's and 1920's, and that most of his extreme views (e.g., that Acts was written in the second century) have been completely abandoned by even the most liberal scholarship. (The scholar you quoted as endorsing Loisy, F.C. Conybeare, died in 1924!). In the postwar scholarship it is widely regarded as certain that these seven letters were written by Paul, and their authorship is not even debated. I can supply you with a list of scholarly references several pages long if necessary; but if it is necessary, then, frankly, you don't know anything about contemporary Pauline studies. Note carefully the direction of McKinsey's reply: To begin with Robert, my answers were neither irrelevant nor condescending. Yours, however, are quite irrelevant. The fact that you don't like the sources I cited and don't consider them reliable is as irrelevant as your recitation of the dates upon which they died. I have no doubt they consider most of your scholars to be of questionable integrity. As I have said before, when it comes to arguments over history, every man picks the sources he prefers. You asked for some scholars and I quoted two well-known men who are scholars whether you like them or not. For you to say that "these seven letters were written by Paul, and their authorship is not even debated" is absurd. I don't know of any book in the Bible whose authorship is not debated by knowledgeable scholars. You really should stop talking as if biblical conclusions were air-tight and fixed in granite. This is again typical McKinsey hot air. Sandwiched between two polemical points are a host of irrelevancies and obfuscations. The citing of the dates of death is a minor illustration point which shows how more research has been done since the time that these men lived, and points up the extent to which McKinsey is ignoring further scholarship. McKinsey makes the death-dates a major point and dismisses all else as picking sources that one "likes" -- as though all sources are in fact equally (in?)valid and therefore it is pointless to engage in critical analysis, since there is no really knowing who is right. Supplement that with he glittering generality that "I don't know of any book in the Bible whose authorship is not debated by knowledgeable scholars" and you have the typical rounded-off McKinsey hayseed diatribe. He is no different here than the backwoods neophyte who tells an experienced Air Force pilot that "there jes ain't no way sometin' dat big kin fly". The CRI rep went on: I also stated that Donald Guthrie's book New Testament Introduction thoroughly answers the arguments of liberal scholars (such as Loisy) whereas they continue to ignore most of Guthrie's arguments. In response you told me that I should devote more study to various scholars that you named. This is no answer. I am familiar with many of those scholars (especially Loisy, Renan, Briggs, Wellhausen, and Conybeare), and my point is that their arguments are answered by Guthrie (and others), but not the other way around. I am not interested in authorities as such but in the reasons they give for their views. The CRI rep has rightly tagged McKinsey for disdaining critical evaluation. The reply, again, is telling: You quote Guthrie as if he were the fountain of all truth, my friend. Just because you are enrapped with him, carries no weight with others, including myself. I have scholars who say something quite different. And I happen to feel that mine know more about the issue than yours. Even more importantly, you shifted your strategy. Earlier you said I could produce no authorities in support of my position. Now you are admitting there are such beings but contend they are wrong. "I am not interested in authorities as such but in the reasons they give for their views." That's a different issue entirely and a virtual concession that my original contention is valid. Again, more manipulation, obfuscation, and dishonesty. The source-cite is simply dismissed again as a matter of preference, with no critical evaluation; and McKinsey then uses the demand for critical evaluation to blacken the rep's reply -- indeed, sees it as some sort of victory, never mind that it thoroughly exposes his incompetence and unwillingness to dig too deep! In all of this, the very thing needed, critical evaluation and comparison of the arguments, is simply bypassed. In another place, McKinsey offers advice for tools of the trade, saying that a Layman's Parallel Bible is a good purchase. Good advice! However, he then advises: "Avoid Christian commentaries. Don't be swayed as to what is being said or what commentaries allege is intended. Just read it cold." In the 34th issue of the newsletter he adds: Read (the Bible) yourself and don't consult commentaries and other works which tell you how to view the narrative. Approaching the Bible with an uncluttered, unindoctrinated outlook devoid of pre-conceptions and expectations is of first magnitude in importance. Indeed, it's the key to effective critical analysys. Once the Book has been sufficiently mastered, commentaries and other apologistic works, which are nearly always nothing more than rationalizations, justifications, and obfuscations, can be viewed in proper perspective and effectively dealt with. It's important to observe the Bible through your own eyes, not those of others. And consider this advice also from the 187th newsletter, concerning the variations in the wording on the cross -- which professional commentators view either as point-of-view reportage or else as redactional: Who cares how many speakers, audiences and interests are involved! They are all immaterial, if not irrelevant. The fact is that there can only be one wording on the cross and there can be only one correct duplication of that wording. I don't care how you are tailoring it to the interests or idiosyncrasies of anyone or any group; if you change the wording from what actually existed, then it becomes erroneous, period. Just read it cold!?! In other words, ignore social, historical, literary and cultural context; set aside all who have studied the texts, the languages, and the cultures for years on end, simply dismissing them as unable to agree on anything or as mere "rationalizations" designed to solve the alleged problems and contradictions you, reading with your own untrained mind, have found (also, without "doing the homework" of critical evaluation of their arguments yourself!); serve up only your own personal opinion and your own "plain reading" of the text, add some diatribe, and serve warm! Do these tactics sound familiar? We see them from many skeptics, especially those of the "freethinking" variety who suppose that their own preconceptions are sufficient to interpret whatever they read. Herbert Cutner was not the only one who had these kinds of problems. It is only arrogant and ignorant critics who bellow forth in answer to sound scholarship the reply, "Who cares?!?" Error is error as they and only they define it through the lens of their 20th-century eyes. In closing, we note two things. First, where McKinsey advises his students: "Do nothing that would confirm the image some people have of the Bible's opponents." Regrettably, McKinsey has fulfilled the stereotype of the village atheist/skeptic to the letter: Insufferable arrogance, intolerable incompetence, deception and/or carelessness, all rolled into a neat package. Second, a note on a personal correspondence I had with this McKinsey character a while back. We had some fun trading barbs (at least I did), and something happened that demonstrates perfectly what I have said about McKinsey being less of a true critic and more of an ego trip that cannot ever stand to be wrong, and will go to any lengths to keep from being wrong. In the midst of our barbs, McKinsey made a statement to me about listening to my "conscience". I replied with a joke about "Jiminy Cricket". McKinsey responded in part by claiming that I had spelled the name wrong -- it was JIMMY Cricket, he said, not Jiminy. Well, we all know how skeptics love citing spelling errors for cheap victories, but as anyone who grew up watching Disney on Sunday night knows (and especially, if you live in Central Florida as I do, and see these characters every blinkin' day!), my spelling of the name was indeed correct -- and when I pointed out this fact, McKinsey didn't admit error, he merely changed the subject. And I say further: Check the places in the BE newsletter where someone writes in to point out a typo. McKinsey in reply will almost always make some extended excuse about lacking time, not being surprised with all the work he has to do, etc. Such behavior is a sign of an obsessive personality, a massive ego, and poor attention to detail. And note that I never flatly said McKinsey was actually this way. For me to have directly stated as much would have been inappropriate as I have no more awareness of the mental state or motives of McKinsey than anyone else. I have only one question to ask now: Glenn, big guy, do you REALLY want me to give this book back to you? Some notes from Tekton Research Assistant "Punkish" -- On Josephus in the Biblical Errancy newsletter: McKinsey sound-bites "This passage is so obviously spurious that it is astonishing to find a single theologian left in our time who accepts it." Interestingly, McCabe goes on to talk about his idea that the passage originally contained a reference to Jesus that was cut out by the interpolator and replaced by what we have today. This cuts straight against McKinsey's intent. (McCabe cites no scholarship in the Josephus section whatsoever, not even those he finds astonishing in its support! In the Introduction by E. Halderman-Julius, an atheist, we read "THE scholarship, immense and convincing, of the present volume will enlighten any reader" ! - how's that for false advertising!) Thus McKinsey is sound-biting deceptive sources, which furthers the deception. Several of McKinsey's points on Josephus are simply copied from Remsburg, and several from the Tacitus section are from the Diegesis without citation. Tacitus #15 BE newsletter -- Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians took their denomination from Christ which could apply to any of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, including Christ Jesus. This comes from Thomas William Doane, Bible Myths And Their Parallels in Other Religions, Appendix A [imagine putting arguments about whether Christ exists in an Appendix!! Most of it is culled from the Diegesis, it is rather obvious since no one but R Taylor would translate "nominis" as "denomination"! (Ann.XV.44)] Item 7, about the victims being given to flames in Nero's gardens, is straight from Hochart's thesis extending the work of JW Ross which Fabia called "ingenious guesses". McKinsey makes several points in his newsletter from the Diegesis regarding Johannes de Spire and how the fidelity of the passage rests on him, etc, (item #24) - he says the passage was "first published in the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468" - well he's wrong, it wasn't called "the annals" then, it was called "the Cornelius Tacitus" and comprised both Annals and Histories, and the two works were split in the following century - only when they were recognised as separate works was the text where our passage is found termed the Annals. Now about manuscript origins: Taylor in the Diegesis says that the manuscript de Spire worked on was eighth century (p393, although Taylor cites no source for the date and appears slightly doubtful about its age) - JW Ross' argument was that Poggio Bracciolini forged the entire thing in the 1420s, so to use both Hochart (relying on Ross) AND Taylor, despite the latter's doubts, shows McKinsey contradicts himself. The fact that he uses soundbites (4(c) on Justus is word for word from Remsburg) and arguments by authority (e.g. citing Renan on Jesus' bio when Renan almost fully approved of the Testimonium!!!) in his *conclusion* makes me wonder, what was he doing in this compilation? Thinking wasn't part of the agenda, that's for sure. And that's pretty sad. Go Home! |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
