Updated 2/22/08

If you're expecting Jacobsen to have actually engaged our defense in detail, you're from another planet. I didn't expect him (based on our TWeb encounters) to have the mental horsepower to deal with such issues as Greco-Roman rhetorical forms and Jewish exegesis of the first century, so not surprisingly, he offers ten pages of inepititude (around half of it quotes of me, and covering even at that less than 30% of all the arguments I offer) as a response to thousands of pages of answers (that includes all the links I gave). I don't devote a lot of time to stupid people these days (especially those like Jacobsen with Dunning's Syndrome) but since we had this as a start, I may as well finish. (As an aside to readers, Jacobsen's response is laced with profanity and is sometimes pornographic. Such things matter little to me; I've heard it done better and with more art by prison inmates, but for the sake of sensitive readers, I include this warning and will make use of the Magic Asterisk [*] as needed. I've also updated this item on 12/28 with further thoughts, and now on 2/22/08 we have updates to PJ's lates diatribe.)

I say: "Nothing is inaccessible in terms of issues like Jesus' message of salvation."

PJ whines: Well, obviously not if, as according to Evans, scholars come to "unusual portraits" of Jesus by their not knowing Aramaic and Hebrew.

I can only assume this comment was composed while on drugs. It's not an answer; it is not an analysis of soteriological texts; and the "unusual portraits" Evans refers to are derived from such things as playing Veg-o-matic with the texts or using nonsense like the Gospel of Thomas. Since Jacobsen (or PJ, as I shall call him) doesn't know the Gospel of Thomas from instructions for a push broom, it is doubtful that he can defend (or deny) its portrait of Jesus as authentic, or any other text's portrait of Jesus, save perhaps with such perpetually useless answers as, "There were a lot of different views back then and the one with the most guns won."

I say: "The issue is not merely the making of myths, but how well they 'stick' as history in the face of adverse conditions, as well as how well truth can be preserved with such functions as ancient orality. At any rate, apparently Jacobsen has refused to educate himself on these matters in the years since he has begun to be a critic of Strobel."

PJ whines: Apparently, Holding has refused to pull his head out of his ***. Yes, I've read his and Miller's stuff on oral societies. Its bull****. Carrier already refuted this:

No, actually, he hasn't. Miller and I refute Carrier's arguments, which are:

Recent studies of oral transmission have confirmed that prose stories become distorted--in fact, they are routinely altered to suit the needs and interests of each particular audience or circumstance. Sorry, but that doesn't fit the model which Miller and I explain, one in which audiences even correct deviations. Also, we're not talking about "prose stories" here but systematic teachings such as those offered by Jesus, Gamaliel, and Socrates, and those that pass them on. Finally, Carrier makes no distinction between suiting needs for practical purposes that are acceptable and do not distort truth (such as explaining or changing archaic terms) and alteration that amounts to distortion.

Feb 08 whine: PJ says, I can concede that audience participation has the potential to correct errors. It can also increase them, however. Somebody thinks this, somebody thinks that, and you wind up with A+B+C etc. At any rate, where is your evidence any of this audience correction took place? You ain't got none.

No, PJ, it can NOT "increase them." Let me put it in a way that even someone as ignorant as you can grasp....we have these people called "anthropologists" and "social scientists" who do this thing called "research" and "study". They research and study different cultures, such as those that use oral transmission, past and present. This is where we get our evidence. We have scholars who have studied oral transmission in the context of first century Judaism and other oral societies. It is their conclusion that in the specific context at hand, that of Jesus and his teaching, we have every assurance that there was correctional feedback which made the transmission reliable -- to say nothing of what you didn't address, which is the format of systematic teachings.

I know this is hard for you, but if you want to actually rebut this point, you need to do some real research into oral transmission, especially as relates to first century Judaism. Try here to start. Just whining, "Duh ah, it can increase errors too, duh ah" is not an answer, especially since you provide no evidence that it did so in this specific social setting.

This is especially true when an oral tradition becomes important to some political, social, or religious agenda (for example, see the works of Rosalind Thomas or Greg Sarris). In fact, this is exactly why we turned to a reliance on writing and developed a distrust of oral transmission. Everyone knows that "this guy told this other guy who told this other guy who told me" is never a trustworthy source. Unfortunately, as usual, Carrier does not quote anything from his sources to prove these alleged points. As an aside, while Thomas is a professor of Classics, Sarris is a professor of English and specializes in modern Native American literature, so what he would have to say about the subject of oral transmission in a first century Palestinian setting is unknown. In any event, name-dropping is not an argument, and Carrier's claims are contradicted, as I have recorded in my own article PJ is incompetent to answer, by the scholars I have quoted.

The ancients knew this too. That is why the best historians of the day, such as Thucydides and Polybius, insisted on relying only on direct eyewitness testimony, distrusting oral traditions altogether. Sorry, apples and oranges. What Carrier refers to (though he does not know the difference, or pretends to ignore it, as is his usual method) is not systematic oral tradition of the sort that is repeated in a social circle, but what we call "hearsay" (which does not automatically make it untrue or unreliable). This is why PJ continues to remain ignorant. PJ also recommends a book by Elizabth Loftus that Miller has already shown has no bearing on New Testament studies. In any event, pigs will fly out of PJ's rear end before he provides any serious, detailed response to our material rather than simply quoting someone whose arguments are already refuted, but which he thinks is relevant because it happens to mention "oral tradition" and is by an atheist.

Feb 08 whine: . I suspect however that Loftus would not be terribly impressed by the effort.

I suspect that no one cares what you think, PJ. You're hardly expert enough to comment, but you do anyway.

For one, it makes the same mistake Holding does, handing out possibilities of ways the stories might have been reinforced and corrected, without actually providing any evidence that these things actually did happen.

In other words, it doesn't provide what you are intelligent enough to consider evidence. Miller provided references, and I have as well. As it is, PJ is barely up to snuff enough to do more than address ONE paragraph of Miller's enormous article. Miller says:

Retention: the time between the perceiving of an event and the time of retrieval of the memory of that event… Many of the events in Christ's life, in training the disciples, however, are essentially cases of 'immediate retrieval'. The disciples discuss the parables, or he teaches them to the disciples again in private.

And PJ contrives:

This is so disingenuous as to be laughable. The retention time in question is the time between the event and the time it is recorded, not between two events within the narrative! Now, sure, I know the implication is that based on the assumption that there was this action of immediate retrieval and subsequent repetitions. In other words, there is the assumption that the events happened the way the Bible says they happened, and then using that assumption to support the alleged immediate retrieval and repetition. But all of these things, including the alleged immediate retrieval and repetition are in question! You can't assume they happened and then use them as evidence they did happen!

Er, excuse me, PJ? You're ignorant as usual. What you fail to grasp is that in an oral society, structured teachinsg were not only repeated immediately, as Miller indicates, but time and time again -- until it reaches written form (i it ever does). This is the evidence we have from all of the research those smart people do. Can you refute it? Can you even follow the rules of evidence, PJ?

No, of course not. That would require doing more than announcing your opinion.

PJ whines first: "The point I'm leading to is, there are NO known contemporary references to Jesus--meaning there are no known references to him that date during his lifetime."

I say: "The point being what? This is not a required criteria for having reliable information about a person. Most of what Tacitus writes was written well after the people he relates the history of were dead. Yet I don't see historians throwing out his work to any extent because of this."

PJ whines: Wrong again, dumbf***. For one, Tacitus lists his sources, and quotes them. The Gospels do not. Oh really? Perhaps Jacobsen has a special edition of Tacitus, then. Let's take a sample book of the Annals here, and some sample paragraphs recording events from between 32-37 AD:

Cneius Domitius and Camillus Scribonianus had entered on the consulship when the emperor, after crossing the channel which divides Capreae from Surrentum, sailed along Campania, in doubt whether he should enter Rome, or, possibly, simulating the intention of going thither, because he had resolved otherwise. He often landed at points in the neighborhood, visited the gardens by the Tiber, but went back again to the cliffs and to the solitude of the sea shores, in shame at the vices and profligacies into which he had plunged so unrestrainedly that in the fashion of a despot he debauched the children of free-born citizens. It was not merely beauty and a handsome person which he felt as an incentive to his lust, but the modesty of childhood in some, and noble ancestry in others. Hitherto unknown terms were then for the first time invented, derived from the abominations of the place and the endless phases of sensuality. Slaves too were set over the work of seeking out and procuring, with rewards for the willing, and threats to the reluctant, and if there was resistance from a relative or a parent, they used violence and force, and actually indulged their own passions as if dealing with captives.

At Rome meanwhile, in the beginning of the year, as if Livia's crimes had just been discovered and not also long ago punished, terrible decrees were proposed against her very statues and memory, and the property of Sejanus was to be taken from the exchequer and transferred to the imperial treasury; as if there was any difference. The motion was being urged with extreme persistency, in almost the same or with but slightly changed language, by such men as Scipio, Silanus, and Cassius, when suddenly Togonius Gallus intruding his own obscurity among illustrious names, was heard with ridicule. He begged the emperor to select a number of senators, twenty out of whom should be chosen by lot to wear swords and to defend his person, whenever he entered the Senate House. The man had actually believed a letter from him in which he asked the protection of one of the consuls, so that he might go in safety from Capreae to Rome. Tiberius however, who usually combined jesting and seriousness, thanked the senators for their goodwill, but asked who could be rejected, who could be chosen? "Were they always to be the same, or was there to be a succession? Were they to be men who had held office or youths, private citizens or officials? Then, again, what a scene would be presented by persons grasping their swords on the threshold of the Senate House? His life was not of so much worth if it had to be defended by arms." This was his answer to Togonius, guarded in its expression, and he urged nothing beyond the rejection of the motion.

Does anyone see a list of sources for these events by Tacitus? How about a quote of a named source (since presumably, this doesn't mean free-floating quotes of a person, which we do have in the Gospels)? Or is this PJ simply talking out of his back end, as usual?

Feb 08 whine: Actually, you have some point here. It is indeed true that Tacitus doesn't list all his sources. He lists them where he feels the subject at hand warrants it. And, as it so happens, Tacitus is considered more reliable on some subjects as opposed to others. Indeed partially due to how well documented and researched various claims are.

In that case, PJ has conceded our point. However, he is wrong: Tacitus is not considered more reliable because he has documented things, but because when he is checked, he is found more often right than wrong. Now it is PJ's turn to show that the Gospels are wrong -- he can do so when he is done apologizing for his mistake.

Secondly, anything that any historian reports, if they are the only source, it is always considered of lesser attestation than if there are multiple good reports. That's nice. We still don't have that for the majority of what historians like Tacitus report, and I still don't see secular historians throwing out their work wholesale. Multiple attestation is better, of course, and would trump a singular source that says something contrary, but I still don't see anyone whining like PJ does that we need contemporary references or else it gets thrown out. Maybe someday PJ will answer the real argument and not the one he made up to answer that I didn't make.

Feb 08 whine: Actually, PJ manages to drop the pretense enough to concede (without admission of error on his part) that I made a point. But he drops the ball by saying: The problem is you don't get to say, "Hey, the Gospels mention Herod and he really existed, therefore Jesus really was resurrected." If the Gospel of Peter mentioned Herod, would that mean its all true? Again, each fact must be evaluated on its own. That's what I said as well. Like I sdaid, maybe someday he'll answer one of out real arguments, not the ones he makes up or used to use as an ignorant "believer".

And we might choose to accept something Tacitus says as being "probably true" even without any additional reference. But nobody claims Tacitus is inerrant. The point being what? We do have people claiming Tacitus tells specific truths without error, and there's still no one saying that it needs to be contemporary to him to be accepted. When will PJ answer this? How about 2076?

Feb 08 whine: How about, "I already have several times." Once again for the slow-witted, each fact is evaluated on its own, based on a number of factors including independent corroboration, and initial probability. For each fact Tacitus reports, some we have high confidence of accuracy, others less so. I'm perfectly willing to accept that some events documented in the Gospels may well have happened. Herod being king, for example.

How this is an answer to the point above about contemporary testimony is hard to see. This hasn't been answered. PJ needs to pay attention to what is being argued. He keeps on in the wrong vein for a bit and then says:

In the case of Tacitus, if I accept something he says but he was in error, or if I doubt something he says which is actually correct, the impact on me is negligible. And I've committed no crime even if I disagree with most scholars. But, with Christianity, I'm supposed to be a perfect judge of testimony (eyewitness and otherwise) and if I don't come to the same conclusion as a Christian, I've committed a crime. It's nonsense.

Sure it is, PJ. "I only stepped out into traffic once, and I got killed. That's nonsense." In any event, since you're not even close to being a "perfect judge" -- blimey, you're not even competent in basic matters of Bible scholarship -- your complaint is simply idiocy.

PJ whines: At any rate, he goes on to note that I used Gottschalk as a reference, and then says, "Why is hard to say, since what he quotes doesn't say a thing about references having to be contemporary for us to have any hope of saying anything about someone." Oh, Gottshalk doesn't, eh? Bull****. Gottshalk specifically said that the historian relies only upon first-hand accounts (ie. CONTEMPORARY, you dumbf***) whenever possible. Oh? "Whenever possible"? That sure does equal, "has to be contemporary to be accepted." Maybe one of these days, again, PJ will actually understand what is being argued, but he will have to learn to read all of what his sources say and not just the parts he likes first.

Feb 08 whine: And I quoted further from Gottschalk, where if you can't have it, you only use secondary sources that you can reliably trace to first hand sources. Maybe one of these days, Holding will actually understand what is being argued, but he will have to learn to read all of what exerts say and not just the parts he likes.

I'm still waiting for something that says testimomy MUST be contemporary to be reliable, which is what PJ has been whining for all this time. That we prefer it is not the point.

I say: "Gottschalk says clearly that a historian can use eyewitness testimony, which is what Luke does say he does."

PJ whines: Except, of course, I covered that already in my article--Holding is too chickensh** to actually address the actual argument. Luke says it was "handed down". Um, no, he doesn't say JUST that; he says it was "handed down" FROM eyewitnesses. That tells you that it was just ONE hand. Presumably PJ can count to one, but maybe that's not entirely sure. PJ says Carrier has more info -- so do I, and it refutes Carrier, and if that's as specific as PJ gets, that's as specific as I need to get too. Next?

Feb 08 whine: Actually, no, it doesn't tell you that at all. It only tells you that he believes the endpoint of the chain *of undetermined length* is an eyewitness. Oh of course. And Luke was also a bug eyed alien from the planet Zorg. If you can play the game of "he's lying" then any argument you want is possible -- it's also much easier than actually proving someone wrong. It's easier indeed to just raise the bar arbitrarily high, as PJ does:

Further, even if he did mean to say only one step removed, he still gives us no detail, who the eyewitness was for what event, etc. Who he talked to, how he separated what accounts to accept and what accounts to not accept.

He isn't required to. PJ merely invents criteria to suit his own preferences. Skitloads of history is accepted as reliable without all of this rap. PJ just wants to raise the bar to the point where he doesn't have to accept it.

And, as Carrier notes, he clearly had to know of differing accounts given that his account contradicts the other Synoptics. Go back and read Carrier on these issues, and don't just read the parts you like.

I read it all. I refuted it all. Go and read it all, and not just none of it.

I say: PJ's quotes of 1 Tim. 2:11-14 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 were, "answered ages ago by Miller."

PJ whines: In his link, Miller himself admits, "Due to the intense nature of the current debate about this subject, this section will simply NOT be able to deal with the manifold objections to my view." So, basically, from Holding's point of view, he has a link to an article that does some usual Christian bullsh** hand-waving, and pronounces, "case closed, nothing to see here, move along." What a jacka**.

Yep. That was a solid, detailed answer to Miller's pages-long arguments citing reputable, credentialed scholars. I'm impressed. Aren't you?

Feb 08 whine: As I said, Miller already admits he doesn't answer "manifold objections" to his view. Why is it incumbent upon me to make it manifold+1 objections? For that matter, why is it incumbent upon me to answer every one of every elephant you may hurl, but you don't hold Miller to that same standard? Let Miller answer the manifold objections he already has and then get back to me. I shall not play hurl the elephant with you.

Nope. PJ just wants to be able to hurl the elephant himself, then he doesn't want to play anymore -- because he sees his opponent catching the elephant and hurling it back. Translation: He's too lazy or uneducated to do the needed work.

I say: "Jacobsen is also not informed concerning the pool of 'possible witnesses' which would include Jews from all over the Diaspora who came to visit Jerusalem at the same time the events recorded in the Gospels occurred - not just those killed in Jerusalem in 70. He also forgets that there were plenty of things Jesus did outside of Jerusalem."

PJ whines: Most notably however, we have NOTHING from any of those alleged witnesses. All the thousands of people Jesus supposedly healed, fed, etc. none left a single mark. Hmmm. Most curious indeed.

Curious? Not at all, unless one is ignorant, as PJ certainly is. 90-95% of these people cound not read or write and would leave no "mark" of any sort other than what the scribes of the day (like Luke and Mark, etc) would record. Nevertheless only the ignorant would claim that they were of no effect, especially in a society where excessive claims of honor would be immediately and unequivocally challenged.

Feb 08 whine: Oh dear. PJ really makes a bonehead of himself on this one, as he appeals to the Rational Responders' website and their presentation of Remsberg's List. Already refuted that, PJ. Too bad you didn't check my site first. I appreciate that you didn't, thouugh -- more rope to hang you with. Also made for a nice Screwball Award for you on TWeb.

I say: "There is no 'bias' inherent in Evans idea that time was spent discussing beliefs. Indeed, far from being a 'like us' assumption, it is a case where the ancients were more inclined to something than we are. Socially, it would not only be natural, but expected in a collectivist setting, that the Christian social in-group would discuss their beliefs within a community setting and 'network' with one another."

PJ whines: Ah, sure, of course. That would explain why nobody ever joined a mystery religion, as they all had deep intellectual discussions on it and wisely decided that the mystery religions were myth. Oh, wait, that's false. The mystery religions were significant rivals to Christianity. Once again, Holding doesn't know sh** from Shinola.

Apparently, another answer composed on drugs. What I said above is not answered at all, and mystery religions involved inaccessible beliefs that had no connection to history, as Christian belief did with its historically crucified and resurrected man.

Feb 08 whine: For one, you are making a circular argument, attempting to use Jesus' alleged historicity to confirm that the original Christians had some basis to work from in their alleged in-group discussions. And then you use the original Christians as evidence we are talking about real history!

Whatever this was supposed to be arguing. What PJ offers here is nothing but a prefab statement; there is no circularity here; I am addressing a specific point about the mystery religions and their nature, versus Christianity's nature. As for Jesus' "alleged historicity" I have voluminous articles on that, including on the Silly Silence Song sung by Earl Doherty that PJ so woefully imitates. The only ones screaming here are scholars who see Doherty's work.

And even if I were to grant for sake of argument that we were talking about something that had some historical basis, you haven't shown any of these alleged in-group discussions actually happened. Or that 1st century Christian in-groups would be any better at ferreting out truth from fiction than any other in-group at any other time in history. And in-group discussions have never shown at any time anywhere to be a particularly good methodology to do so.

Please. The collectivist social world of the NT, and the normal procedures of group dynamics, is all the "shown" needed to indicate that such discussions happened; it is up to PJ to show that Christianity was somehow completely different than every other social group, especially of that time; it is up to him to show that they were bad at discerning truth from fiction (and merely saying "they believed in miracles, duh" is not an argument to that effect), and he has no basis for claiming that ingroup discussion is not good methodology -- he is just making stuff up and pulling it out of his bum, hoping no one will notice he can't actually argue what he claims.

On to Ch 2, PJ merely quotes my line, "It seems that Jacobsen is simply looking for ways to insult a reputable scholar," but does not quote what precedes it that shows why he went wrong with it.

I say: PJ is wrong to say that "holy books" must be held to a different standard -- for no other reason than that his own manufactured uncertainties demand it.

PJ whines: Wrong again, nutjob. It’s the same reason ANY propaganda must be held to a different standard, as per what I quoted from Gottschalk: The quote from Gottschalk accomplishes nothing for PJ. Any demagogue with a bone in his nose can call any work reporting something they dislike or disagree with as "propaganda" and so the standard remains the same for all works -- not just "holy books" that the poor, befuddled PJ has personal problems with (aside from failing to argue, much less prove, that the "holy books" ARE merely propaganda).

Feb 08 whine: Where does Gottschalk state that a work has to be "merely" propaganda to be suspect? Propagandists are well known for cherry-picking genuine facts for their agenda. For that reason, I have no reason to doubt that there are genuine facts within the Gospels; it's just a matter of being without any way to know what is what. Sure, PJ. It's you who prostitutes Gottschalk to claim suspicion; and dissidents are well known for making accusations of cherry-picking to cover their lack of substantive argument. You have none, so you just throw around labels like "propaganda" to mask your ineptitude at arguing an actual case. PJ thinks there is no exact formula to discern whether a work is fact or fiction -- well, we don't need an "exact formula". What we need is argument by cases -- but that's too much to ask of PJ.

But, as a simple exercise to illustrate my point, answer this: Name one non Judeo-Christian holy book that you consider to also be an accurate history of significant historical events recorded in the book and are recorded nowhere else. The Koran? The Book of Mormon? Name one.

That's kind of a stupid challenge, since very few holy books even try to report history -- most consist of teachings (as even the Bible does) rather than reports of events. As is it, there's no need to limit the category to holy books. This is just a game PJ is playing.

I say: "Jacobsen apparently has the idea that a 'manuscript' is defined as any FULL copy of a work, which is incorrect."

PJ whines: Holding apparently doesn't know how to f***ing read. That is not what I said at all. What I said was: The fragmentary nature of the manuscripts helps inflate his numbers. For example, he may count a fragment of a few verses of John as a manuscript of the NT. No, it's not a manuscript of the NT; it’s a manuscript of those verses of John." That's what I said, and its 100% correct. Tough sh** for you, Holding. It's that indeed from PJ, and it smells as bad. What he said is exactly as I described it: He defines a "manuscript" as nothing less than a whole copy of a book, but not fragments. But fragments ARE manuscripts. Therefore his definition of "manuscript" is in error. Tough buffalo chips for you, PJ, but if you use some code maybe you can publish them on your website with the rest of the like material.

Feb 08 whine: Merely refuses yet again to admit his error.

I say: "Getting an exorcism done is not a matter of salvation"

PJ whines: It's not, eh? So how exactly does one have an opportunity to accept Christ WHILE POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL? It's not, no. Apparently PJ thinks that being "possessed" means you're like the girl in The Exorcist and that you have no freedom to make choices. While this may have arguably been the case for a person like the Gadarene demoniac, even in the NT it is not typical, and it is just as well to claim that exorcism by the same logic is a matter of fashion, since it kept the demoniac from wearing clothes. Is Jacobsen this stupid? Apparently so.

Feb 08 whine: In other words, at least in some cases, I'm correct. That is sufficient to prove my point. But, in other cases, I guess Satan just hangs with your homies and checks out the ball game with you. If you happen to see Satan, tell him he can watch the Super-bowl at my place.

PJ may take what victories he can claim; "in some cases" is not at all sufficient to prove the point, unless the person NEVER in their lives was not under control of a demon and had the ability to male a choice. As for Satan, he's hanging out in chains just now, and not possessing anyone, and hasn't since the first century; I'm a preterist -- go look it up, PJ.

I say: "He also seems to think that all scribal changes were made with evil intent"

PJ whines: Where does Holding get that from? I'm sure most scribal changes were done "trying to make it right". Sorry, but if you think it was done to make legends grow, that was evil intent -- even if the scribe thought it was for the greater good to deceive people that way.

Feb 08 whine: I'm saying that I suspect the motivations were probably the opposite, in order to prevent false legends, endeavoring to "clarify" what is said. But a scribe making a change in order to "clarify" something, whether he realizes it or not, then sets himself up as judge of what "really" happened. Thereby providing a methodology of growing a legend while intending to do the opposite. At any rate, whether you wish to term this as "evil" intent or not, be my guest. It is unimportant to me. The main point is that Ehrman provides good evidence these kinds of things happened. "Evil" or not, I don't care. That's good. It's too bad you're not able to defend Ehrman from my rebuttals. Indeed Ehrman admits that in their contexts, the clarifications were not obscuring truth, but making it more clear in their contexts. I like to use an example in my lessons of a very old Disney poster that has a picture of Mickey Mouse on it (the patron saint of PJ's scholarship) with the words "Always gay." Now if that poster were re-issued today, it would probably say something else like, "Always happy" so that there would be no misunderstanding from it that Mickey was said to be homosexual. That is all that Ehrman can find in terms of the nature of scribal changes -- no creation of legends, indeed, just clarification of what the text really did mean originally for a new context in which words were given different meanings by those who abused the texts. PJ's job is to show that a scribe exercised bad judgment as a judge -- and he won't, because he can't.

I describe the healing of the leper and Jesus getting angry, using an answer derived from social science scholars Malina and Rohrbaugh. PJ whines:

What a complete load of bullsh**. In Mark 1:29-34, it tells of Jesus healing many, at the door of Simon and Andrew's house. Doesn't say that he didn't want to do healings there. Holding, didn't you bother to read just a few verses above, you complete ****ing moron? Besides, so what? Wouldn't anybody want to be cured of leprosy? Ooohh, the man put Jesus on the spot, oooh, bad man oooh….

Well, once again, all I can say is, that was a thorugh and relevant answer once we take the appropriate amount of freon to read it with. We're still wondering how people at the door of the house have any relevance to ritual purity, and what this has to do with anyone "wanting" to be cured of leprosy. Someone here named PJ is in over their head, do you think?

Feb 08 whine: ...your argument was that Jesus was annoyed about curing the man with leprosy due to some imagined issue with ritual purity. But that issue mysteriously doesn't apply when Jesus is doing healings at the door of Simon and Andrew's house.

Imagined issue? How hilarious. Go educate yourself. There would be no issue at the door of someone's private residence, among his disciples who know he is ritually pure and cannot be "de-purified" by a leper's touch.

I say: "There is no evidence of evil intent by scribes here; the two words under consideration are so close in form that accidental transcription of the wrong word is the undoubted cause."

PJ whines: Nobody can prove whether it was a transcription error, or somebody intentionally wanted to "fix" what they though [sic] was an error. But what the **ck difference does it make? None. Well, then, one wonders why PJ even brought it up. Maybe he had nothing better to do with his life than make aimless complaints about nothing. Or maybe he just copied Ehrman uncritically because Ehrman said what he wanted to hear. Either way, it was Ehrman who propsed evil intent, as a way of covering up a flaw in Jesus' personality, so PJ can tell him what the "**ck difference" it makes if he wants to. I'm sure Ehrman will be suitably impressed by PJ's mastery of scholarly vocabulary and award him a Ph. D. in textual criticism right away.

Challenge 3

I say: "The claim that Licona's comments on Bayes' Theorem, re: the resurrection and Islamic ideas about the crucifixion, as 'in direct contradiction' is abject nonsense. The former has to do with claims made by contemporaries…

PJ whines: Wrong again, sh**-for-brains. Licona is obviously referring to INITIAL PROBABILITIES when he says: "Bayes' Theorem requires that you plug in certain background knowledge into the equation, such as the probability that God would want to raise Jesus from the dead. I'm sure you'd agree that probabilities like that are inscrutable." Once again, this appears to be a sensible answer once freon is added. It is not surprising that PJ doesn't finish my sentence: ...and near-contemporaries, that are uncontradicted by oppositional testimony; the latter, with claims made hundreds of years after the fact, against testimony by favorable (NT), equivocal (Josephus, Talmud) and hostile (Tacitus, Lucian) witnesses. Jacobsen is not able to deal with the complexities of such arguments, and so he can only deal with an emasculated version. Yep. Just leave out the parts you can't handle and you always look like a genius. (Unlike opponents who make this charge against me, I show how what is left out makes a difference; whereas all they can do is make the charge and never try to prove it.)

I say: "appeals to 'initial probability' was defeated in Hume's own day by the 'ice analogy':"

PJ whines: Its kinda cute how Holding wants you to think he read (doubtful) and understood (impossible) Hume. Yep. I did, and I did, and I came to the same conclusions as did professor of history and philosophy of science John Earman (not a Christian, by the way), as noted here. But maybe Earman didn't read Hume or understand him either, and maybe PJ should write him and say he has excrement for brains. It would certainly be easier than answering the argument, which PJ didn't do.

At any rate, if the concept of initial probability was defeated, you might tell that to Licona--he's the one that brought up Bayes Theorem, you heaping steam of sh**-for-brains. And this is relevant how? I'm not simply talking about "initial probability" being defeated here; I'm talking about something more, as shown by my whole quote: The canard that says "neither do we see resurrections today" and appeals to "initial probability" was defeated in Hume's own day by the "ice analogy" which compelled Hume to backtrack and soften his position. The issue is not merely initial probability but what we experience -- it's not hard to see why PJ quotes only part of what I say.

Besides, if you were to want more evidence if I claimed that I flapped my arms and flew to the store than if I claimed I walked to the store, you affirm the concept of initial probability and Bayes Theorem. "More evidence"? I don't need any evidence that Jacobsen walked to the store because I don't care if he did or not. But I might need more if I did care: Such as someone else seeing him get there. And that's also what we'd need for verification of flight as well. Even so, the point is that I can't dismiss the flight based on Hume's criteria of "I didn't see it" or "no one I know has seen it." That is purely subjective and has no basis in epistemology. Rather, what must be weighed is such things as PJ's explanation for how he managed flight (most likely, he snorted some magic mushrooms), and the authority of the witnesses. Epistemically, there is no difference between 50 witnesses who say they say PJ walking to the store and 50 who say they saw him flying. Their testimony is equally invalidated if they admit they were actually too far away to see that it was PJ they saw. And so on. The rules of evidence don't change because of PJ's little temper tantrums or because Carl Sagan makes up a rule about "extraordinary claims" with no precedence or authority in a court of law.

Feb 08 whine: PJ does a pointless analytical whinging, but in the end, all he does is repeat his argument which we have already refuted. The rules of evidence are not changed just because we have an interest or stake in what happens, or because someone like PJ doesn't like it is Christianity happens to be true. The rules of evidence are not arbitrarily raised to a higher bar just because you have a higher stake.

I say: "Testimony by the likes of Tacitus is dismissed in that it is possible they didn't do any research on the subject (which does not fit the mode of Tacitus at all, but presumably Jacobsen would simply make the excuse that while Tacitus normally did research, he may not have done it that one time)." On this PJ repeats his errors about Tacitus telling his sources. If this is true then one wonders why these Tacitean scholars are so ignorant, as opposed to Jacobsen:

Martin [Mart.Tac, 211] , though noting difficulties about discerning Tacitus' exact sources, says that "It is clear, then, that Tacitus read widely and that the idea that he was an uncritical follower of a single source is quite untenable."

Dudley [Dud.Tac, 29] notes that despite problems in discerning what sources Tacitus used, "it may be said with some confidence that the view that Tacitus followed a single authority no longer commands support."

The Taciteans agree that Tacitus used sources, of course:

Mellor [Mell.Tac, 20, 45] observes that although he made use of other sources, including friends like Pliny, Tacitus "does not slavishly follow, as some of his Roman predecessors did, the vagaries of his sources." He adds (ibid., 31-2) that, "If research is the consultation and evaluation of sources, there can be little doubt that Tacitus engaged in serious research though it is not often apparent in the smooth flow of his narrative." Tacitus "consulted both obscure and obvious sources," and "distinguishes fact from rumor with a scrupulosity rare in any ancient historian."

Benario [Benar.Tac, 87] tells us that Tacitus "chose judiciously among his sources, totally dependent upon none, and very often, at crucial points, ignored the consensus of his predecessors to impose his own viewpoint and his own judgment."

...but to say as PJ does that "HE TELLS US OF HIS SOURCES" is overall not true, even if it is in caps. If it is not so, then perhaps PJ can find the sources told of in the quote above from the Annals, since they seem to be missing. My finding is that Tacitus mainly reveals sources when there is a conflict, or something for which he does not wish to vouch; but he does not name sources for things that he is confident in reporting as fact. I am glad that PJ compares the matter to Caesar using the bathroom, however, since that would be common knowledge that would require no research -- no more so that would common knowledge that Jesus existed, as I say in my article on Tacitus.

PJ whines: Also of note, the only reason we have any of Tacitus' writings is that parts were preserved by two different Christian monasteries. And yet, neither of them retained Tacitus' writing about the years 29-31, years that presumably could have mentioned Jesus' ministry and execution. Imagine that... Imagine is about all PJ can do; unlike serious scholars, who do not "imagine" some conspiracy involving the manuscripts of Tacitus and don't simply flail around with groundless suspicions when the actual data fails them. (It seems far more likely that the writings about the years 29-31 were lost long before the monasteries got hold of them; such would fit the pattern of numerous other ancient works. We are also missing parts of Tacitus that cover other years between Augustus and Domitian, but presumably PJ can just guess that there were embarrassing things about Jesus in those parts too. Or maybe we can hypothesize that there was good stuff about Jesus in them and that Julian the Apostate destroyed it all. Since that's all PJ's train-wreck epistemology needs as evidence, we expect to see him in church next week.)

Feb 08 whine: Tellingly, PJ drops all the stuff about Tacitus above up til this paragraph, and even then just isolates the point about monastaries (especially failing to quote the part about how scholars don't contrive this sort of conspiracy theory), and says:

Once again, we get a double-standard from Holding, where he can just suppose that the writings of those two years were lost purely coincidentally and accidentally, without a shred of evidence. But if I suggest the possibility it wasn't such an accident, oh, well, then I gotta prove it to the n'th degree. Holding's speculations are pure gold, but any guesswork that doesn't support Holdings position is condemned. The fact of the matter is that the coincidence of the missing years just happens to be the years that would be where you would expect to find references to Jesus IS suspicious. Not even you could be buying your own nonsense, can you?

Claiming a "double standard" is yet another pullstring canard. I have no double standard here; I am using the explanation that fits the data for all ancient works that have been lost -- they have been lost not due to conspiracy, but because of accident or neglect. This is the standard from scholarship, and it is up to PJ as one who dissents to explain why he should be believed over credible scholars. PJ's appeal to "coincidence" is nothing more than his paranoia and desperation at work (and is also belied by the portions missing from between Augustus and Domitian).

I say: "Jacobsen's plea re the criterion of embarrassment, that 'you can't know this without being able to read the author's mind,' is simply further paranoia and excuse-making.

PJ whines: Bullsh**. You CAN NOT KNOW another person's thoughts and motivations, particularly someone dead 2000 years. Well, then, I suppose serious scholars like Malina and Rohrbaugh are wasting their time, then, and should all concede to PJ's ultimate wisdom. I pointed this out, and that Scholarship has a grip on the social setting of the NT but PJ didn't feel like answering (or even quoting) that. Next?

Feb 08 whine:Okay, I quoted you on that. Can you die happy now? Having a "grip on the social setting" doesn't give you mind reading powers. One would think that someone of even Holding's limited faculties could grasp that. I have a fair grasp on today's social setting, but I don't have mind reading capabilities of anybody.

It seems poor PJ is put upon by the ignorance he has that scholars like Malina and Rohrbaugh do not. Accusations of "mind reading powers" are the refuge of those desperate for their own lack of informed counsel to provide an actual answer.

I say: "he openly declares that given a choice between the swoon theory and the resurrection, he would go to the former."

PJ whines: So? If you were given the choice between swoon theory and the resurrection was faked by an evil alien cloned twin of Jesus, you'd go with the swoon theory, right? I'd go with neither, because both are monumentally stupid, the latter as shown here. Of course, being that PJ is an expert physician, we are sure he will have an answer ready by tomorrow.

Feb 08 whine: PJ thinks I am dodging the question by not saying which I prefer. That's called a "false dilemma".

The idea that God would sacrifice himself to himself to change his own rules is asinine.... (And, yes, my one-sentence summary of Christian theology is correct, despite lame protestations to the contrary.) It is? No, it's nonsense; first for its lousy rendition of the Trinity ("himself to himself" is Oneness theology, not Trinitarianism) and no rules were changed - loyalty to YHWH is still the rule, and PJ can't answer either point save with vain repetition of the same erroneous claim.

I say: "the resort to implying that Licona may be a liar in recounting his anecdote of a friend…"

PJ whines: Oooh, bad me. I'm so evil for suggesting Licona might be exaggerating. Of course, I ALSO READILY CONCEDED I COULD BE WRONG. And so on. Either way, PJ wants to have his cake and eat it too, because he can't answer the arguments. He wants to be able to insinuate that someone is a liar for the advantage.

Feb 08 whine: And Holding wants to call people liars with no hesitation or qualification. More Holding hypocrisy and double standards. Please Holding, bury yourself some more. Go ahead. I proved PJ's ineptitude and dissimilitude amply. He has no answer other than to play the role of wounded victim and martyr. Too bad.

Challenge 4:

PJ admits his lack of awareness of addresses to Acharya. I then say: That's only because Jacobsen collapses down terms ("impregnating," "worshipped," "a dream") while ignoring the vast differences in the stories.

PJ whines: And I already conceded very big differences in the stories. So? So once again, PJ wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to create parallels with vague, general language and out of timeless elements; you can point these out all you want, but they mean nothing in terms of dependence.

Feb 08 whine: This is PJ's biggest and longest whine in the set. He has a skein of blather to offer, mostly from unqualfied nobodies like himself.

In your previous rebuttal to me, you made use of the parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy. Derrick Bennett sent me a more detailed response to this, which I shall use:

Derrick Bennett didn't even have the guts to show up on TWeb to debate us...oh well. He wasn't bright at all, but let's see:

What we are essentially talking about here is the critical difference between matters of superficial COINCIDENCE and matters of genuine INFLUENCE.

Uh HUH. And?

For instance, you cannot possibly pin Lincoln's presidential election in the year 1860 as having influenced JFK's being elected in 1960. Lincoln's assassinator didn't influence JFK's assassinator to do the same on a Friday. These are purely matters of coincidence -- NOT influence.

Sure Dreck, but you see, idiots like you will always CLAIM there is influence, even without a lick of evidence. The heart of these sorts of theories is to point to the similarity and yell, "INFLUENCE!" until all your windows break. We can do the same thing.

Religion, on the other hand, is like any other manmade phenomena. It is highly subject to influence. Language is a perfect analogy. There are commonalities between English, Spanish, German, French and Italian because they are all linguistically rooted in Greek, Latin and other ancient languages.

Oh, so the logic is -- what? 1) Where manmade phenomena are concerned, similarity is always the result of influence. 2) Religion is a manmade phenomenon. 3) Therefore, any similarities are because of influence. Really. I had no idea. Er, by the way -- isn't history a manmade phenomenon? Aren't Presidential elections manmade? Then why isn't that date correspondence a case of influence? Duh ah....

Of course, this is again all easier to just scream "INFLUENCE!" than actually prove it.

With that in mind, consider Martin A. Larson's brilliant summary of the historical development of Christianity:

MARTIN LARSON! Martin Larson was a Grade A nutcase with no relevant credentials in the field of Biblical scholarship. He's so nutty he's used by people like Acharya S as a source. Dreck quotes a paragraph of his babble claiming influence from various figures like Osiris...see it debunked here.

PJ also quotes the non-entity of scholarship Earl Doherty:

One major factor is the nature of the data being paralleled. There is a great difference between the data in the JFK/Lincoln case and the data in the Jesus/savior gods case.

Oh really, Earl? How?

Each of the features attributed to Jesus and the other deities we can identify as serving a purpose, and they all form part of a coherent whole within the framework of mythical expression. The same is not true of the data in regard to JFK and Lincoln. None of the elements show any purpose at all, neither for elevating status nor casting some significance on the lives of the figures.

Gee, Earl, really? No purpose? Of course they show purpose. All of them were imitations intended to show that JFK was just like Lincoln, only better. You say, There is a big difference between being born in a given year and being born miraculously. The latter has theological significance whereas the former does not. You just don't get it, do you? The gods arranged it so that JFK was born in that precise year he was, in order to establish that he was Lincoln's rightful heir. Or maybe the historians purposely said he was born that year. And what about all those other parallels? Such as that both died before a major holiday (but Lincoln died before a better one, Easter, which connected him to Jesus)?

Are we getting the point, PJ? The whole "copycat" case is a fraud, a case of making up connections, equivocating on terms (which is what Geering does with his bit on "resurrection" and "salvation"). And even if Earl is right, none of this changes that it is the method of making comparisons, and then assigning them validity, that is under criticism.

We say most of the parallels drawn between Jesus and eg, Osiris are one of two things, mainly: 1) just plain false; 2) cases of equivocation (as with his "resurrection"). But a few such parallels are also coincidence -- a very small number, actually. You'll notice Earl is very short on specifics -- for good reason. See the series linked above and see if you can answer better than Acharya can. It includes answers on Tammuz and Osiris. Good luck, PJ. You'll need it.

But, Holding has nothing left in his tiny bag of tricks to rely upon, but to say, "oh, but MY theology (read: mythology) is DIFFERENT" Bullsh**. Really? Why? Unfortunately, it seems scooping bovine excrement is about all the answer someone over their head can provide, being that use of credentialed scholarship will not be possible until it appears in the form of a coloring book.

I say: Jacobsen claims there is some "double standard" at work because one interviewee touts the "early" copies of the NT in the second century, and then another interviewee dismisses possible pagan influence because the copies of the pagan documents we have are too "late" because they are from the second century! He is forgetting that the former matter is one that is comparative (the NT versus other documents) whereas the latter is not.

PJ whines: And the point is...? Oh, wait, he has none. My point stands. His response is meaningless.

Ah ha. Apparently freon is cheap in PJ's neighborhood these days. Clearly he's in over his head, as usual.

I say: Jacobsen needs serious education if he thinks the doctrine of the trinity wasn't established until the Counsel of Nicaea in the year 325.

PJ whines: There were many schools of thought. People who disagreed with the trinity were killed off or otherwise labeled as heretics. Of course so were the people who AGREED with the trinity. Those that agreed with the trinity won out, and it became formally established at the Counsel of Nicaea

Yep. Very cheap. And it doesn't help answer my detailed article linked to in there on the subject, unless we snort enough of it. PJ's answer amounts, by the way, to a Little Golden Book History of the Trinity by a nursery school denizen and does not have any specifics to offer. If you're expecting PJ to intellectually handle things like pre-Christian hypostatic Wisdom, you may as well ask him for a treatise on Japanese fiscal policy, because you'll get the same answer: "Duh....what?"

Challenge 5

Holding complains about my prophesy qualifications. Well, of course, he has to. Otherwise, he'd have to admit he's got no case. My qualifications for accepting a prophesy stands. Because he says so, and that's enough?

Feb 08 whine:No, not because I say so. I said in my original paper that there is room for debate about exactly what criteria to use for validating a prophesy. But Holding didn't debate or offer anything constructive, he just naysayed. Give us some alternate validation procedure and show us why yours is better. I can say that the criteria I gave are at least roughly what anybody would want when trying to ascertain whether a prophesy is valid or not-unless said person has some agenda in wanting to believe a prophesy is valid. Do you have something better to offer or just naysay? Gee, how about -- a prophecy is shown valid if it is true and done before the fact? That was hard.

Well, I guess with enough mushrooms smoked, that's an answer.

I say: In regards to the donkey and colt in Matthew: It apparently does not occur to Jacobsen that the plural refers to the cloaks (plural) placed on the animals and not the animals themselves.

PJ whines (after blaming another non-expert, Tobin, for his error): Even if that meant the plural of the cloaks, the reason there were two cloaks is because there were two animals, so it still comes out to meaning he road [sic] on both animals! Um, no, unless PJ thinks there was just a crowd of two people offering cloaks, one per animal, which would be pretty stupid on his part.

Feb 08 whine: You could plausibly claim the "them" being referred to by Matthew are the cloaks of the animals. But the cloaks referred to *in that sentence* are the cloaks on the two animals. Whether there are other animals or cloaks or god-men or unicorns or evil alien clones hanging around at the same time isn't the topic of the sentence in question. So you still don't get anywhere with your foolishness.

Whatever THAT was supposed to mean. It has the scent of smoked mushrooms and doesn't answer the point at all.

But, as Tobin notes, it is curious that Matthew deliberately changed Mark's singular to plural, which just so happens to be what Zechariah seems to prophesy if you don't read it right. Hmmm, strange how that worked out, isn't it? Not if you understand Jewish exegesis it isn't. News flash: PJ doesn't, but I'm sure if he snorts a few more gallons of freon he'll be more proficient at it than Richard Longenecker.

PJ whines: Holding doesn't comment on any of my additional arguments, such as how Brown all but admits the virgin birth prophesy is no such thing, I have links for that on the hub page. how nobody could have verified Mary's virginity even if it did happen; I say as much in my own article on the VB. how Martin Luther's anti-Semitic teachings were popularized and utilized by the Nazis to justify the holocaust, etc. That's nice. How about how Darwin's teachings were used to justify slavery and communism by a few wackos? That proves what? Is PJ too chicken to write about that?

Challenge 6

PJ whines that he hasn't read Miller's article yet, but he quotes one sentence and thinks that it proves moral relativism. Apparently he doesn't think moral absolutes have different weights, so we'll look forward to seeing how he deals with Jews in his cellar when the time comes.

Feb 08 whine: As a matter of fact, no, I don't think moral absolutes have different weights. That's kinda why they are called absolutes, Einstein. That's nice that you think that the mere use of a term establishes an epistemology. So how about the Jews in the cellar then? Which absolute do you follow? 1) Preserve human life. 2) Tell the truth. Duh ah...oh....

At any rate, how come you only bring up alleged moral weights about things like "thou shalt not commit murder" when it happens to be ordered by God? Um -- sorry. Try again. That one doesn't work. Thanks for proving my point again....that you aren't competent in this field at all.

Conclusion:

I say: Jacobsen's referral to Cialdini is interesting, but he'd have to show us that the book's findings apply in an agonistic social setting.

PJ whines: Oooh, Holding used a big word, "agonistic", he must know something really important! Actually, it's up to Holding to prove they don't. We're talking about basic human behavior, that has been shown through history over and over again. Why don't you and Dr. Cialdini talk it over and see who knows what they are talking about and who has their head up their a**? I think I have a suspicion who is who in that fight.

Well, I can see we have an informed answer in the house, and that I may as well throw in the towel. I wonder also what happened to the common Skeptical claim that the burden is on he who asserts. PJ is the one who asserted relevance -- and didn't prove it. We'll wait while he looks up the word "agonistic" first. I did prove my own point of a difference, by the way, in articles I have all over the site, such as this one. It takes a great deal of bigotry and ignorance to claim that "basic human behavior" is the same all over.

Feb 08 whine:Correct. Christians are the ones that assert that had the Romans pulled out a corpse of Jesus, that would have left the movement demoralized and quashed. I provided evidence that isn't necessarily what happens in similar situations so it is up to you to show that your situation deserves special pleading.

What evidence? PJ provided no evidence; he merely pulled scenarios out of his bum, with no supporting documentation or scholarship or reason to accept a parallel.

And that was it. I'm bored as usual, but not impressed, as usual. Discuss the article here and join in on the laughs (where you'll also find responses to anything posted after March 10).